1. Studies On Some Concepts of The Alankara Shastra Raghavan

तमसो

मा

ज्योतिर्

गमय

SANTINIKETAN

VISWA

BHARATI

LIBRARY

218

128

R126c

The Adyar Library Series -No. 33

SOME CONCEPTS OF

THE ALAÑKĀRA ŚĀSTRA

"पाश्चात्यी साहित्यविचा . . . सा हि चतसृणामपि विद्यानां निष्यान्दः"

STUDIES

ON

SOME

CONCEPTS

OF

THE

ALANKĀRA

S'ĀSTRA

BY

V.

RAGHAVAN,

M.A.,

PH.D.

Department

of

Sanskrit,

University

of

Madras.

Author

of

'Bhoja's

Sṛṅgāra

Prakāśa,'

'The

Number

of

Rasas'

etc.

THE

ADYAR

LIBRARY,

ADYAR

1942

Price

Rs.

4-0-0

Printed

by

C

Subbarayudu,

At

The

Vasanta

Press,

Adyar,

Madras

FOREWORD

It is my privilege to introduce to the world of scholarship Dr. Raghavan's second book in the Adyar Library Series entitled Some Concepts of Alañkāra S'āstra. His first book, The Number of Rasas, was published by the Adyar Library in 1940 and the uniformly good reception which it has had at the hands of literary critics has made me hasten with the work of bringing out this second publication.

The subject of Indian Aesthetics has yet to be built up by research work not only in Gīta, Nāṭya, S'ilpa and Citra but also in the important field of Sanskrit Alañkāra S'āstra. The vast and noteworthy contributions of Indian minds on the subject of Literary Criticism have not received the attention which scholars here and in other countries have shown to Indian contributions to Philosophy.

Bharata who defined Drama as re-presentation of moods (Bhāva-anukīrtana) and said that Rasa-anubhava (experience of Rasa) is its essence; Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin who emphasized that Beautiful Expression (Vakrokti or Alañkāra) is the vital thing in poetry (p. 260); Vāmana who stressed Saundarya (p. 261) and declared Style (Rīti) as the soul (Ātman) of expression (p. 143); Ānandavardhana to whom it was given to show that the revelation in Art takes place through Suggestion (Dhvani); Abhinavagupta who expressly said that the 'soul' of poetry is the experience of Beauty (Cāruṭvapratīti, p. 263), and formulated along

with others, that ultimately Harmony (Āucitya) is the life

of Kāvya (pp. 194-257) ; Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka who distinguished

poetry from other utterances (p. 17) as ‘Mode of Expression’

(Abhidhāvyāpara) subordinating both Word and Idea (S'abda

and Artha) ; Kuntaka who based style on poet’s character

(p. 165), Mahima Bhaṭṭa, Bhoja—these would rank with the

world’s eminent Literary critics. It may well be claimed that

Rasa, Dhvani and Aucitya form the three great contributions

of Sanskrit Poetics to world’s literature on the subject.

Among the more important topics, dealt with in this

book, Alañkāra, Rīti, Aucitya, Saundarya (pp. 261-3) and

Camatkāra (pp. 268-271), deserve to be specially mentioned.

The treatment is original and some topics have been dealt with

for the first time. The Author has utilized for his studies not

only printed books, but a number of works available only in

manuscript. The accounts are historical and given in great

detail, so that a complete examination of the ideas of all the

writers on a particular concept may lead to the discovery of

several ideas which will be of value for a proper appreciation

of the finer aspects of the rich contributions of the Alañkāra

S'āstra. It will be seen that some of the studies take into

account contributions of Western writers also ; and it is hoped

that the comparative study which the author mentions on

p. 255, will be published soon.

It is with great pleasure that I record my sincere thanks

to the author for the co-operation which he has been extending

to me in the publication of the Adyar Library Series.

Adyar

G. Srinivasa Murti,

14th April 1942.

Honorary Director.

PREFACE

I HAVE dealt with Sāhitya, Ukti, Doṣa, Guṇa, Vakrokti,

Alainkāra, Dhvani and Rasa in my book on Bhoja's

S'ṛṅgāra Prakās'a. The contents of this volume supple-

ment the studies contained in my book on the S'ṛṅgāra

Prakās'a. The opening study here of the Lakṣaṇa

forms the first exhaustive account of that little-studied

concept. In the study of the Rīti here, I have dis-

cussed it in relation to the conception of Style in the

West. The study of Aucitya presented in this book

forms the only account of that important concept. In

these and the other studies in this book, I have, on the

basis of a detailed, historical survey of the concepts as

developed by the several Sanskrit Ālaṅkārikas, en-

deavoured to understand and interpret their underlying

ideas and the value of these for the art and appreciation

of literature.

I am thankful to the authorities of the Journal of

Oriental Research, Madras, the Journal of the Madras

University, Madras, the Indian Historical Quarterly,

Calcutta and the Indian Culture, Calcutta for their

permission to bring out in the form of this book these

studies of mine on concepts of the Alankāra S'āstra

which originally appeared in those journals in the form

viii

of articles. I am thankful to the authorities of the

Madras University for permitting this publication, and

to Dr. Srinivasa Murti, Director, Adyar Library, for

accepting to publish this book in the Adyar Library

Series, as also to Dr. C. Kunhan Raja, D.Phil. (Oxon.),

Curator, Eastern Section, Adyar Library, and Head

of the Department of Sanskrit, University of Madras.

Madras

16-3-42

V. RAGHAVAN

CONTENTS

PAGE

Foreword . . . . . . . v

Preface . . . . . . . vii

Abbreviations and Select Bibliography . . . xi

Lakṣaṇa . . . . 1.47

Use and Abuse of Alañkāra . . . 48.91

Svabhāvokti . . . . 92-116

Bhāvika . . . . 117-130

Riti . . . . 131-181

Vṛtti in Kāvya . . . . 182-193

Aucitya . . . . 194-257

Names of Sanskrit Poetics . . . 258-267

Camatkāra . . . . 268-271

Addenda . . . . 273-277

Index . . . . 279-312

ABBREVIATIONS AND SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

(For a full list of Works and Authors, See Index)

I

MANUSCRIPTS

Abhi. Bhā.—Abhinavabhāratī, Abhinavagupta's commentary on Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. nos. 2478, 2774, 2785

Kavis'ikṣā of Jayamaṅgalācārya. MS. described with extracts in Appendix I, pp. 78-9 of the First Detailed Report of Operations in search of MSS. in the Bombay circle, 1882-3, by P. Peterson

Kāvyāloka of Hariprasāda. MS. described with extracts on pp. 356-7 of the Third Detailed Report of Operations in search of Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay circle, 1884-86, by P. Peterson

C.C.—Camatkārācandrikā of Viśveś'vara. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, R. no. 2679 ; MS. described in the Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS. in the Library of the India Office by J. Eggeling, MS. no. 3966

D. R. Vyā.—Das'arūpākavyākhyā of Bahurūpamis'ra. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. nos. 3670, 4188

Nāṭakacandrikā of Rūpagosvāmin. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. D. no. 12900. This work is however published in Bengali script. Cossimbazar 1907

Rasakalika of Rudrabhatta. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. nos. 2241, 3274

Rasarnavalanikara of Prakasavarsa. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 3761

Ritivrttitilaksana of Vitthaladikshita. MS. noted in the Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS. in the Central Provinces by Keilhorn, Nagpur 1874

Sr. Pra.—Sringaraprakasa of Bhoja. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 3252.

Sringarasara of Venkatanarayandikshita. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. D. no. 12958

S.K.A. Vya.—Sarasvatikanthabharanyyakhya of Bhatta Nrsimha. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 2499

Sahityakaumudi of Arkasuri. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 2391

Sahityasara of Sarvesvara. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, R. no. 2432

II

Printed Sanskrit Books

Agnipurana, Anandashrama Series 41

A. R.— Anargharaghavya of Murari with Rucipati's commentary. Kavya mala 5

Anyapadeshataka of Nilakanthadikshita. Kavya mala Gucchaka, VI

Anyapadeshataka of Bhallata. Kavya mala Gucchaka IV

Sak.—Abhijñanasakuntala of Kalidasa with Raghavabhatta's commentary. N. S. Press, Bombay

Amarusataka. Kavya mala 18

Alankarakautubha of Visvesvara. Kavya mala 66

Alankarasas ekhara of Kesava. Kavya mala 50

Alankarasangraha of Amrtanandayogin

A. S.—Alañkārasarvasva of Ruyyaka with Jayaratha's Vimars'ini.

Kāvyamālā 35

Alañkārasarvasva of Ruyyaka with Samudrabandha's gloss.

TSS. 40

Āryāstavarāja. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam

Au. V.C.—Aucityavicāracarcā of Kṣemendra. Kāvyamālā Guc-

chaka I

Karpūramañjari of Rājas'ekhara with Vāsudeva's com-

mentary. Kāvyamālā 4

K.K.Ā.—Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa of Kṣemendra. Kāvyamālā Guc-

chaka IV

Kādam bari of Bāṇa

Kāmasūtras of Vātsyāyana with the Jayamaṅgalā. Chow-

khamba Sanskrit Series, Benares

K.Pra.—Kāvyaprakāsa of Mammata—

—With Mānikyacandra's gloss, University of Mysore,

Oriental Library, Skt. Series, No. 60

—With the commentaries of Vidyācakravarttin and Bhaṭṭa

Gopāla. TSS. 88, 100

K.M.—Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājas'ekhara. GOS. 1

K.Ā.—Kāvyādars'a of Daṇḍin—

—With the Hrdayamgamā and the commentary of Taruṇa-

vācaspati. Edn. by Prof. M. Rangacharya, Madras

—With a gloss. ed. by Jivananda Vidyasagar

—With an anon. gloss. N. S. Press, Bombay

Kāvyānus'āsana of Vāgbhaṭa. Kāvyamālā 43

K.A.—Kāvyānus'āsana of Hemacandra with two glosses by author.

Kāvyamālā 71

K.A.—Kāvyālaṅkāra of Bhāmaha. Chowkhamba Press, Benares

—Kāvyālaṅkāra of Rudraṭa with Namisādhu's commentary.

Kāvyamālā 2

K.A.S.S.—Kāvyālaṅkārasārasaṅgraha of Udbhata

--With Pratiharendurāja's commentary. Edn. by N. D.

Banhatti

—With Tilaka's commentary. GOS. LV.

K.A. Sū. and Vr.—Kāvyālaṅkārasūtras with Vrtti of Vāmana ; with Gopendrā Tippabhūpāla's commentary. Vanivilas Press,

Srirangam

K.S.—Kumārasambhava of Kālidāsa

Kuvalayānanda of Appayyadīkṣita with the Rasikarañjani of Gaṅgādharavājapeyīn. Edn. by Pandit Halasyanatha sastrin, Kumbhakonam, 1892

Gaṅgāvataranakāvya of Nīlakaṇṭhadīkṣita. Kāvyamālā 76

Gitagovinda of Jayadeva with the Rasikapriyā of Kumbhakarṇa. N. S. Press, Bombay

Candrāloka of Jayadeva with Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍa's gloss. Gujarathi Printing Press, Bombay. 1923

Citramīmāṃsā of Appayyadīkṣita. Kāvyamālā 38

Tilakamañjarī of Dhanapāla. Kāvyamālā 85

D.R.—Daśarūpaka of Dhananjaya with Dhanika's Avaloka. N. S. Press, Bombay, 1897

Dharmabinduprakaraṇa with Municandrācārya's gloss. Āgamodaya Samiti Series

Dhva. Ā.—Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana with the Locana of Abhinavagupta. Kāvyamālā 25. Edn. of 1928

Nalacaritanāṭaka of Nīlakaṇṭhadīkṣita. Bālamanoramā Press, Mylapore, Madras

Nalavilāsanāṭaka of Rāmacandra. GOS. 29

Navasāhasāṅkacarita of Padmagupta. Bombay Skt. Series 53

Nāṭakalakṣaṇaratnakośa of Sāgaranandin. Edn. M. Dillon. Oxford, 1937

N.S.—Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata

—Kāvyamālā edn. K. M. 42

—Kāśī Sanskrit Series No. 60

—GOS. edn. with Abhinavagupta's commentary, chs. 1-18, GOS. XXVI, LXVIII

Nai.—Naiṣadḥīyacarita of Śrīharṣa

Pra. rud.—Pratāparudriyayas'obhūṣaṇa of Vidyānātha with the commentary of Kumārasvāmin. Bālamanoramā Press, Mylapore, Madras

Prāṇābharana of Jagannātha. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka I

Bālarāmāyaṇa of Rājas'ekhara. Edn. Govinda Deva Sastri, Benares, 1869

Bṛhatkathāmañjarī of Kṣemendra. Kāvyamālā 69

Bṛhaddevatā. Bibliotheca Indica CXXVII

Bhaṭṭikāvya

—With the Jayamañgalā. N. S. Press. Bombay, 1928

—With Mallinātha's gloss. Bombay Skt. Series 56-7

Bhāgavata purāṇa with S'ridhara's commentary

Bhāratamañjarī of Kṣemendra. Kāvyamālā 65

Bhā.Pra.—Bhāvaprakāśa of S'āradātanaya. GOS. 45

Bhojacampū, N. S. Press, Bombay

Mahāviracarita of Bhavabhūti. N. S. Press, Bombay

M.M.—Mālatīmādhava of Bhavabhūti with Jagaddhara's commentary. N. S. Press, Bombay

Mālavikāgnimitra of Kālidāsa

M.R.—Mudrārākṣasa of Vis'ākhadatta. Edn. K. T. Telang. Bombay Skt. Series 27

Mūkapañcasati, Kāvyamālā Gucchaka V

Megha.—Meghadūta of Kālidāsa

R.V.—Raghuvamśa of Kālidāsa

R.G.—Rasagaṅgādhara of Jagannātha paṇḍita. Kāvyamālā 12

R.A.S.—Rasārṇavasudhākara of S'iṅgabhūpāla. TSS. 50

R.T.—Rājatarangiṇī of Kalhaṇa. Bombay Skt. Series 45. 51. 54

Rājendrakarṇapūra. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka 1

Rā.Rām.—Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmiki. Kumbhakonam edn. Lalitavistara. Edn. Lefmann

Lalitāstavaratna. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka X

V.J.—Vakroktijīvita of Kuntaka. Edn. by Dr. S. K. De. Calcutta Oriental Series, No. 8

Vākyapadīya of Bharṭhari

Vāgbhaṭālāñkāra of Vāgbhaṭa with Simhadevagaṇi's commentary. Kāvyamālā 48

Vācaspatya

Vāsavadattā of Subandhu. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam.

Vik., V. Ū.—Vikramorvas'iya of Kālidāsa

Viddhasālabhañjikā of Rājas'ekhara. Edn. Jīvananda Vidyasagar. Calcutta 1883

Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa. Venkatesvara Press edn.

Veṇīsamhāra of Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa.

Vemabhūpālacarita of Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam

V. V.—Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhaṭṭa with an anon. commentary. TSS. 5.

S'abdakalpadruma

S'ivallīlārnava of Nilakaṇṭhadīkṣita. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam

S. V.—S'isupālavadha of Māgha. N. S. Press, Bombay

S'ṛṅgāratilaka of Rudrabhaṭṭa. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka III

Sabhārañjanas'ataka of Nilakaṇṭhadīkṣita. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka IV

S.K.Ā.—Sarasvatikaṇṭhābharaṇa of Bhoja with Ratnes'vara's commentary. Kāvyamālā 95

Sahrdayānanda of Kṛṣṇānanda. Kāvyamālā 32

Sāhityadarpana of Vis'vanātha

Sāhityamīmāṃsā. TSS. 114

Sāhityasāra of Acyutarāya. N. S. Press, Bombay.

Subhāṣiṭanivī of Vedāntades'ika. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka VIII

Suvṛttatilaka of Kṣemendra. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka II

Hamsavilāsa of Hamsamiṭṭhu. GOS LXXXI

Haravijaya of Ratnākara with Alaka's commentary Kāvyamālā 22

Harṣacarita of Bāṇa. N. S. Press, Bombay

xvii

III

Bhoja's S'ṛṅgāra Prakās'a by V. Raghavan, M.A., Ph.D.,

Karnatak Publishing House, Bombay

History of Alaṅkāra Literature by P. V. Kane, M.A., LL.M.,

being an Introduction to an edn. of the Sāhityadarpana

History of Sanskrit Literature by Dr. A. B. Keith

Pathak Commemoration Volume, Bhandarkar Oriental Re-

search Institute, Poona

Some Aspects of Literary Criticism in Sanskrit or the

Theories of Rasa and Dhvani by A. Sankaran, M.A.,

Ph.D., University of Madras

skr. Poe.—Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poeties, 2 Vols., by

S. K. De, M.A., D.Litt.

IV

Annals BORI.—Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research

Institute, Poona

Annals of Oriental Research, University of Madras

Indian Culture, Calcutta.

IHQ.—Indian Historical Quarterly, Calcutta

JOR. Madras.—Journal of Oriental Research, Madras

V

Bāla. m.—Bālamanoramā Press, Mylapore, Madras

Edn.—Edition

Gaek. }

GOS. }—Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda

K. M.—Kāvyamālā, N. S. Press, Bombay

N. S.—Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay

Triv. }

TSS. }—Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, Trivandrum

Vyā.—Vyākhyā

B

xviii

VI

Authorship and Style : Schopenhauer

Creative Unity : Rabindranath Tagore

Essay on Criticism : Pope

Essentials of Criticism : Lamborn

On style : Demetrius

On the Sublime : Longinus

Personality : Rabindranath Tagore

Picture of Dorian Gray : Oscar Wilde

Poetic Diction : Robert Bridges

Poetic Diction : Thomas Quayle

Poetics : Aristotle

Poetry as Representative Art : Raymond

Problem of Style : M. Murry

Rhetoric : Atistotle

Rhetoric and Composition : Bain

Seven Arts and Seven Confusions : J. E. Spingarn

Sleep and Beauty : Keats

Some Principles of Literary Criticism : Winchester

Style : Pater

Style : Raleigh

Technical Elements of Style : R. L. Stevenson

What is Art ? Tolstoy.

PAGE

LINE

READ

4

11

yācñā

5

11

and

5

20-1

The Nāṭakacandrikā

of Rūpagosvāmin

criticises

5

26

in the Śākuntala

5

26

Jagaddhara

8

1

निर्ह [यं] कानि

38

6

Ritis

52

4

Uddyota

54

23

chapter

74

15

As'vatthāman

75

3

Yathāsaṁkhya

"

4

"

76

26

-वेलासम्पत्र

80

17

fascinate

94

24

striking

116

3

matter-of-fact

121

24

deep-lying

138

13

Ojas

144

28

Akṣaradambara

151

16

स्मासभूयस्त्वात

158

11

p. 107

161

21

Matthew

Page

Line

Read

191

20

नात्रां

193

1

निदुरा

211

26

of this chapter

219

13

-विश्रान्तेरनुसन्धान-

223

16

over-developed

224

1

क्रमापेत्तः

224

22

व्रतनौचिल्यमेव

230

29

औचित्यानौचित्ये एव

235

20

Vicitra

238

5

Alaṅkāraucitya

241

25

Kuntaka's

242

4

Vakrokti

246

23

Kavis'ikṣā

249

4

Lokasvabhāvaucitya

254

19

Śṛṅgāra

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

SYNOPSIS

[I. Introductory—II. The text of Bharata on the subject : 2 recensions—III. The literature on the subject—IV. Its three names : Lakṣaṇa, Bhūṣaṇa and Nāṭyālaṅkāra—V. The Dasʼapakṣī, ‘10 viewsʼ, on the subject in the Abhinava Bhārati—VI. Probable authors of the views in the Dasʼapakṣī—VII. Criticism of the Dasʼapakṣī—VIII. Abhinavaguptaʼs own view—IX. Other writers on the subject : Daṇḍin, Dhanañjaya and Dhanika, Bhoja, Śāradātanaya, Jayadeva, Śiṅgabhūpāla, Viśvanātha, Rāghava-bhaṭṭa, Jagaddhara, Alaka, Rucipati, Bahurūpamiśʼra, Kumbhakarṇa, Sarvesʼvara and Acyutarāya—X. Bharataʼs own view ; the text of Bharata independently studied—conclusion—XI. Supplement : table of the Lakṣaṇas in the various lists according to the different writers.]

I

Sāhitya along with grammar and prosody finds treatment at the hands of Bharata under Vācikābhinaya, the Kāvya which is the text of the drama. The Kāvya, Bharata says, should have 36 Lakṣaṇas. काव्यग्रन्थासु तु कृत्स्यः षट्त्रिंशल्लक्षण- न्वित्ता: । XVI. 169. In chapter 17, he gives a list of 36 Lakṣaṇas and defines each. In the end he calls them ‘काव्य- विभूषणʼ, adornments to Kāvya. He does not illustrate these as he illustrates the metres and Alaṅkāras. He does not specify their place in Kāvya and does not define their difference

4

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

from Alaṅkāra. This concept of Lakṣaṇa is not elaborated

very much in later literature on Poetics or Dramaturgy.

Abhinava opens his exposition of the topic by observing that, as

a topic of Poetics, it is quite unfamiliar, Aprasiddha. तत्र

गुणालङ्कारादि (दी ?) रिति (रीति) वृत्तयश्रेति काव्येषु प्रसिद्धो मार्गः । लक्षणानि

तु न प्रसिद्धानि । Abhi. Bhā. p. 379.1 Many of these look like

Alaṅkāras while some actually go by names which are

Alaṅkāras in later literature. There is no clear grasp of

the exact nature of Lakṣaṇa in the few writers on Dramaturgy

who treat of it. Bharata certainly means them to be features

of Kāvya in general and not of drama only. It would seem,

by Bharata mentioning them first and by giving 36 of

them, Bharata considers Lakṣaṇa of greater importance than

Alaṅkāra. It had its day when it loomed large in the field,

eclipsing Alaṅkāra, which was poor in numbers. But gradually

Lakṣaṇa died in the Alaṅkāra S'āstra. Writers on drama

took it up, some enthusiastically defining and illustrating

them, some doing so out of loyalty to Bharata and some

dismissing them as having been included in Alaṅkāras or

Bhāvas. This lost Paddhati of Lakṣaṇa has a history of its

own which is the subject of this chapter.

II

In chapter 17, Bharata gives a list of 36 Lakṣaṇas,

defines each and in the end indicates their character and

1 References to the Nāṭya S'āstra of Bharata are to the Kāśi

edition of that work. References to the Abhinava Bhāratī are to

Vol. II of that work in the MS. of the Govt. Oriental MSS. Library,

Madras, the corrupt text of which, I studied and reconstructed

as far as possible with the help of Mm. Prof. S. Kuppuswami

Sastri. The GOS Edition of the work, not infrequently, adds to

the mistakes. See GOS. LXVIII, pp. 290—321.

place in the Kāvya in one verse. This portion of the Nāṭya S'āstra has two recensions, even as the portions on metres and Guṇas. The text on Guṇas followed by Abhinava is not the one followed by Maṅgala, whose fragments on the concept of Guṇa are available in Hemacandra and Māṇikyacandra. But as regards metres and Lakṣaṇas Abhinava is acquainted with both the recensions. He notes both the recensions as regards the definitions of the Lakṣaṇas and says he follows mainly the recension handed down to him through his teacher. ‘-उद्देशक्रमस्तु अस्मदुपाध्यायपरम्परागतः |’ p. 384. This recension enumerates the Lakṣaṇas in Upajāti metre ; the other recension, in Anuṣṭubh metre. He adds that he will indicate the other recension also then and there. Accordingly while treating of the Lakṣaṇas, one by one, he notices the definitions in the other recension and also shows, quite arbitrarily in most cases, how both mean the same thing. Further, though both recensions have Priyavacana, Abhinava includes the Priyavacana of the Anuṣṭubh list in the Protsāhana of the Upajāti list, and in the Priyavacana of the Upajāti list itself, he includes the Bhramśa of the Anuṣṭubh list. Garhaṇa of the Anuṣṭubh list is twice included under Kapaṭa and Kārya of the Upajāti list ; similarly Prasiddhi under both Ākhyāna and Anunīti. Paridevana of the Upajāti list is said to include two, Kṣobha and Anukta siddhi, of the Anuṣṭubh list. The Kāvyamālā edition of the Nāṭya S'āstra has the recension followed by Abhinava, the Upajāti recension. The other recension in Anuṣṭubh verses is found in the Kāśī edition which also gives in the footnote the Upajāti recension. The Rasārṇavasudhākara and Sāhityadarpaṇa follow the Anuṣṭubh recension while Bhoja, with whom elaboration is the principle, must have been acquainted with both recensions, since he makes up a list of 64 Lakṣaṇas from both

4

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

recensions. The Daśarūpa follows the Upajāti recension.

The two recensions differ in their enumeration as well as

in the definition of each Lakṣaṇa. Only 17 Lakṣaṇas are

common to both. Of the definitions, eight are common to

both, those of Bhūṣaṇa, Aksara saṅghāta, S'obhā, Gunakīrtana,

Manoratha, Prcchā, Samsaya and Prāpti ; the definition of

Kārya of the Upajāti list is the same as that of Garhaṇa in

the Anuṣṭubh list ; five definitions agree in substance, those of

Udāharaṇa, Nirukta, Siddhi, Padoccaya and Drṣṭānta ; the

difinition of Anuvṛtti of the Upajāti list agrees in substance

with that of Dākṣiṇya of the Anuṣṭubh list. Yāñcā and

Priyavacana of the Upajāti list are defined by the same

identical verse, and the definition suits the latter and not the

former. There are also corruptions in the definitions in both

recensions. The table at the end of this chapter shows the

Lakṣaṇas according to the two lists, how Abhinava includes

those of the Anuṣṭubh list in one or the other of the Upajāti

list, additional Lakṣaṇas in other writers, and other details.

III

Coming to the literature on the subject of Lakṣaṇa—

Besides Abhinava's commentary on this portion of the Nāṭya

S'āstra, which deals elaborately with Lakṣaṇa, earlier com-

mentaries of Udbhata, Lollaṭa and S'aṅkuka must have dealt

with the concept of Lakṣaṇa. Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka's Hṛdaya-

darpaṇa also probably dealt with it. We have sure evidence

of Bhaṭṭa Tauta having treated of Lakṣaṇas. In an extract

given from his Kāvyakautuka in the Abhinava Bhāratī on

p. 541, Vol. II, we find Lakṣaṇa included in his enumeration

of the 'Kāvyapaddhatis', along with Guṇa, Rīti, Alaṅkāra etc.

Further Abhinava ascribes to Tauta certain definite views

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

5

on Lakṣaṇa during the course of his attempt to explain the

difference between Alaṅkāra and Lakṣaṇa. We noted above

how the Upajāti recension was handed down to Abhinava

from his teacher, i.e., from his teacher's Kāvyakautuka, upon

which Abhinava had commented. Before Abhinavagupta,

views on Lakṣaṇa were very confused, as is seen from

Abhinavagupta's commentary on the Lakṣaṇas which opens

with 10 Pūrvapakṣas on the real nature of the concept of

Lakṣaṇa. Bhoja's Sṛṅgāraprakāśa enumerates, defines and

illustrates, not 36 of them, but 64. Sāradātanaya follows

Bhoja. The Dasarūpa aud Avaloka mention the 36 Lakṣaṇas

and briefly indicate their inclusion in Alaṅkāras and Bhāvas.

Bahurūpamis'ra, in his gloss on the Dasarūpa, speaks twice

of the Lakṣaṇas and in addition to the Lakṣaṇas, mentions also

the Nāṭyālaṅkāras. The Saṅgītarāja of king Kumbhakarṇa

dealt with the Lakṣaṇas. Sarves'vara's Sāhityasāra deals with

the Lakṣaṇas of the Upajāti list. S'iṅgabhūpāla calls them

'Bhūṣaṇas', gives 36 of them, defines and illustrates them.

The Sāhityadarpana also gives them with definitions and

illustrations. The Nāṭakacandrikā, an unpublished work on

Drama, criticises the Sāhityadarpana and follows the Rasār-

ṇavasudhākara as regards the 36 Lakṣaṇas. From Rāghava

bhaṭṭa's commentary on the S'ākuntala we learn that Mātr-

gupta also dealt with Lakṣaṇas separately in his work on

Nāṭya. Rāghavabhaṭṭa indicates some of the 36 Lakṣaṇas

in the several situations of the S'ākuntala. Jagadhara is

another commentator who, in his Ṭīkā on the Mālatīmādhava,

points out a few of the Lakṣaṇas. Rucipati, in his com-

mentary on the Anargharāghava, points out two Lakṣaṇas.

Rājānaka Alaka, in his commentary on Ratnākara's Hara-

vijaya, has occasion to speak of Lakṣaṇa. Alaka follows the

Upajāti recension. The only work on poetics proper which

6 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKARA S'ASTRA

treats of Lakṣaṇas is Jayadeva's Candrāloka. It defines only

a few of them with illustrations.

IV

Lakṣaṇa has changed its name in its history. S'iṅga-

bhūpāla and his followers call it Bhūṣaṇa. This name is

derived from Bharata himself describing the Lakṣaṇa as

'काव्यविभूषण' and 'भूषणसंमित'. Though Bhoja calls it only

Lakṣaṇa, S'āradātanaya calls it Bhūṣaṇa at the beginning and

ends by calling it Alaṅkāra. Jagaddhara calls it Nāṭyālaṅkāra.

V

Bharata's own view of Lakṣaṇa as far as it can be made

out from his text alone, must be taken up only lastly. Before

that we shall see what views of Lakṣaṇa are contained in the

Abhinava Bhāratī. Abhinavagupta gives a number of con-

fused views held by others and at the end of these he numbers

them as ten. But actually, on first reading, we get only eight

views. The text here is very corrupt and perhaps lost also

here and there. These following ten views can be made out

of this portion of the Abhinava Bhāratī. Pp. 379-381.

Vol. II. Mad. MS.

i. Lakṣaṇa is different from Guṇa which is inherent in

Rasa, the soul of poetry. As belonging to the body of poetry,

Lakṣaṇa is on a par with Alaṅkāra with this difference: It is

not separate from the body (i.e.) it is not पृथकसिद्ध. Alaṅkāra

is separate from the body. पृथकसिद्धत्वादलङ्कारः। शरीरनिष्ठमेव यत्पदं

पृथकसिद्धं (यदपृथकसिद्धं) तल्लक्षणम्‌। Lakṣaṇa is the body itself and

as such is further adorned with Alaṅkāras. Just as we take the

metaphor of necklace or anklet when we talk of Alaṅkāra

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

7

so also we have to take the metaphor of the Lakṣaṇa of the

body, such as the Sāmudrika-lakṣaṇas, when we speak of the

Kāvyalakṣaṇa. This Lakṣaṇa is twofold—natural, Siddha-

rūpa, such as the quality of having broad eyes, and artificial,

Sādhyarūpa, such as the occasional grace while adopting a

beautiful gait. In this view, Lakṣaṇas are features in the

personality of the chief character of the story.

—तल्लक्षणं येन शरीरस्य सौन्दर्ये जायते । तच्च सिद्धरूपं साध्यरूपं

वा, यथा श्यामेति मदन्थरगामिनीति च । एतदेव लक्षणम्; तच्चालंक्रियते ।

. . . . . . . . तदेतल्लक्षणं द्विधेति,

यथा श्यामा विशालाक्षी, मत्तमातङ्गगामिनीति च । p. 379.

तत्र प्रथमपक्षे वर्णनैरप्रधानभूतानुपकारकपुरुषगुणावनतगुणोपमाननिभाप्रपञ्च पर्यवसीयते । p. 380.

ii. Some others think that situations or points in the plot

of the drama or the Sandhyangakas are called Lakṣaṇa. Just

as the Sāmudrika-lakṣaṇas like Pāśa and Dhvaja indicate the

greatness and the beauty of a Mahāpurusa, so also these

Lakṣaṇas which are so many points in the development of the

plot beautifying the story ; as beautifiers of the text, they are

called Lakṣaṇas; but the same are called Sandhyangas as

developers of the plot, and Vṛttyangas as promoters of Rasa.

अन्ये मन्यन्ते—इतिवृत्तखण्डलकान्येव सन्ध्यङ्कानि लक्षणानीति

च व्यपदिश्यन्ते । निमित्तभेदात्पूर्वापरसंवन्थेन बीजोपक्षेपेऽर्थे निर्वहणपर्यन्ते

परस्परसन्धायाकतया सन्ध्यङ्कतया व्यपदेशः, रसविशेषोपयोगितया वृत्त्यङ्क-

वाचोयुक्तिः, काव्यगतर्य्यातिप्राशस्त्योपयोगितया महापुरुषगतपाशध्वजपाद-

रेखादिलक्षणशब्दवाच्यता । तदुक्तं तत्र—

8

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

लक्षणान्येव बीजार्थक्रमनिर्वाहा[य]कानि चेत् ।

प्रतिसन्धितदज्ञानी फलसिद्धचुपपत्तितः ॥ इति । p. 380.

iii. Some differentiate Guṇas, Alañkāras and Lakṣaṇas not by the आश्रयाश्रयिभाव adopted by those who hold the first view, but by defining three different activities on the part of the poet's faculty in introducing the Guṇas, Alañkāras and Lakṣaṇas in a Kāvya. The poet's imagination has three activities, Vyāpāras, and three corresponding vibrations, Parispandas. In the very first vibration the poet's genius conceives the Rasa and its Guṇa, say Sṛṅgāra and its Guṇa, Mādhurya. The second vibration which is also called Varṇanā, effects the introduction of Alañkāra. The third activity chooses the words and ideas. The effect of this third activity is the actual body of poetry, the Kāvyas'arīra, suggesting the presence of the ten Guṇas, S'leṣa etc. That beauty of the Kāvyas'arīra which is the effect of this third activity and which is not covered by the beauty effected by an Alañkāra is what is called Lakṣaṇa.

एते(के)पां तु दर्शनम्—कवे: य: प्रतिभालमा प्रथमपरिस्पन्द[त]: तद्वापारवलो(बले)पनतेषु (ताः) गुणा: । प्रतिभावत एक हि रसाभिव्यज्ञन-

सामर्थ्येमाधुर्यादि: उपनिबन्धन (माधुर्याद्युपनिबन्धन) सामर्थ्ये, न सामान्यकवे: । अननेन शब्देन इदं वस्तु वर्णयामीयेवंभूतवर्णनापरपर्यायद्वितीय-

व्यापारसंपाद्यस्त्वलंकार: । शब्द:(दन्) अमीभि: शब्दै(र्थै)रनमीभिरर्थै: संघटयामित्येवमात्सकु यस्तृतीय: कवे: परस्पन्द: तदधीनात्मलाभादि:

शब्दार्थात्मककाव्यशरीरसंश्रितानि वक्ष्यमाणश्लेषादिगुणदशकसमभिव्यञ्जन-

व्यापाराणि शब्दार्थोपसंस्कारकल्पानि क्रियारुपाणि । यदुक्तं तत्ैव ।

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

9

काव्येडप्यस्ति तथा कश्चित् स्विग्धः स्पर्शोऽर्थशब्दयोः ।

यः श्रेषादिगुणव्यक्तिदक्षस्स्यालक्षणं स्थितिः (?) ॥

अत्र पक्षे काव्योपचरिताद् गुणालंकारलक्षणविभागः । p. 380.

This view seems to be like the first in making Lakṣaṇa the Kāvyas'arīra. This view further seems to formulate two sets of Guṇas, one, the three Guṇas माधुर्ये, ओजस्, and प्रसाद, which are said to inhere in Rasa as Rasadharmaś and the other, the ten Guṇas of the words, श्रेष etc. The suggesting of these and the effecting of a fine texture or appearance, Snigdha sparśa, in S'abda and Artha, forming the body of Kāvya, is said to be Lakṣaṇa by those who hold this view.

iv. The fourth view, instead of restricting the Lakṣaṇas to Vākyas or points in the plot, lifts them to the position of प्रबन्धधर्मस्—characteristics of different kinds of poems. As for instance, some poems are characterised by the speciality of having profuse adornment of Guṇas and Alañkāras. Such poems are called by the first Lakṣaṇa called Bhūṣaṇa, which Bharata defines as the ample use of Guṇas and Alañkāras.

अलंकारगुणैश्वर्य बहुमिः समलंकृतम् ।

भूषणैरिव चित्रार्थैस्तद् भूषणमिति स्मृतम् ॥ XVII. 6.

The example given here for such poem, i.e. a Bhūṣaṇa prabandha, is Meghadūta!

तथा हि—किश्चित् प्रबन्धजातं गुणालंकारनिकरप्रधानम्, यथा मेघदूताख्यम्, तद्विभूषणम् । एवमन्यदपिiti प्रब(न्ध)धर्मा लक्षणानि ।

p. 381

v. We are unable to have much light as regards the fifth view on which we have only a brief remark. It says—

केचित्तु ब्रुवन्ते—कवेरभिप्रायविशेषो लक्षणम्, इति । p. 381.

vi. Certain others are said to view Lakṣaṇa as the proper use of Guṇas and Alañkāras, i.e. in accordance with the principle of Rasa-aucitya.

इतरे पुनर्मन्यन्ते—यथास्थाननिवेशनं यत् गुणालङ्कारंयदूनं (रादीनां) तल्लक्षणम् । p. 381.

vii. The seventh view has affinities with the first and third views. It takes its stand on the fact that Lakṣaṇa, like Alañkāra, belongs to the body of Kāvya and secondly, like Alañkāra, it is a beautifying factor. The beautiful Kāvyas'arīra itself is held as Lakṣaṇa. Such beauty as is inherent in Kāvyas like the Amaruśataka, even in the absence of Alañkāras or what may be called natural beauty, is the proper scope for the concept of Lakṣaṇa.

परे स्वाभावयन्ते—अलङ्कारादिनिरपेक्षेणैव (क्षयैव) निर्गमसुन्दरो योऽभिनयविशेष: कान्त्यादि, अमरुकश्लोकेप्वपि (दृश्), तल्लौदर्यहेतुर्यों धर्म: स लक्ष्य: (लक्षणं) स एव चार्थ: काव्यविशेषरूपो लक्षणम् । p. 381.

viii. The eighth view has been made out with great difficulty for the text here is very brief. This view differentiates Lakṣaṇa on this score : Bharata has given only three Alañkāras, Upamā, Dīpaka and Rūpaka. These three become infinite with manifold species. The means of their multiplication is the interaction of these three Alañkāras with the 36 Lakṣaṇas. The text available is this—

उपमादिपकलरूपकाणामानन्त्याद् भेदमाह: । p. 381.

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

11

This view is more elaborately found in a further context

on the basis of which we may reconstruct this text thus—

उपमादीपकरूपकाणाम् आनन्यानुप्रयोजकत्वाद् भेदमाहुः ।

In discussing the difference between Alaṅkāra and

Lakṣaṇa, in the Alaṅkāra section, Abhinava gives the same

view more elaborately and as his own teacher's, i.e. Bhaṭṭa

Tauta's. Upamā becomes प्रशंसोपमा by adding to it the

Lakṣaṇa called गुणानुवाद ; it becomes अतिशयोक्ति if the Lakṣaṇa

अतिशय is added to it and so on. This view of Tauta is

very clever and though it does not correctly define Lakṣaṇa

and its nature, yet indicates how it is an easy transition

from Lakṣaṇa to Alaṅkāra.

उपाध्यायमतं तु—लक्षणबलाद् अलंकाराणां वैचित्र्यमागच्छति ।

तथापि (हि) गुणानुवादननाम्रा लक्षणेन योगात् प्रशंसोपमा । अतिशय-

नाम्रोऽतिशययुक्तिः । मनोरथाख्येन अप्सुतत्प्रशंसां । मिथ्याध्यवसायेन

अपह्नुतिः । [अ] सिद्धया तुल्ययोगितत्वयेमन्यदुच्येक्ष्यम् । p. 404.

ix. The ninth view is obscure since, here again, the

text is meagre.

शब्देन अर्थेन चित्रत्वं लक्षणमित्यन्यत्र । p. 381.

Abhinava later uses this view also and explains it

as the beautification of Śabda by Śabda, of Śabda by

Artha, of Artha by Śabda and of Artha by Artha. In effect

this view also comes to be the same as the third view,

Lakṣaṇa being held to be such beauty of the body of poetry

as is present even in the absence of any Alaṅkāra.

x. The tenth and the last view, as Abhinava himself

points out, does not differ from the second view very much.

12

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Just as in the Mīmāṁsā S'āstra the different subject heads are distinguished by the Lakṣaṇas, प्रसङ्ग, बाध, अतिदेश etc.,

so also in Kāvya, particular points in the story go by the name Bhūṣaṇa, Akṣarasaṅghāta and other Lakṣaṇas. This view thus, except for the illustration from the Mīmāṁsā, is not different from the second Pakṣa which holds Lakṣaṇas to be 'इतिवृत्तखण्डलक's or 'सन्ध्यङ्क's.

VI

Now as regards the authors of these ten views--We have no evidence to definitely affirm where these views are to be found or who held them. Abhinava does not give the name of the theorists here, as he gives in his discussion on Rasa-realisation. It is not likely that these ten are purely imaginary Pakṣas. In the course of the exposition of the second and the third view, Abhinava twice quotes Anuṣṭubh verses with the words तदुक्तं तत्रैव. The third view takes its stand on Vyāpārabheda. From what the Anuṣṭubhs look and the association of Vyāpāra with Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka we may conjecture that some of these views are expounded in Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka's Hṛdayadarpana. We also know of the Mīmāṁsā predilections of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka. So it is likely that the tenth view also is contained in his work. We can also make out the author of the eighth view definitely as Abhinavagupta's own teacher, Bhaṭṭa Tauta, whose work, the Kāvyakautuka, must have dealt with the काव्यपद्धति called लक्षण at some length.

VII

Taking this Daśapakṣī—the 10 views given above,—the ideas more commonly associated with Lakṣaṇa are these—

1. Lakṣaṇa belongs to the body of Kāvya.

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

13

2. It is a beautifying element.

3. As such, its difference from Alaṅkāra consists in this that it is more comprehensive, is not a separate entity like the ornament, Alaṅkāra, but is Aprthaksiddha, i.e., is the Kāvyasarīra itself.

4. By itself, it gives grace to the Kāvya while Alaṅkāra is added to it for extra-beauty.

This is one group of ideas, taking inspiration from the metaphor of Sāmudrika-lakṣaṇa. Another line of thought is not to bring Lakṣaṇa at all in relation to Kāvya in general nor to take it, like Alaṅkāra, as a beautifying factor, but to associate it only with drama and the several situations in the development of its plot. Abhinava and his teacher took Lakṣaṇa in accordance with the first group of ideas, considering Lakṣaṇa to be ‘Kāvya-śobhākara-dharma,’ a beautifying element pertaining to the body of Kāvya in general. The other line of thought represented by Pakṣas nos. 2 and 10, considering Lakṣaṇa to be like Sandhyāṅgakas, which Abhinava does not accept, is the view that has however survived in some works. The works on dramaturgy alone (a few of them) treat of it and these take Lakṣaṇas to be features of drama like the Sandhyāṅgas. The curious and purely speculative views, the connection of which with Bharata’s own view we do not see at all, are views no. 4, which takes them to be characteristics which classify the Kāvyas into 36 kinds and no. 5 which takes Lakṣaṇa to be the poet’s अभिप्रायविशेष.

The main view which considers Lakṣaṇa, like Alaṅkāra, as a beautifying element, but pervading the whole of the body of the Kāvya, died with Abhinavagupta. The concept of Alaṅkāra, with which, even at its birth Lakṣaṇa has an overlapping of functions, swallows it up. Even Rāghavabhaṭṭa who takes Lakṣaṇa to be separate from Sandhyāṅgas, swearing

14

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

by Abhinavagupta’s great pains to explain them at length

as different from Sandhyaṅgas etc., takes them only as

Nāṭakadharmas and not as Kāvyadharmas in general.

Bhoja, S'āradātanaya, S'iṅgabhūpāla and Vis'vanātha accept

their difference from Sandhyaṅgas, but mention them only

in Nāṭaka and never as being related comprehensively to

poetic expression itself. The Candrāloka is the only Alañ-

kāra work which treats of Lakṣaṇa as a feature like

Alaṅkāra, of श्रव्यकाव्य. The second line of thought which

connects Lakṣaṇas with Sandhyaṅgas was first uncon-

scious of its suicidal suggestion. Das'arūpaka rejects them

on the score that they have no individuality and can be

included in Alaṅkāras or Bhāvas. Vis'vanātha realises this

and says that though the 36 Lakṣaṇas can be included in

Sandhyaṅgas etc., they must be shown to be separately

existent in a drama for the reason that Bharata has treated

of them separately. But many works on dramaturgy do not

treat of the Lakṣaṇa at all. The reason is plain. The Das'a-

rūpaka shows us how the Lakṣaṇapaddhati perished. The

Lakṣaṇas lacked individuality and most of them showed them-

selves to be some Alaṅkāras or Bhāvas or some Sandhyaṅgakas.

But it may be observed that the authors on dramaturgy

who have shown an extraordinary genius for classification

and elaboration of Aṅgas on a stupendous scale might have

followed the logic of the inclusion of Lakṣaṇa in other

concepts and saved us their lists of minor Sandhyaṅgakas,

most of which can be shown to be not different at all

from some Alaṅkāra or Bhāva. The same criticism applies

also to the lovers of Alaṅkāras who have made a list of

more than a hundred of them. As for instance the Viṣādana

and the Ullāsa, Alaṅkāras in the Kuvalayānanda, are cases

of Bhāvas.

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

15

VIII

Coming to Abhinavagupta’s own view of Lakṣaṇa—the main thread of his view must be caught in the bewildering text on this concept in various places in this chapter. He points out even at the outset that these views cannot stand to be logical when we consider the 36 Lakṣaṇas themselves one by one in the light of these views; for, to a certain extent, the views have been purely speculative, spinning round the word Lakṣaṇa having its counterpart in the Sāmudrika-lakṣaṇa of the human body, without relating themselves to the nature of the individual Lakṣaṇas. So Abhinavagupta makes a convenient suggestion that the 10 views cannot be exclusively and separately followed.

एतेषु पक्षेषु अन्यतमग्रहे विशेषणानि न संगच्छन्ते स्पष्टेन पथा ।

p. 381.

One comprehensive and definite view must be made out of the cloud of these several Pakṣas. Abhinava adopts shades of each view and gives his own definite idea of Lakṣaṇa, which itself takes conclusive shape only as he proceeds further and further. Here and there Abhinava cannot help pushing new wine into old bottles in his difficult task. One line of thought he has definitely rejected and that is, the association of Lakṣaṇa with Nāṭaka only and taking it as something like Sandhyaṅgakas. He refutes this view in this chapter and elsewhere also while dealing with the Vīthyaṅgas. He says there—

नन्वेषाम् (वीथ्यङ्गज्ञानाम्) उक्तिवैचित्र्यरूपत्वं चेत् लक्षण[म्]

अलङ्कारादिभ्यः को भेद् इति । . . . . . . .

16

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

न चैतद्वचतिरिक्तमेवां सामान्यलक्षणमस्ति । तत्र केचिदुक्तलक्षणादि-

विशेषरूपत्वमेवैषां प्रतिपन्नाः । विवेचकास्तु तद्वचतिरिक्तान्येवतानीत्याहुः ।

pp. 481-2.

In this same context Abhinava thus indicates the difference of Lakṣaṇa and Alaṅkāra on the one hand and the Angas on the other :

लक्षणालङ्कारादीनां नोक्किनियतं रूपमिति विशेषः ।

p. 482.

Having thus rejected the view that Lakṣaṇas are identical with Sandhyāṅgakas, as also the fourth and fifth views, he combines the various ideas of the other line of thought and says that Lakṣaṇa is Kāvyas'arīra itself. It is said to be the Abhidhāvyāpāra itself as a whole. Commenting on the verse—

षट्त्रिंशदेतानि हि लक्षणानि प्रोक्तानि वै भूषणसंमितानि ।

काव्येषु भावार्थगतानि तज्ज्ञैः सम्यक्प्रयोज्यानि यथारसं तु ॥

in the text, Abhinavagupta says that the poetic expression itself as a whole, written in accordance with the Rasa, is called Lakṣaṇa. Lakṣaṇa is nothing but the Abhidhāvyāpāra of the poet's language intended to evoke Rasa.

यथारसं ये भावाः विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिणस्तेषां योऽर्थः स्थायी-

भावरसीकरणात्मकं प्रयोजनान्तरं गतानि प्राप्नुवन्ति । यदभिधाव्यापारोप-

संक्रान्ता उद्यानाद्योऽर्थाः तत्र सविशेष(वि)भावादिभावं प्रतिपद्यन्ते तानि

लक्षणानीति सामान्यलक्षणम् । अत एव काव्ये सम्यक् प्रयोज्यानोति

विषयस्तेषामुक्तः ।

p. 383.

This Lakṣaṇa or the beautiful language or the poet's Abhidhā itself is what distinguishes Kāvya from other

utterances. And here, as is usual with him wherever he

agrees, Abhinava quotes Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka, who emphasises

Abhidhā, or the poet's Vyāpāra in choosing the beautiful

mode of expression as the characteristic of Kāvya, which is

different from Śāstra or Purāṇa. In Śāstra, Śabda pre-

dominates. It is enough in Purāṇa if the story, the Artha,

is somehow said. But in Kāvya one looks to the delectable

way in which things are put. Thus in Kāvya, the Vyāpāra is

important while word and idea are subordinate.

भट्टनायकेऽपि तथैव . . . अभिधाव्यापारप्रधानं काव्यमि-

त्युक्तम् ।

शब्दप्राधान्यमाश्रित्य तत्र शास्त्रं पृथग्विदुः ।

अर्थतत्त्वे तु युक्तेन बदन्तः स्थानमेतयोः ॥

(अर्थे तत्त्वेन युक्ते तु बदन्त्यार्यानमेतयोः)

द्वयोरगुणत्वे व्यापारप्राधान्ये काव्यगीर्भवेत् ॥

p. 383.

Abhinava quotes Bhāmaha also here to show that

Kāvyas'arīra is distinguished from other utterances by the

peculiarity of its expression, by its वक्रोक्ति. Later also he

says—

बन्धो, गुम्फः, फणितिः, वक्रोक्तिः, कविव्यापार इति हि पर्यायात्

लक्षणं त्वलङ्कारशून्यमपि न निरर्थकम् ।

p. 405.

तत्र चित्तवृत्त्यात्मकं रसं लक्षणं तद्रसোচितविभावादि[च]संपादकः

त्रिविधोऽभिधाव्यापारो लक्षणशब्देनोच्यते इत्येषां सामान्च्यलक्षणम् । . . .

एवं किंचिदभिधीयमानं केनचिद्रूपेण रसোচितेन विभावादिरूपेण तमेव

पदार्थकमं लक्षणं लक्षणम् ।

p. 382.

18

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Immediately after quoting the above given verses from

Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka he says—

भामहेनापि—‘सैषा सर्वैव वक्रोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते’ इत्यादि ।

तत्र परमार्थे व्यापार एव लक्षणम् ।

In another place he says—

सर्वो विभावाद्यचिन्तो निर्वर्णयेऽमाणः काव्यलक्षणत्वेन सूचितः ।

p. 399.

If Lakṣaṇa should be thus taken as equal to poetic ex-

pression, the natural consequence is that Lakṣaṇas are not

36 only but as many as the poetic expressions. This Abhinava

grants and says that Bharata only indicated a few, 36 of

such possible Lakṣaṇas. He adds that it is because of this

that, according to another view, Bharata gives another set

of Lakṣaṇas with definitions. Abhinava here refers to the

Anuṣṭubh and Upajāti recensions, takes both of them as

given by Bharata, but says, that he follows the list handed

down from his own teacher.'

षट्त्रिशदिति च नान्यादि(नान्यनि)वারণपरम् । कविहृदय-

वर्तिनाम् प्रियाणां (अभिप्रायाणां) परि (अपरि)संख्येयत्वात् । . .

. . तथा च मतान्तरेण भरतमुनिरेव अन्यथाप्युद्देशलक्षणेन च नाम-

नतरैरपि लक्षणान्तैरपि च व्यवहारं करोति । तत एव पुस्तकेषु भेदो हृश्यते ।

तं च दर्शयिष्यामः । परि(ठि)तोद्देशक्रमस्तु अस्मद्गुराग्यायपरम्परागतः ।

p. 384.

1 But this is an after-thought which Abhinava got up as

evidence for his view of infinity of Lakṣaṇas. It is also a passing

thought, for instead of, consistently with this, explaining the two

sets with different illustrations, he tries with great difficulty to

show the identity of many of the Lakṣaṇas of the Anuṣṭubh list

with those of the other, which he mainly follows.

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

19

It also follows, if Lakṣaṇa is Kāvyas'arīra it has further

adornment with Alañkāras. So says Abhinava—

एवं कविव्यापारबलाद् यदर्थजातं लौकिकात् स्वभावात् विध्यमानं

तदेव लक्षणमियक्तं । तत्(स्य) शरीरकल्पस्य अलंकारा अधुना वक्तव्या: ।

p. 404.

काव्ये तावलक्षणं शरीरम्, तस्य उपमादय: त्रयोध्र्थभागा: । p. 404.

Lakṣaṇa is Kāvya itself while Alañkāra is extraneous orna-

ment, Prthaksiddhna, Vastvantara.

एवमर्थेस्यापि यद्रसाभिव्यक्तिहेतुत्वं सोडर्थगुण: । यस्तु वस्त्वन्तरं

वदनस्येव चन्द्र:, सोडलंकार: । यस्तु त्रिविधोडप्यमिधाव्यापार: स लक्षणानां

विषय: । p. 382.

Thus Abhinavagupta adopts the first view, the third

view and the seventh view, in generally stating his conception

of Lakṣaṇa. In interpreting particular Lakṣaṇas and their

definitions given by Bharata, Abhinava adopts the other

views related to these views. Thus in explaining the first

Lakṣaṇa called Bhūṣaṇa or Vibhūṣaṇa he adopts the sixth

view. Bharata defines Bhūṣaṇa thus—

अलंकारैर्गुणैरैश्रैव बहुभि: समलंकृतम् ।

भूषणैरिव विन्यस्तैस्तद्भूषणमिति स्मृतम् ॥

Abhinava says here that Bhūṣaṇa is the proper use of Alañ-

kāras and Guṇas in accordance with the Rasa, with an eye

to रसौचिय

In pointing out what this Rasa-aucitya is and

how Alañkāras should be introduced in accordance with

it, he quotes Anandavardhana's Kārikas in the Dhvanyāloka,

20

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

II Uddyota, on Alaṅkāra-samīkṣā—विवक्षा तत्परत्वेन नाङ्गित्वेन

कदाचन etc. and refers to his own Locana thereon.

Then Abhinava adopts the seventh view often in dealing

with the definitions of particular Lakṣaṇas and in suitably

illustrating them. The illustrative verses he cites for a Laksana

happen to exhibit an Alaṅkāra also. Abhinava notes that fact

and says that the beauty of the verse is due, not to the Alaṅkāra

but only to the Lakṣaṇa. He shows how there is no ‘गतार्थता’

by Alaṅkāras. Commenting on his illustration for the second

Lakṣaṇa called अर्थसङ्घात, he says—

अत्र अर्थस्य अलङ्कारघटनाप्रयासमनन्द(न्त)रेणैव सुन्दरत्वं लक्षण-

कृतमेव ।

p. 386.

This non-alaṅkāric beauty in this case is due to the

Lakṣaṇa, Akṣara saṅghāta, which Abhinava takes as Pada-

aucitya, the suggestive appropriateness of Padas, Nāmapadas

and Sambodhana padas. Having said this, Abhinava finds

himself hard put to distinguish this Lakṣaṇa of the Sābhi-

prāyatva of Padas from what Bharata has given as the Guṇa

called Ojas; he then advances the explanation that behind

Guṇas like Ojas, there is a Kavi-vyāpāra responsible for the

beauty, meant by those Guṇas and it is that Vyāpāra which is

Lakṣaṇa ; and that instances of Lakṣaṇas cannot be had

without being mixed up with Alaṅkāras and Guṇas.

एतेषां च लक्षणानां सङ्गीर्णत्वेन लक्ष्यं हृश्यते । p. 386.

The natural grace of a verse even in the absence cf Alaṅkāra

as in the verses of Amaruka is due to Lakṣaṇa. This is

the view he often adopts. He illustrates the third Lakṣaṇa

called शोभा by the verse in the S'ākuntala—‘मेढ़श्छेदकुरोदरं लघु

मधुत्थाननयोग्यं वपुः’ etc. and makes the comment that there

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

21

is no Alaṅkāra in the verse but yet there is beauty in it

and that it is due to the Lakṣaṇa called S'obhā.

न चात्र अलङ्कार: कश्चिदिदंि कविव्यापारेण (व्यापार:) य: शब्दार्थ-

व्यापारादेव अर्थघटनात्मा। तत्र तं हृदयं लक्षणार्थमेव (?) । अशोभनोडप्यमुना

नयेन शोभत इति शोभेयमुक्ता ।

p. 387.

That the very Abhidhāvyāpāra of the poet is Lakṣaṇa is

clinched by Abhinava in his exposition of the fourth Lakṣaṇa

called Abhimāna, by reading that Lakṣaṇa in the end as

Abhidhāna.

अथाभिमान: . . . . . . कविना अलङ्कार(?)उपमानोपमेयभावस्य

कथाच्छिदव्यतिस्वीकृतात् कवेः वक्तुरभिप्रेत . . . इति अभिधानाख्यं

लक्षणम्1 ।

p. 387.

He adopts the eighth view, which is his own teacher's,

in his exposition of the Lakṣaṇa called गुणानुवाद and in other

places. Explaining the Lakṣaṇa called गुणवकीर्तन in his illustra-

tion which involves S'leṣa Alaṅkāra, he says—

अत एव तत् (?)श्लेषोन्न्र प्रधानम् . . . . . गुणवकीर्तनं नाम लक्षणं

उपमाश्लेषानुग्राहिल्वे(न) स्थिति(तम्) । लक्षणानि हि अलंकाराद(न)पि

चित्रयन्ति । तदेव अग(प्र) एव वक्ष्याम: ।

p. 388.

Here he adopts the eighth view only slightly. He says

that the Lakṣaṇa called Gunakīrtana helps Upamā and

S'leṣa and that Lakṣaṇas beautify even Alaṅkāras. He

clearly adopts this eighth view that the further elaboration of

1 Regarding the verse defining this Lakṣaṇa, Abhinava notes

both the variants ‘Dhāryamāna’ and ‘Vāryamāṇa.’

22

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

manifold Alaṅkāras is the result of their interaction with the

Lakṣaṇas, in a further passage under the ninth Lakṣaṇa,

Guṇānuvāda.

अथ गुणानुवादः । । । । यथा

पालिता चौरिवेन्द्रेण त्वया राजन् वसुन्धरा ।

ननु उपमेयमलंकारः ? कि . . तत (किं ततः ?) उक्तं ह्यलंकाराणां

वैचित्र्यं लक्षणकृतमेव । एत एव शिक्षितैरपि दण्डिप्रभृतिभिः ये निरूपिताः

उपमाभेदाः, तत्र यो भेदकोटिशः आचक्ष्याऽऽसासंश्र(श्र)यनिर्णयादिरथः स

तथैकृ पृथगलंकारतया गणितः । गणनेडपि वा संसृष्टिसंकरापत्तिः । अर्थमात्रं

तात्पर्यं चेत् तत्रैव तदेव लक्षणम् । यथा हि रीतिरूपविभज्य

विज्ञाय-

माणः इत्थमवतिष्ठते —मुकुटाद्यलंकारः शौर्यादिगुणव्यूढोरस्कत्वादिलक्षणसमु-

दायः । राजा अलंकार्यश्र गुणवान्श्र लक्षणीयश्र । तथा काव्यमपि । तेन

गुणालंकारातिरिक्ताः सर्वे लक्षणामिति मन्तव्यम् ।

p. 390-1.

Whatever beauty in a Kāvya is not due to either Guṇa

or Alaṅkāra is due to Lakṣaṇa. If so, will it not be that

all Kāvya is Lakṣaṇa ? Yes, says Abhinavagupta.

नन्वेवं सर्वत्र लक्षणयोगः ? क आक्षेपार्थः ? प्रियमेव ह्यस्माकमदः ।

p. 391.

Thus in this passage Abhinava combines his teacher's view,

i.e. the eighth with the seventh, reconciles both by making

them as parts of a bigger and more comprehensive view

of his. Abhinava opines that Lakṣaṇa is sometimes natural

grace and sometimes it adds beauty to Alaṅkāra also. Thus

he considers it to be more important than Alaṅkāra.

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

23

अत एवं पूर्वै 'काव्यबन्धास्तु कर्तव्या: षट्त्रिंशल्लक्षणान्विता:' इति लक्षणान्गेव हि प्रधानम्, तत्प्रसङ्गेन ग्रहा(गुणा)लंकार(रा) इति । तात्पर्य-विशेषलक्षण(लक्षणविशेषतात्पर्य)व्याख्याने चैतत् स्फुटीयिष्याम: ।

p. 382-3.

In the explanation of the sixth Lakṣaṇa, Protsāhana, Abhinava again adopts his teacher's view and points out how this Lakṣaṇa adds Vaicitrya to Aupamya and Aprastuta-prasamsā. Under the tenth, Atisāya, he says that it is this Atisāya Lakṣaṇa that makes the Atisayokti Alañ-kāra. The 'Kavivyāpāra' view recurs under Kṣamā, the twenty-eighth ; as the very 'Kāvya sarīra', the same view recurs under Anuvṛtti, the thirty-first and Yukti, the thirty-third.

Thus Lakṣaṇas are important because they are elaborately enumerated at first, they are the very Kāvyas'arīra,' or the Kavivyāpāra or Abhidhā of the poet, they are elements of natural beauty even in the absence of Alañkāras, they are the factors that multiply the three Alañkāras into many, and they beautify sometimes even Alañkāras. Through the first Lakṣaṇa Abhinava forces the idea that

1 It is this idea of Lakṣaṇa as the Kāvyas'arīra itself that Abhināva holds at the end of his commentary on the previous chapter, while commenting on the text, 'काव्यबन्धास्तु कर्तव्या: षट्त्रिं-शल्लक्षणान्विता:', which introduces the topic of Lakṣaṇa in the next chapter. Abhinava here works out a metaphor with a beautiful house, the metre being the ground, Lakṣaṇa, the building of the house itself, Alañkāras and Guṇas, the paintings etc.

यथा प्रासादकोष्यादिके (?) कर्तव्ये प्रथमं भूमि:, तद्वत् काव्ये निर्मातव्ये भूमि-कल्प: छन्दोविधि:, क्षेत्रपरिग्रहृदित्समाश्रयमित्यादिविरचनस्थानीयं लक्षणयोजनम्, चित्र-कर्मप्रतिममलंकारगुणनिवेशनम्, . . . . एवंभूतवाचिकाभिनयस्वरूपं चतुर्दशादिभि: षड्भिरप्यचार्य्यते । p. 377.

24 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Lakṣaṇa is also a principle of औचित्य and under the last, he speaks of Aucitya as the purpose of Lakṣaṇa. परमौचित्यव्यापनं प्रयोजनम्। p. 403. If Lakṣaṇa should be so elastic or so comprehensive, we would have not 36 of them only, but an infinite number of them. Quite so replies Abhinava-gupta. The Lakṣaṇas are अलङ्कार-anुप्राहक and in their combinations with each Alaṅkāra, they produce many varieties. In combining among themselves also they breed numberless varieties. Thus infinite are the varieties of beautiful expression in kāvya. Abhinava says under the thirty-first, Anuvṛtti :

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसास्वेदपि हि यदप्रस्तुतस्य शरीरवैचित्र्यं तल्लक्षणकृतमेव । लक्षणं हि शरीरमित्युच्यते । . . . . . ततोनो (तेनो) उपमेयशरीरस्य वा वैचित्र्य(यं) ततोनो (तेनो)पमानशरीरस्य उपमेयशरीरस्य वा लक्षणानामेव व्यापकं(र:) इत्येवमुपमारूपकदीपकानां त्रयाणामलङ्कारत्वेन वक्ष्यमाणानां प्रत्येकं षट्त्रिंशलक्षणयोगात् लक्षणानामपि च एकद्वित्र्याद्य-वान्तरविभागभेदादान(स्त्यं) केन गणयितुं शक्यम्, इदार्नीं शतसहस्राणि वैचित्र्याणां सहृदयरुत्पश्यन्ताम् । p. 401.

In this passage Abhinava gives a new and clever idea. An Upamā is an Alaṅkāra. It is expressed and has its S'arīra. That S'arīra itself has to be beautiful. The beauty of the very expression of Simile or other Alaṅkāras is Lakṣaṇa. In his Dhvanyāloka loca­na, Abhinava has pointed out that Alaṅkāras have to be beautiful and that expressions like ‘गौरिव गवय:' do not become Alaṅkāra because of the absence of a basic beauty which is necessary. This basic beauty he ascribes to Lakṣaṇa in the Abhinava Bhāratī in his exposition of the Upamā Alaṅkāra.

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

25

काव्यबन्धेषु काव्यलक्षणेषु1 सत्तिवति अनेन गौरिव गवय इति

नायमलङ्कार इति दर्शितम् । p. 405.

IX

Daṇḍin, as he was going, cast a remark on Lakṣaṇa.

For him the whole Kāvyaprapañca is Alaṅkāra-Brahman.

Naturally he considered Lakṣaṇa to be Alaṅkāra. When he

considered even the Sandhyāṅgas and the Aṅgas of the

four Vṛttis, Kaisikī etc. as Alaṅkāras, it is no wonder

that he considered so this concept, Lakṣaṇa, which has so

much in common with Alaṅkāra. He says—

यच्च सम्यङ्निरुक्तं वस्तु लक्षणाधिगमोपमान्तरम् ।

व्यावर्णितमिदं चेष्टम् अलङ्कारतयैव नः ॥ II, 366.

The Lakṣaṇa referred to in this verse is Bharata’s Lakṣaṇa.

Taruṇavācaspati says—लक्षणम्, विभूषणम् अक्षरसंततिश्र् । आगमान्तरे

भरते । Alaṅkāra in Daṇḍin is a wide berth which can con-

veniently accommodate these and many more.

The Daśarūpaka mentions the Lakṣaṇas at the end and

does not treat of them since it includes them in Alaṅkāras and

Bhāvas. This attitude is very logical, since many of the

Lakṣaṇas are either Alaṅkāras or Bhāvas. The text says—

षट्त्रिंशद्धूषणादीनि सामादीन्येकर्विशति: ।

लक्ष्य(क्ष)म् सन्ध्यन्तराख्यानी सालङ्कारेषु तेषु च ॥

हर्षोत्साहेषु अन्तर्भावान्न कीर्तिता इति पूर्वेऽपि कादम्ब्याहार: ।

1The text of Bharata here is यत्तु किचिद्वस्तुकाव्यबन्धेषु साध्रयेनोपमीयते

and ‘ Bandha ’ here meaning merely ‘ composition ’ can hardly bear

the interpretation Abhinava puts on it.

26

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

The Avaloka adds—

विभूषणं चाक्षरसंहतिश्र शोभाभिमानौ गुणाकीर्तनं च ।

इत्येव-मादीनि षट्त्रिंशत् काव्यलक्षणानि 'साम मेदः प्रदानं च' इत्येव-मादीनी संध्यान्तराण्यधिकविशिष्टः उपमादिषु अलंकारेषु हृदयंग्राहिदशु च

अन्तर्भावात् न पृथग्गणनि ।

Bhoja, in his S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa (Vol. II, Chapter 12, p. 450,

Mad. MS.), while dealing with the technique of the drama,

says first that the drama shall have 64 Lakṣaṇas.

लक्षणैश चतुःषष्ट्या युक्तं कुर्वीत नाटकम् ।

He comes to the topic, Laksana, on p. 524, first enumerates

64 of them, then defines and illustrates each. Bhoja is

given to elaboration and he takes up some of the Anuṣṭubh

list of 36, some of the Upajāti list of 36, adds a few which

are his own and thus makes a good number of 64. Certain

numbers have a destiny and in Bhoja's bulky writings, in

his classifications, such numbers appear often. This chapter

is called 'प्रबन्धाङ्गचतुःषष्टिप्रविष्टचतुष्टय्यी' dealing with 4 sets of 64

Aṅgas of the Prabandhas. Thus it is out of an artistic sense

of uniformity that Bhoja made Lakṣaṇas also 64. For Bhoja's

list, see table at the end.

Bhoja is acquainted with both the lists of Bharata. His

definitions are mostly reproductions from Bharata with slight

variations. From the name of the chapter we are to take

that Bhoja considers Lakṣaṇa as a प्रबन्धाङ्ग like सन्ध्याङ्ग,

with which it is clubbed together and described. He

generally says that they are for beautifying the work.

At the end of his treatment of the Lakṣaṇas he says of

them—

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

27

एतानि काव्यस्य विभूषणानि प्रायश्रुतुष्यष्टिरुदाहतानी ।

प्रबन्धशोभाकराणाय तज्ज्ञैः सम्यक् प्रयोज्यानि यथारसानि ॥

Bhoja takes Lakṣaṇas as features of dramas only. He tries

to give us some distinction between the Lakṣaṇas and the

Sandhyangas. After illustrating the first Lakṣaṇa called

Bhūṣaṇa, which is speech full of Alaṅkāras and Guṇas,

he says—

अत्र श्लेषोपमाप्रत्यक्षादिभिरलङ्कारैः श्लेषप्रसादसौकुमार्यादिभिश्रृङ्गुणै-

रुपेतता दृश्य्या । एवं वक्ष्यमाणेप्वपि गुणालङ्कारा यथासंभवमूहनीयाः ।

. . . . कारैश्च नियमो नारभ्यन्ते ? । सन्ध्यङ्गेषु तु गुणालङ्कारयोगो नो(ना)-

पेक्ष्यत इति ।

The text is incomplete and corrupt. Bhoja means to say that

just as the first Lakṣaṇa involves Guṇas and Alaṅkāras, so also

the others and it is this that differentiates Lakṣaṇas from Sandh-

yaṅgas which do not involve Guṇa or Alaṅkara. This expla-

nation is clever and shows us how many Lakṣaṇas look like

Alaṅkāra but is not wholly sanctioned by Bharata, who

described Bhūṣaṇa alone as being ‘profuse with Guṇas and

Alaṅkāras’ and never meant the extension of its nature to

the other Lakṣaṇas also. No doubt, some Lakṣaṇas definitely

mention and involve a few Alaṅkāras.

Sāradātanaya, in his Bhāvaprakāśa, deals with Lakṣaṇas

in Chapter 8. In the Nāṭya Sāstra we see the Lakṣaṇa des-

cribed as Bhūṣaṇa. ‘प्रोक्कानि वै भूषणसंमितानि’ ‘एतानि वा काव्य-

विभूषणानि ।’ So some writers have called the Lakṣaṇas Bhū-

ṣaṇa also. There is propriety in this name from the point of

view of function, since all the writers say that Lakṣaṇas adorn

the Kāvya. Sāradātanaya calls them Bhūṣaṇas and gives

28

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

them as one of the items in the technique of Nāṭaka. He

says—‘षड्त्रिशद् भूषणाणि च’ : ‘36 Lakṣaṇas also’. But while

enumerating and defining he gives 54. At the end again he

mentions their total number as 64 and calls the Lakṣaṇa here

नाट्यालङ्कार ‘चतुःषष्टिलङ्कारा: कथिता नाटकाश्रया: ’ p. 224. Gaek.

edn. Thus, as in other places, the text of S'āradātanaya

causes great confusion. S'āradātanaya's list contains Lakṣaṇas

from both the lists. A few of them are new. 26 are from

the Upajāti list and 14 are from the Anuṣṭubh list. The

remaining 14 in the total of 54, are new. They are—

नय:, स्पृहा, अभिज्ञानम्, उद्देश्य:, नीति:, अर्थविशेषणम्, निबे-

दनम्, परिवाद:, उद्धम:, परिहार:, आश्रय:, उक्ति:, देश: and प्रहर्ष: ।

Two of these, स्पृहा and परिवादन are found in Bhoja's list.

Naya may be Bharata's Anunaya and Parivāda may be

Bharata's Parivedana or Paridevana. S'āradātanaya's defini-

tions of the Lakṣaṇas are most of them brief adaptations of

Bharata's definitions.

Jayadeva's Candrāloka is the only work on poetics which

treats of Lakṣaṇas along with such topics as Guṇa and

Alaṅkāra. It is curious how Lakṣaṇa found its way into

this work of later times, not dealing with dramaturgy. Jaya-

deva is aware of the topic of Lakṣaṇa but is not sure of

its nature or place in Kāvya. Even among the Lakṣaṇas, he

gives with definitions and illustrations, only a few. Mayūkha

3 of the Candrāloka gives the following Lakṣaṇas :-

अक्षरसंधिति:, शोभा, अभिमान:, हेतु:, प्रतिषेध:, निरुक्तम्, मिथ्या-

ध्यवसाय:, सिद्धि:, युक्ति: and कार्यम्—all of the Upajāti list. It is

remarkable how Jayadeva missed the very first Lakṣaṇa

called Bhūṣaṇa and the no. 36 also and gives only 10.

Jayadeva's definitions of these are concise and more definite

than those in Bharata and when we read these together

with their illustrations, we cannot miss the fact that it is

not very far from Lakṣaṇa to Alaṅkāra. In the last verse

he briefly indicates the nature of Lakṣaṇa and says that

Laksanas like the above given ten, are many.

इत्यादिलक्षणं भूरि काव्यस्याहुर्महर्षयः।

स्वर्णश्राजिष्णुभासुत्व(भालत्)प्रमृत्यीव महीभुजः॥

Just as Mahāpuruṣas like kings have the Lakṣaṇas, a gold-

bright forehead etc., Kāvyas have their Lakṣaṇas. Vaidya-

nātha Pāyaguṇḍa, in his commentary on the Candrāloka,

says in an earlier context, that the Lakṣaṇas are Kāvya

Jñāpaka, an attempt at explanation which does not carry him

or us far.

Again, if we go through the 5th Mayūkha and its list

of Alaṅkāras, numbering hundred, we find there, besides

दष्टान्त, निदर्शना, संजय and other names, associated in Bharata

with Lakṣaṇas, which must have very early passed into the

fold of Alaṅkāra, some of the above given ten themselves

are counted as Alaṅkāras. Thus we have मध्याधयवस्थितिः, युक्तिः,

निरुक्तिः, प्रतिषेध: and हेतुः. Among these, the illustration for

मध्याधयवस्थिति alaṅkāra in the Kuvalayānanda is an adaptation

of that given for the Lakṣaṇa of the same name. The

same illustration—‘ईश्वरितैरितैनि सत्यं दोषाकरौ भवान्’ is given for

both निरुक्तिलक्षण and निरुक्त्यलंकार.

Siṅgabhūpāla also calls the Lakṣaṇa, Bhūṣaṇa. (R.A.S.

chap. III, pp. 247—264. Triv. ed.) He considers them as

beautifying elements of the plot of the drama.

शरीरं वस्त्वलंकृत्य पदैरित्राश्रयूपणः स्कुटम्॥

30

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

He completely follows the Anuṣṭubh list with this minor difference that he reads ले॒श as लेख and gives the synonym मधुरभाषण for Bharata's प्रियं वचनम्. S'iṅgabhūpāla takes Bharata's own definitions and compresses them in half verses. In some cases, as for instance in the definition of प्राप्ति, he is more definite than Bharata, by restricting a comprehensive idea to a particular case. His definitions of निदर्शनम्, विशेषणम्, पादोच्चयः, तुल्यतर्कः, तद्विपर्ययः, अतिशयः, गुणकीर्तनम् and माला are reproductions of Bharata's verses.

Vis'vanātha, in chapter six of his S'āhitya darpana, treats of Lakṣaṇa. He gives the 36 of the Anuṣṭubh list with this difference that he gives Saṅkṣepa newly in the place of Kṣobha. Some of his definitions of these are succinct adaptations of Bharata's, while some are reproductions of those of Bharata. He points out their existence in dramas with illustrations. He realises the logic of the attitude of the Dasarūpaka but is more loyal to Bharata, for the sake of whose words he takes that there should be 36 Lakṣaṇas in dramas. He says in the end—

एवं केषांचित् गुणालंकारभावसंश्रयविशेषान्तरमपि नाटके प्रयत्नतः कार्यत्वात् विशेषोक्तिः।

Besides these 36 Lakṣaṇas, Vis'vanātha has another set of similar items which he calls Nātyālaṅkāra. They are 33 in number. When we go through this list we find that most of them are the Lakṣaṇas themselves of the Upajāti list. Thus we find here आशीः, आक्रन्दः, कपटः, क्षमा, पक्षपातः, उपपत्तिः, प्रोत्साहनम्, अभिमानः, अनुसर्त्तनम्, याच्ञा, आल्यानम् and युक्ति, 12 from the Upajāti list of Lakṣaṇas. While dealing with Lakṣaṇas in that same name he used the Anuṣṭubh list with a small difference. He left out क्षमा and had in its place संक्षेप.

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

31

The Kṣobha left out there has entered this list of 33 Nāṭyā-

laṅkāras. The remaining 20 of this list are not available

anywhere in the Nāṭya S'āstra. Among those Lakṣaṇas of

the Upajāti list which are not common to the Anuṣṭubh list

also, there are yet गुणानुवाद:, मिथ्याध्वसाय:, प्रतिषेध:, निर्माणम्,

कार्यम्, अनुनिति: and परिदेवन्म्, seven, which are not taken at all.

The first writer who is now known to have introduced new

Lakṣaṇas is Bhoja. In his list of 64 which contains all

the 36 of the Anuṣṭubh list and a few of the Upajāti list, he

introduced 12 new Lakṣaṇas, स्पृहा, परिवादन्म्, मृषोद्यम्:, छलोक्ति:,

काकु:, उन्माद:, परिहास:, विकत्थनम्, यतच्छ्लायोग:, वैषम्यम्, प्रतिज्ञानम्

and प्रवृत्ति:. Of these 12, स्पृहा and परिवाद: are the only two

found in S'āradātanaya's list of 54. It is quite likely the text

is not complete and S'āradātanaya who numbers Lakṣaṇas in

the end as 64, took more of the above 12 of Bhoja. Vis'va-

nātha follows S'āradātanaya and takes the following of

S'āradātanaya's new Lakṣaṇas, उद्यम:, आश्रय:, स्पृहा, परिवाद:,

नीति:, अर्थविशेषणम्, परिहार:, निवेदनम् and प्रहर्ष:, numbering 9.

The remaining eleven in the 20 are new, found only in

Visvanātha. They are गर्व:, उत्प्रासनम्, आह्लासा, अध्यवसाय:,

विसर्प:, उल्लेख:, उत्तेजनम्, साहास्यम्, उत्कीर्तनम्, प्रवर्त्तनम् and उपदे-

शनम्. It is likely that some of these are really S'ārada-

tanaya's, ten of whose 64 are now missing in the text.1 Of

these अध्यवसाय is said to be प्रतिज्ञानम् by Vis'vanātha. If so,

it is not different from Bhoja's प्रतिज्ञानम्. उत्प्रासन which is

explained as उपहास is the same as Bhoja's परिहास. उत्कीर्तन

is unnecessary reduplication for it is described just as the

other Nāṭyālaṅkāra called आक्षेपान्, which is a Lakṣaṇa in

Bharata's Upajāti list. There does not seem to be any

1 Gaek. ed. pp. 223-226.

32

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

distinction between उत्तेजनम् and प्रोद्साहनम्. प्रवर्त्तन is nothing

but Bhoja's प्रवृत्ति:. उपदेशन need not be a separate Nātyā-

laṅkāra, since he has already given a Lakṣaṇa called

उपदिष्टम्.

Why is it that Visvanātha made two separate topics as

Lakṣaṇas and Nātyālaṅkāra and how ?

The materials for him are the 2 sets of Lakṣaṇas in Bharata and those in Bhoja and

S'āradātanaya. Visvanātha took the Anuṣṭubh list to represent

Lakṣaṇas and made out a 33 from the Lakṣaṇas of the

Upajāti list and of S'āradātaya's list and called the latter

Nātyālaṅkāra. Visvanātha perhaps wanted to stick to the

number '36' given in Bharata. S'āradātanaya says at the end

of his treatment of Lakṣaṇas—

चतुष्षष्ठिरलङ्कारा: कथिता नाटकाश्रया: ।

This use of the words 'Alaṅkāras of Nāṭaka' gave a con-

venient title under which, with a claim to be more neat and

to have introduced a new item, Visvanātha could put all the

other Lakṣaṇas.1 Jagaddhara who takes this name applies it

to Lakṣaṇas themselves which will agree with what S'āradā-

tanaya has actually said. Further Visvanātha seems to have

thought that he could easily interpret the word Alaṅkāra in

the following verses of Bharata which he quotes here, as

Nātyālaṅkāra, whereas, it refers only to figures of speech.

1 Mātṛgupta seems to be the first to speak of the Nātyālaṅkāra.

We see it mentioned in his definition of Nāṭaka, as also the Laksana

under the name Vibhūṣaṇa, as quoted by Rāghavabhaṭṭa in his

commentary on the S'ākuntala.

प्रकृत्यवस्थासंध्यादिसंध्यङ्गसनन्तरविभूषषयै: ।

नाव्यालङ्कारैरन्नोनाभाषायुक्तिपात्रसद्भयै: ।

नाटकं नाम तज्ज्ञेयं रूपकं नाट्यवेदिभि: ॥

Kale's ed., pp. 5 and 6.

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

33

पट्‌त्रिंशलक्षणोपेतमलङ्‌कारोपशोभितम्‌ ।

. . . . . . .

मृदुशब्दामिधानं च कविः कुर्यात्तु नाटकम्‌ ॥

Visvanātha realises also that Nāṭyālaṅkāra is not much different from Lakṣaṇa and that both again, to speak boldly, are unnecessary, since they turn out to be either Bhāvas, Alaṅkāras or Sandhyangas.

एषां च लक्षण(ण)नाट्यालङ्‌काराणां सामान्त्य एकरूपत्वेऽपि भेदेन व्यपदेशः गडुलिकाप्रवाहेण । एपु च केषांचित्‌ गुणालङ्‌कारभावसन्ध्ययङ्‌-

विशेषान्तर्भोवेडपि नाटके प्रयत्नतः कर्तव्यतावाद् विशेषोक्तिः ।

Talking of the function of Nāṭyālaṅkāra he says—‘नाव्य-

भूषणहेतवः‌', which vague description is further argument for what we have said just above.

Taking Lakṣaṇa as a feature of drama only is a view narrower than the one attached to that word. Bhoja, Sāradātanaya, Siṅgabhūpāla and Visvanātha have narrowed it further by mentioning them only in Nātaka, the first and best form of drama.

Rāghavabhaṭṭa in his commentary on the Sākuntalā criticises Dhānika for the inclusion of the 36 Lakṣaṇas in Alaṅkāras and Bhāvas.

He quotes the authority of the Abhinava bhāratī for proving the difference of Lakṣaṇa from these and promises to indicate the Lakṣaṇas in the Sākuntala in the course of his commentary.

The list of 36 Lakṣaṇas is quoted by him from Mātṛgupta.

This long passage and discussion on Lakṣaṇa is found only in the Nirnaya Sāgar edition of Rāghava Bhaṭṭa's commentary and of the Sākuntala.

The edition of Mr. Kale, without any discussion at all, points out the first Lakṣaṇa called ‘Bhūṣaṇa’.

34

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

as being present in the portion up to the verse of Act I

‘यदालाके सूक्ष्मं' etc. Rāghava Bhaṭṭa is not so enthusiastic

over Lakṣaṇa as he goes further, for he points out only nine of them in Act I, none in Act II, only two in Act III,

none in Acts IV and V, only one in Act VI and only two in the last Act. These are the Lakṣaṇas he points out—

भूषणम्, अभिप्राय:, प्रसिद्धि:, निरुक्तम्, पदोच्चय:, उदाहरणम्, अनुक्तसिद्धि:,

निदर्शनम्, दृष्टम्, माला, मनोरथ:, हेतु:, अक्षरसङ्क्षात: and अनुनय:, numbering fourteen, all belonging to the Anuṣṭubh list.

The definitions he gives for some of these are from S'iṅgabhūpāla.

These Lakṣaṇas he points out just in those places which S'iṅgabhūpāla himself has given as illustrations.

Jagaddhara in his ṭīkā on the Mālatīmādhava indicates four Lakṣaṇas in Act III and two in Act IV.

He gives their definitions which resemble but are not exactly those in Bharata.

These six are पृच्छा, पङ्श्वात्ताप:, आख्यानम्, निदर्शनम्, माला and प्रसिद्धि:. These are from both the Anuṣṭubh and the

Upajāti lists. He calls them Nāṭyālaṅkāra.

Rucipati, in his commentary on the Anargharāghava, points out two Lakṣaṇas in Act IV, calling them by the name

Nāṭyālaṅkāra. These two are अभिमान and छलोक्ति (p. 157 and p. 182, Nir. edn.).

He also quotes definitions for these two under the name Bharata, but the definitions are not from

Bharata. The second, छलोक्ति is no Lakṣaṇa in Bharata. Bhoja is the first to give it.

Thus Rucipati follows some unknown writer who followed Bhoja but substituted the name Nāṭyālaṅ-

kāra for Lakṣaṇa.

Rājānaka Ratnākara, in his insatiable love for S'leṣa, introduces the Nāṭyas'āstra very often in his Haravijaya.

In the penultimate verse (57) of canto XXI he describes a Nāṭaka, through लक्षणा where he mentions Lakṣaṇa.

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

35

इति रसपोषयुक्तिमदनुजिझतवृत्तिगुणव्यपाश्रयं

प्रथितशुभाङ्गलक्षणम् अपूर्वकृतिप्रवणात्मतां दधत् ।

कविरिव नाटकम् ॥ K. M. edn., p 286.

Rājānaka Alaka says in his commentary here-

अज्ञानि सन्धीनामवयवा:, 'उपक्षेप: परिकर: . . . . .

परिभावना' इत्यादि:[I] चतुःषष्टि(:) लक्ष्याणि(I) (लक्षणानि) 'विभूषणं

चाक्षरसहितिश्व . . . गुणाभिमानोडतिशय: सहेतु:' इत्यादीनि पट्‌त्रिंशत्

काव्यनव्यवस्थास्थापकानि ।

Ratnākara refers to Lakṣaṇas as a feature of the Nāṭaka.

Alaka follows the Upajāti list. We cannot get much out of

his vague explanation of the nature of Lakṣaṇas as काव्यव्य-

वस्थास्थापक ; but we see that he followed Bharata and held

them as features of Kāvya and not of Nāṭaka only.

Bahurūpamis'ra, commentator on the Dasarūpaka, a

writer later than Śāradātanaya, speaks of Lakṣaṇa twice:

(a) Commenting on Dasarūpaka III, 32-33 :

रसं वा न तिरोध्याद् वस्त्वलङ्कारलक्षणै: ।

Dhanika says: लक्षणं: अलङ्काराभिम: ।

Dhanika takes Alaṅkāra in the text as Upamā etc. But

Bahurūpa takes Alaṅkāra also as Nāṭakālaṅkāra, Atisaya

etc., and Lakṣaṇa as the concept of the same name.

उपमादयो ललङ्कारा: । अतिशयादयो नाटकालङ्कारा: । शोभो

दाहरणसंशयदृष्टान्तक्षमागुणानुवादानन्दकपटादीनि लक्षणानिति ।

P. 35, MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library.

(b) At the end, the Dasarūpaka says षट्‌त्रिंशदलङ्कारादीनि

etc. Here Bahurūpa gives the Lakṣaṇas, Bhūṣaṇa etc. and

36

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

says that, similar to the Lakṣaṇas, there are also others

called Nāṭyālaṅkāras.

Thus Bahurūpa has two sets, one called Nāṭakālaṅkāra

and the other Lakṣaṇa. The MS. gives a list of Nāṭakā-

laṅkāras and Laksanas and there are gaps in the MS.

(नाटक) लक्षणानाहु—अतिशयः, नयः, दाक्षिण्यम्, अभिन-

...... उपदिष्ट्रम्, माला, सम्भ्रमः; अर्थापत्ति:; . . . प्रासिः, हेतुः,

विशेषणम्, गुणातिपातः, विचारः; . . . . आशीः; अभिमानः, कपटः,

याच्ञा, निदर्शनम्, अभिज्ञानम् . . . . . (भूषणम्), अक्षर-

सङ्घातः; शोभा, उदाहरणम्, क्षोभः, अर्थविशेषणम्, प्रोत्साहनम्, गुण-

कीर्तनम्, कीर्ति:, आाश्ल्यानम्, निवेदनீयम्, परिवारः, उपपत्ति:, गुणा-

नुवादः, परिहारः, उद्यमः, कायेम, अनुक्कासिद्धि:; आश्र(श)यः, युक्तिः,

लेशः, अनुवृत्ति:, क्षमा, प्रहर्षः, प्रियवचनम् इति (लक्षणानि) . . . . .

The text unfortunately stops with ‘Iti.’ Bahurūpa’s position

regarding Lakṣaṇa is similar to that of Viśvanātha and it is

most likely that S'āradātanaya’s fuller text is the basis for

Bahurūpa whose two lists contain Lakṣaṇas of both the

lists in Bharata and those found newly in S'āradātanaya.

See also my article on Bahurūpamis'ra’s Das'arūpavyākhyā,

J. O. R., VIII, pp. 333-4.

There is evidence to show that the Saṅgītarāja of king

Kumbhakarna dealt with the Lakṣaṇas. In his comments

on sl. 12 of the last canto of the Gītagovinda, Kumbha says

in his Rasikapriyā :

गुणकीर्तनं नाम नाट्यालङ्कारः । तल्लक्षणं सङ्गीतराजे—

बहूनां गुणिनां यत्र नामार्थजनितैर्गुणैः ।

एकोऽपि दर्श्यते यत्नु कीर्तितं गुणकीर्तनम् ॥

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

37

Guṇakīrtana is a Lakṣaṇa of the Upajāti list in Bharata.

Kumbha's definition of it follows Bharata's. It is not known

how many Lakṣaṇas Kumbha recognised and whether he

took also those of the Anuṣṭubh list. See Annals B. O. R. I.,

Vol. XIV, Pts. 3-4, my Note on the Saṅgītarāja—(pp. 261-262).

Sāhityasāra of Sarves'vara, a work (Madras MS.) in 631

Anuṣṭubhs treats of the Lakṣaṇas in Ch. III (p. 28). It gives

in Āryā verses the 36 Lakṣaṇas of Bharata's Upajāti list :

भूषणमक्षरसद्धः शोभा गुणकीर्तनं निरुक्तं च ।

5

अभिमानोदाहरणे गुणानुवादः प्रियं हेतुः ॥

5

प्रोत्साहनसारूप्ये मिथ्याव्यवसायसिद्धिविद्यस्थास्ता: ।

5

आशी: संशयकटौ क्षमानुवृत्तौ तथोच्चयाक्रन्दौ च ॥

7

परिदेवनोपवृत्ती याच्ञाप्रासिरमनोरथौ युक्तिः ।

6

अतिशयपृच्छास्यानप्रतिषेधः सानुनीतिनिर्भासः ॥

6

कार्यः पश्चात्तापः षट्‌त्रिंशलक्षणावधि:(लः) नियम ।

2=36

नाट्ये भावार्थगता सालङ्कारा बुद्धेः प्रयोक्तव्या ॥

Each is defined in a half-verse. The definitions are note-

worthy, being original though untrue in some cases. Bhūṣaṇa

for instance is defined as an Alamkāra-dominated expression.

अलङ्कृतिरलङ्कोरेरभिधेयस्य भूषणम् ।

Akṣarasaṅghāta is defined as Vāmana's Arthaguṇa called Ojas,

the Prauḍhi of the variety called ‘condensed expression’—

वाक्यार्थे च पदाभिधा ।

The Sāhitya mīmāṃsā (TSS. 114) says that some

speak of 36 Lakṣaṇas in a Kāvya, similar to the Sāmudrika

Lakṣaṇas in a man, but these are included in the other

already accepted concepts. The work here gives the Upajāti

list and reproduces Bharata’s definitions of the first three

Lakṣaṇas. (pp 117-8.)

Acyutarāya, a modern writer, considers Lakṣaṇa as one of

the six Guṇas of Kāvya in his Sāhitya Sāra. Acyutarāya has

a new conception of Guṇa, which is like the Alaṅkāra of Bhoja.

Under it come Rasas, Vṛttis, Ṛītis and Lakṣaṇas.

धर्मो रसा लक्षणानि रीतिलड्कृतिवृत्तयः ।

रसिकाह्लादका भवते काव्ये सन्ति च षड्गुणा: ॥

The Lakṣaṇas mentioned here include Bharata’s Lakṣaṇa,

for the commentary says : “ लक्षणानि अक्षरसंहतिशोभादीनि वक्ष्य-

माणानि—। ” p. 9. These are called Guṇas because they are

‘Rasikāhlādaka’.

At the end of the chapter on Guṇas (7th), the work says :

शब्दंषु तेषु गाम्भीर्ये विस्तारो रीतिरेव च ।

अर्थेष्वपि तथाक्षेप: समता सुकुमारता ॥

माधुर्यौदारते प्रेय: समाधि: सौक्ष्म्यमेव च ।

सम्मितत्वं तथोक्तिश्व लक्षणानि मतानि मे ॥ S’ls. 207-8.

Com. लक्षणानीति । निरुक्तकाव्यगुणत्वेन प्राकृतप्रतिज्ञातलक्षण-

नीत्यर्थ: । एवं च चन्द्रालोकसारீभूतं अक्षरसंहति: शोभा च इति द्वय, तथा

प्रतापरुद्रीयादिसारīभूतं द्राक्षापाकादित्रयं, कण्ठाभरणसारīभूतं शब्दगुणा-

नर्गतं गांभीर्यादित्रियं, अर्थगुणान्तर्गतं क्लोशादिदशकं चेति मिलित्वा

अष्टादशलक्षणीयमिति सङ्क्षेप: ।

This is a strange conception of Lakṣaṇa. Acyutarāya knows

Lakṣaṇas only through the Candrāloka. But while the Can-

drāloka gives ten, Acyuta chooses only two from them. These

two Lakṣaṇas, Akṣara samhati and S’obhā, the three Pākas,

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

39

Gāmbhīrya, Vistara and Rīti which are three Śabdagunas of Bhoja, Śleṣa, Samatā, Sukumāratā, Mādhurya, Udāratā, Preyas, Samādhi, Saukṣmya, Sammitatva and Ukti which are ten Arthagunas of Bhoja,—these are put together into a set of 18 items and meaninglessly labelled as the 18 Lakṣanas.

See Sāhityasāra, pp. 353-4, N.S. Edn.

X

Now, coming to Bharata’s own idea of Lakṣaṇa,—he says after treating of the metres—

काव्यवन्धास्तु कर्तव्याः पट्ट्रिंशलक्षणान्विताः ।

In the end he says ‘एतानि वा काव्यविभूषणानि’ and ‘काव्ये प्रयोज्यानि’.

Again he says :

अभिरर्थक्रियापेक्षः: कार्य काव्यं तु लक्षणैः ।

From these we are sure that Bharata meant Lakṣaṇa as Abhinava and Tauta took it, to be a feature of Kāvya in general and not of drama only as all the above mentioned writers on dramaturgy took it. Bharata meant it to be on a par with Alaṅkāra and Guṇa as a feature of Kāvya in general.1

The second idea that we cannot miss in Bharata is that Lakṣaṇas, though different from Alaṅkāras, are themselves also another species of beautifying factors. In this capacity they are called ‘Vibhūṣaṇa’.

‘एतानि वा काव्यविभूषणानि ।’ ‘प्रोक्तानि वै भूषणसमितानि ।’

1 Though, while defining the Lakṣaṇas individually, Bharata occasionally uses the expression ‘Nāṭakāśraya’. See the definitions of Prāpti alone in the Anuṣṭubh list, and of Ākhyāna, Prāpti and Upapatti in the Upajāti list.

40

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Bharata does not illustrate the 36 Lakṣaṇas, as he does

the Alañkāras. Nor does he make any attempt to differentiate

them from Alañkāras. He gives only three Arthālañkāras,

Upamā, Rūpaka and Dīpaka. He indicates 5 sub-classes of

Upamā. Bhatta Tauta has taken that the manifoldness of

Alañkāra is achieved by combining Alañkāras with the

Lakṣaṇas. For instance, he says that the Upamā called

प्रशंसोपमा is got by combining the Alañkāra Upamā with the

Lakṣaṇa called गुणानुवाद; that अतिशयोक्त्यलङ्कार is got by com-

bining उपमा and the Lakṣaṇa called अतिशय. Such ingenuity

is all Tauta's own. Bharata does not indicate this. He

simply says that he has pointed out five kinds of Upamā

and that the intelligent must take other varieties from Kāvya

and Loka.

उपमाया बुधैरेतद् भेदा ज्रेयास्समासतः ।

शेषा ये लक्षणैरुक्ताः ते प्राप्याः काव्यलोकतः ॥

Nor in his definition of प्रशंसोपमा does Bharata indicate

anything like what Tauta has said. Bharata really does not

propose to himself the task of distinguishing the concept of

Lakṣaṇa from Alañkāra. From what we see in the chapter,

i.e. the 17th, in his time, the concept of Lakṣaṇa had much

development, while that of Alañkāra was in its infancy. The

fecundity of the latter that produced in course of time a breed

of more than a hundred Alañkāras is not seen in Bharata. But

many of these later Alañkāras have their counterpart in Lakṣa-

ṇas. The Lakaṇas had developed separately as adorning features,

independently of Alañkāras, and in themselves they constitute

a double personality. When we critically examine the 36

Lakṣaṇas, they fall into two classes. One class of them looks

like Alañkāra, being mere turns of expression. As a matter of

fact, we have actually Lakṣaṇas with the names of some of the

later Alaṅkāras themselves. For example, संशय: (सन्देह:),

दर्शान्त:, निदर्शनम्, निरुक्तम्, अतिशय:, विशेषणम्, अर्थापत्ति: and लेश:.

There is also हेतु. It is another matter that the definitions

of these are not exactly the same as in later Alaṅkāra works.

Besides, the two Lakṣaṇas उदाहरणम् and सारूप्यम् involve

Aupamya and Sādrśya. Akṣarasaṅghāta and Śobhā involve

S'leṣa. The definition of तुल्यतक contains the mention of रूपक

and उपमा as part of that Lakṣaṇa. In their definitions, विचार

and तद्विपर्यय involve Sandeha and Ullekha. The definition of

प्राप्ति makes it the काव्यलिङ्गालङ्कार.

दृष्टैवावयवग्न् कांश्चिद्धावो यत्रानुमीयते ।

प्रासिं तामपि जानीयालक्षणं नाटकाश्रयम् ॥

The Lakṣaṇa called अभिप्राय contains साध्यपरिकल्पनम्.¹

The Lakṣaṇa called लेश is quite different from the

Alaṅkāra of that name. Leśālaṅkāra is thus defined by

Bhoja—

दोषस्य यो गुणाभावो दोषीभावो गुणस्य य: ।

स लेश: स्यात्ततो नान्या व्याजस्ततिरपीयते ॥

The Lakṣaṇas called Guṇātipāta and Garhaṇa (Kārya in

the Upajāti list) correspond to this Vyājastuti. They are

thus defined :

गुणाभिधानैर्विविधैर्विपरीतार्थयोजितै: ।

गुणातिपातो मधुरो निष्ठुरार्थो भवेदथ ॥

¹ Protsāhana, Guṇānuvāda and Hetu of the Upajāti recension

involve Aupamya.

42

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA SĀSTRA

यत्र संकीर्तनं दोषं गुणमर्थेन योजयेत् ।

गुणातिपाताद्दोषाद्द्रा गर्‌हणं नाम तद्‌वेत् ॥

The Lakṣaṇa called ले‌श is said to be a clever speech suggesting through the mention of a similar thing — सदृशो‌र्थ-

विनिष्पत्ति:'. The Lakṣaṇa पदो‌च‌च‌य involves the Alaṅkāra समु‌च‌च‌य.

The Lakṣaṇa called दृष्ट becomes दृष्ट in Bhoja, Sāradātanaya and Viśvanātha. As Bharata has described it, it is only स्वभावो-

क्यलक्‍कार. The Lakṣaṇa called माला is an element which has been associated with many माला varieties of Alaṅkāras like

मालारूपक etc. The Candrāloka actually mentions Mālā as an element helping many Alaṅkāras.

माला परम्परा चैषां भूयसामनुकूलके । V. 121.

We can see the value of Bhaṭṭa Tauta's suggestion in such cases. The Lakṣaṇa called मनोरथ has in its definition

the word 'अन्यापदेश' and is actually the अन्यापदेश of later literature, i.e. अन्यो‌क्ति.

हृद‌या‌र्थ(य‌स्थ)स‌्य वाक्‍यस‌्य गूढा‌र्थस‌्य विभावकं ।

अन्यापदेशै: कथनं मनोरथ इति स्मृत: ॥

प्रसिद्धि looks like उदात्तालङ्‍कार and प्रियं वचनं is nothing but प्रेयोलङ्‍कार or चाटु. Thus, Lakṣaṇas of one class are clearly

Alaṅkāras or approximations to Alaṅkāras or light shades of Alaṅkāras to be mixed with many a major Alaṅkāra. Abhinava

realises this when he describes Lakṣaṇas as उक्तिव‌चित्र‌यरूप and अलङ्‍कारानुप्राहक. This class of Lakṣaṇas is really a supple-

mentary list to the three Alaṅkāras of Bharata. The seeds of many of the later Alankāras are available among these

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

43

Lakṣaṇas. Leaving aside the late stage represented by the

Candrāloka in which Lakṣaṇas like मध्याधवसाय, युक्ति and

प्रतिषेध have become Alaṅkāras, we can take that, very early,

some of the Lakṣaṇas passed into the fold of Alaṅkāra.

Bhaṭṭa Tauta's view may suggest this historical fact. We

have other clear evidences on this point. आशिष:, a Lakṣaṇa of

the Upajāti list, is an Alaṅkāra in Bhaṭṭi and we can see it in

its transition from Lakṣaṇa to Alaṅkara. Bhāmaha mentions

indifferently that it is an Alaṅkāra according to some (III. 55).

Similarly हेतु:, a Lakṣaṇa in both the lists of Bharata, can be

seen in its stage of transition into Alaṅkāra in Bhāmaha and

Daṇḍin. Bhāmaha refuses to accept it as Alaṅkāra since

it is devoid of-Vakrokti (II. 86). Some pre-Bhāmaha writer

must have made it an Alaṅkāra. Bhāmaha points out that

only definite and remarkable turns of expression must be

named Alaṅkāra. But soon, since it was the palmy days of

Alaṅkāras when many things entered its fold, we find Daṇḍin

asserting that हेतु is a great Alaṅkāra, उत्तम भूषण. आशिष: is an

Alaṅkāra, firmly established, in Daṇḍin. But poor Hetu had

a chequered career 1. The name Nāṭyālaṅkāra might have

also helped sorne of the Lakṣaṇas to become Alaṅkāras. The

evolution of Alaṅkāras from three in Bharata to what we have

in Bhāmaha is an interesting study but the gap is all darkness.

We feel that in that stage of the history of Alaṅkāra, the

concept of Lakṣaṇa and the merging of most of it in Alaṅkāra

is a big chapter.

But we must be clear as regards this point : in the first

class of Lakṣaṇas which are mere turns of expressions there

are various grades. While some are plainly Alaṅkāras, others

1 See Udbhaṭa, Rudraṭa and Mammaṭa ; also the Alaṅkāra

chapter in my Ph. D. Thesis on Bhoja's Ṣṛṅgāra Prakāsa.

44

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

have an element of Alañkāra in them, the expression as a whole being more than Alañkāra.

The other set of Lakṣaṇas shows a different character. They are not ‘उक्तिवैचित्र्यरूप’. उपादिष्टम्, भ्रंश;, अनुनय:, दक्षिण्यम्, गर्हणम्, पृच्छा, क्षोभ: etc., belong to this class. The Upajāti list contains mostly Lakṣaṇas of this class, प्रोत्साहनम्, आकन्दनम्, आख्यानम्, प्रतिषेध:, क्षमा, पश्चात्तपनम्, अनुवृत्ति:, अनुनीति:, परिदेवनम् etc. Most of these are Bhāvas or actions resulting from certain Bhāvas. These would give support to the view which takes the Lakṣaṇas as minor Sandhyaṅgakás. But this view cannot hold good regarding the other class of Alañkāra-like Lakṣaṇas.

Bharata himself seems to be conscious of this double personality of his Lakṣaṇas when he says at the end of the section on Alañkāras—

अभिरर्थक्रियापेक्षै: कार्य काव्यं तु लक्षणै: ।

Some Lakṣaṇas are अर्थापेक्ष. These are turns of expression, those of the first class, related closely to Alañkāra. Others are क्रियापेक्ष.1 These are related to Bhāvas and form the second class. Thus the two main lines of thought in the दशरूपक्री given in the Abhinava bhāratī hold good as regards these two aspects of Lakṣaṇas. There will be much ‘ Kleśa ” if one tries to make all Lakṣaṇas look like turns of expression and factors of natural grace, or to make all Lakṣaṇas look like सन्ध्यङ्गवत् or इतिवृत्तकथंडलक. The Daśarūpaka realised these points and included part of them in Alañkāras and part in Bhāvas.

1 Abhinava has the reading ‘अर्थक्रियायुक्तै:’, and takes it as emphasising the principle of Rasa-aucitya in the use of these Lakṣaṇas: अर्थक्रियया रसचर्वणां युक्ता योगो येषां etc. p. 408.

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAN̐A

45

TABLE OF SEVERAL LISTS OF LAKṢAN̐AS

Anuṣṭubh list of Bharata.

1. भूषणम्

2. अक्षरसंहातः

3. शोभा

4. उदाहरणम्

5. हेतुः

6. संशयः

7. हेत्वन्तः

8. प्राप्तिः

9. अभिप्रायः (आ-शयः—Bhoja)

10. निदर्शनम्

11. निरुक्तम्

12. सिद्धिः

13. विशेषणम्

14. गुणविपातः

15. अतिशयः

16. तुल्यतर्कः

17. पदोच्चयः

18. दृष्टम् (दिशम्—Bhoja)

19. उपदिश्रम्

20. विचारः

21. तद्रिपर्ययः

22. भ्रंशः (संभ्रमः S'ā.)

Those of the Anuṣṭubh list found in the Upajāti list of Bharata.

1. विभूषणम्

2. अक्षरसंहितम्

3. शोभा

4. उदाहरणम्

5. हेतुः

6. संशयः

7. हेत्वन्तः

8. प्राप्तिः

9. निरुक्तम्

10. सिद्धिः

11. अतिशयः

12. पदोच्चयः

New Lakṣaṇas of the Upajāti list, indicating within brackets those of the Anuṣṭubh list which are left out. Bh. = contained in Bhoja's list. S'ā. = contained in Sāradātanaya's list.

4. अभिमानः (Bh.) (S'ā.) (सारुप्यम् or साध्यसम् )

5. प्रोत्साहनम् (प्रियं वचनम्) For its definition, see Gaek. text; the Kāśi text enumerates it, but in its place defines विशेषणम् of the Anustubh recension (Bh.) (S'ā.)

6. गुणानुवादः (Bh.) (S'ā.)

7. मिथ्याध्यवसायः (विचारः and विपर्ययः)

8. आकलनः (Bh.) (S'ā.) (तुल्यतर्कः)

9. आख्यानम् (Bh.) (गुणाख्यानम् S'ā.) (प्रसिद्धिः)

10. याच्या (Bh.) (S'ā.) (दाक्षिण्यम् )

11. प्रतिषेधः (Bh.) (लेशः)

12. निर्मासिनं (Bh.) [also called भासनं by AG.] (माला)

13. आशीः (Bh.) (S'ā.) (निदर्शनम् )

14. कपटम् (Bh.) (S'ā.) Gap in AG.'s text here. (Garhaṇa is included here by AG.)

46

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

23. अनुनय:

24. माला

25. दक्षिण्यम्

26. गर्हणम्

27. अर्थापत्ति:

28. प्रसिद्ध:

29. पृच्छा

30. सारुप्यम्

31. मनोरथ:

32. लेश: (लेख:—S'inga.)

33. क्षोभ: or दोष:

34. गुणकीर्तनम्

35. अनुकसिद्धि:, or सिद्धि:

36. प्रियं वचनम्

37. क्षमा (Bh.) (S'ā.) (विशेषणम् )

38. पश्चात्तपनम् (Bh.) (S'ā.) (विचार:)

39. अर्थानुत्रित:, (Bh.)(S'ā.) [also called अनुगत्तिः by AG.] (अनुनय:)

40. उपपत्ति: (Bh.) (S'ā.) (उपदिश्रम् )

41. युक्ति: (Bh.) (S'ā.) (अभिप्राय:)

42. कार्थम् (Bh.) (S'ā.) [also called गर्हणम् by others, says AG.] (अर्थापत्ति:)

43. अनुनीतिः (Once more here प्रसिद्ध:)

44. परिदेवम् (क्षोभ: and अनुकसिद्धि:)

45. पृच्छा

46. सारुप्यम्

47. मनोरथ:

48. प्रियम्

Total common with the Anu-stubh list—17

New Laksanas of Bhoja.

In the 26th प्रियम्, AG. includes श्रंष:

S'ā.=contained in S'āradātanaya's list. Vis'.=Vis'vanātha.

1. स्त्रहा (S'ā.) (Nāṭyālaṅkāra in Vis'.)

2. परिवादनम् (S'ā.) May be the correct form of the Paridevana in Bharata's Upajāti list.

3. मुषोयमः (उद्यमः) (Nāṭyalaṅkāra in Vis'.)

4. छलोक्ति: Compare Kapaṭa in Bharata's Upajāti list.

5. काकु:

6. उन्माद:

7. परिहास: (उत्प्रासनम् Nāṭyalaṅkāra in Vis'.)

8. विकृत्थनम्.

THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA

47

9. यहच्छायोग:

10. वैषम्यम्.

11. प्रतिज्ञानम् (प्रतिज्ञाध्यवसाय: Nāṭyālaṅkāra in Viś'.)

12. प्रसृतिः (प्रसर्तनम् Nāṭyālaṅkāra in Viś'.)

New Lakṣaṇas of Śāradātanaya.

Nā. Viś'.=Nāṭyālaṅkāra in Viśvanātha.

1. नय: (may be Anunaya of Bharata).

2. अभिज्ञानम्.

3. उद्‌देश:

4. नीति: (Nā. Viś'.)

5. अर्थविशेषणम् (may be Bharata's विशेषणम्) (Nā. Viś'.)

6. निवेदनम् (Nā. Viś'.)

7. परिहार:

8. आभ्रय: (Nā. Viś'.)

9. उत्तिः

10. देशः

11. प्रहर्ष: (Nā. Viś'.)

New Nāṭyālaṅkāras of Viśvanātha, names which are not Lakṣaṇas in Bharata's Upajāti or Anuṣṭubh lists, or in those of Bhoja and Śāradātanaya.

1. गर्व:

2. अशंसा

3. विसंप:

4. उल्लेख:

5. उत्तेजनम्.

6. साहास्यम्.

7. उत्कीर्तनम्

Note. In Lakṣaṇas, Viśvanātha has a new one called संक्षेप: instead of क्षोभ: of the Anuṣṭubh list. This क्षोभ: is made a Nāṭyalaṅkāra with a slight change in name, e.g. उपदिष्टलक्षणम् and उपदेश नाट्यालङ्कारः

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

LITERATURE

POETRY is not mere thought. ‘While great poetry must

necessarily embody it, very genuine poetry, at times, may do

no more than give to the merest airy nothings a local habita-

tion and a name.’ ‘Poetry does not reveal truth in logic but

in light.’1 Mere thoughts and emotions are proper subjects

for the science of psychology etc. Facts, by themselves, are

unattractive ; sometimes reality appals us ; but poets teach us

as they charm :

शास्त्रेषु दुर्गहोऽप्यर्थः स्वदते कविसूक्तिषु ।

हद्यं करगतं रत्नं दारुणं फणिमूर्धनि ॥

—Nīlakaṇṭhadīkṣita, Sabhārañjanasaṭaka.

Dars'ana has to wait for Varnana.2 It is wrong to regard

poetry as merely truth or noble emotion. Who can deny the

validity of the statement—

गोरपत्यं बलीवर्दः तृणान्यत्ति मुखेन सः ?

1 Quotations of this nature occurring in this chapter are chiefly

from five works : Raymond, ‘Poetry as a Representative Art’ ,

Lamborn, ‘The Essentials of Criticism’, Bain, ‘Rhetoric and

Composition,’ and Tagore ‘Creative Unity’ and ‘Personality’.

2 तथा हि दर्शने स्वच्छे नित्येऽद्यादिकवेस्मुने: ।

नोदिता कविता लोके यावज्जाता न वर्णना ॥—Bhatta Tauta.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

49

Yet, is it poetry ? Are there not hunger and suffering in the

poor Brāhmaṇas' plea to the king—

भोजनं देहि राजेन्द्र घृतसूपसमन्वितम् ?

Yet, the king refused to help them and the story goes on to

say that the king gave them presents only on hearing the other

half filled, the story says, by Kālidāsa, with the extravagant

plumes of figurative language.

माहिषं च शशचन्द्रचन्द्रिकाधवलं दधि ॥

True, as Leigh Hunt says, ‘there are simplest truths often so

beautiful and impressive that one of the greatest proofs of the

poet’s genius consists in leaving them to stand alone, illustra-

ted by nothing but the light of their own tears or smiles, their

own wonder, might or playfulness’. But, as he himself points

out elsewhere, ‘in poetry, feeling and imagination are neces-

sary to the perception and presentation even of matters of

fact’. The so-called figure of natural description, the Sva-

bhāvokti, is a plain statement only in a comparative degree.

Plain fact or feeling is always embellished in some manner

and given some catching power. Who can refuse to recognise

the difference between a proposition like ‘गतोऽस्तमर्कः’ and

this Svabhāvokti of Kālidāsa :

निष्कम्पवृक्षं निभृतद्विरेफं शांतमृगपचवारम् ?

—Kumārasambhava, III.

Even the natural description of a poet has its strikingness ;

Bāṇa says that Jāti must be Agrāmya, नवोद्यो जातिरग्राम्या

(Harṣacarita). Bald statements are thus excluded. Bhāmaha also

excludes ordinariness in expression in his description of poetry :

अग्राम्यशब्दमध्ये च सालङ्कारं सदाश्रयम् । K. A. I. 19.

अलङ्कारविदग्धानां वच्यो न्यायमनाकुलम् ॥

50

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

So poetry requires not only fact and feeling but a beautiful form

also ; it has not only to be useful, but primarily attractive.

That all poetic expression involves some kind of expressional

deviation of beauty,1 some out-of-the-way-ness, is well brought

out by the following verse of Nīlakantha dīkṣita :

यानेव शब्दान्वयमालपाम: यानेव चार्थान्वयमुलिखाम: ।

तैरैव विन्यासविशेषभयै: संमोहयन्ते कवयो जगन्ति ॥

—Śīvalīlārṇava, I. 13.

This expressional deviation, this striking disposition of words

and ideas, is Alaṅkāra; this constitutes the beautiful poetic

form. It will be easier to dissociate love from its physical

aspect than to keep the concept of poetry aloof from its form.

If we try to arrive at a clear definition of poetry with an

objective differentia, certainly the definition will revolve round

the concept of Alaṅkāra, the word Alaṅkāra being taken here

in the widest sense of that term in which Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin

and Vāmana understood it. Alaṅkāra is the beautiful in

poetry, the beautiful form,—सौन्दर्यमलङ्कार: (Vāmana). Examin-

ing the field of poetic expression, Bhāmaha found Alaṅkāra

omnipresent in it. When we reach the stage of Appayya

dīkṣita, who has given as many as one hundred and twenty-five

Alaṅkāras, we see that the whole range of poetry is almost

'Vyāpta' with Alaṅkāra in general, is 'Avinābhūta' with

Alaṅkāra. And to this numberlessness of Alaṅkāra, Ānanda

refers to;

वाच्यालङ्कारवर्ग रपकादिर्योवानुक्त: वक्ष्यते च कैश्चित्, अलङ्कारा-

णामनन्तत्वात् (The Locana adds here, प्रतिभानन्यादिति)। Dhva. Ā.,

1

Cf. Bain : ' A figure of speech is a deviation from the plain

and ordinary mode of speaking, for the sake of greater effect :

it is an unusual form of speech'. Rhetoric and Composition, I.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

51

p. 88. Mahimabhaṭṭa says : अलङ्काराणां च अभिधातम्त्वं उपगतं, तेषां

भड्रिभणितिरूपत्वात् । ' V. V., I, p. 3, T.S.S. 'भड्रिभणितिभेदानामेव

अलङ्कारत्वोपगमात् ।' Ibid., II, p. 87. 'चारुत्वं हि वैचित्र्यापरपर्यायं

प्रकाशमानमलङ्कार: ।' 'चारुत्वमलङ्कार: ।' Commentary on the V.V.,

p, 4, T.S.S.: 'तथा च शब्दार्थयोरविच्छित्तिरलङ्कार: ।' Ibid., p. 44.

Namisādhu also says 'ततो यावन्तो हृदयावर्जकाः अर्थप्रकारास्तावन्तो-

लङ्काराः ।' Vyā. on Rudraṭa, p. 149. Ānanda has this further

remark—'तत् (रस) प्रकाशिनो वाच्यविशेषा एव रूपकादयोलङ्काराः ।'

p. 87. If Alañkāra is understood in this large sense as

emphasising the need for a beautiful form in poetry, it is

not very improper for the subject of poetics to be called

Alañkārasāstra.1

Thus, Alañkāra, properly understood and properly em-

ployed, can hardly be a subject for wholesale condemnation.

This is said not only in view of the large sense in which

we have tried to explain it above. Taking the figures as such,

the best definition we can give of them is that, in a great

poet, they form the inevitable incarnations in which ideas

embody themselves. Says Ānanda :

अलङ्कारान्तराणि हि निरूप्यमाणदुर्घटानन्यपि रससम्माहितचेतसः

प्रतिभानवतः कवेः अहङ्ग्राहिकया प्रभवन्ति । यकं वैतत् ।

यतो रसाः वाच्यविशेषैरैव आकार्यन्त्यः, तत्तत्प्रतिपादकैश्व शब्दैः, तत्तत्प्रति-

दिनो वाच्यविशेषा एव रूपकादयोलङ्काराः ।—Dhva. Ā., p. 87.

Such figures can hardly be considered 'Bahiraṅga', in

Kāvya, and comparable only to the 'Kaṭaka' and 'Keyūra',

the removable ornament. Therefore Ānanda continues :

'तस्मात् तेषां बहिरङ्कत्वं रसाभिव्यक्तौ ।' p. 87. They should properly

1On the names of the Alaṅkārasāstra, see below.

52

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA SĀSTRA

be compared to the Alañkāras of damsels which Bharata speaks of under Sāmānyābhinaya, Bhāva, Hāva etc. and not to the Kaṭaka and Keyūra. (N.S'., XXII, K.M. edn.)1

Ānanda says in Udyota II that, though Alañkāras are only the S'arīra, the outer body, they can be made the S'arīrin, the soul, sometimes, i.e., when Alañkāras are not expressed but suggested; when simile, contrast etc. are richly imbedded in an utterance and in the clash of words in an expression, Alañkāras shoot out.

शरीरीकरणं येषां वाच्यत्वेन व्यवस्थितम् ।

तेऽलङ्कारा: परां छायां यान्ति ध्वन्यज्झतां गताः ॥ 2

—II, 29, p. 117.

Here Abhinava says: As a matter of fact, Alankaras are external ornaments on the body but can sometimes be like the Kuṅkuma smeared for beauty on the body, when they are organic and structural, when they are रसाक्षिप्त, अपृथग्यत्ननिरवर्त्य and सुलभिष्य. Far, far away is the hope to make this Alañkāra the very soul. But even this is possible in a way, says Ānanda: just as in the mere play of children, there is some temporary greatness for the child which plays the role of the king, so also, when this Alañkāra is suggested, it attains great beauty and partakes of the nature of the soul.

एतदुक्तं भवति—सुकवि: विदग्धपुरनश्रीवत् भूषणं यदपि क्षिते योजयति, तथापि शरीरतापत्तिरेवास्य कष्टसंपाद्या, कुत्रापि प्रतीतिर्या इव ।

1 There is the 'Alaṅkāra' in Music also, with which profitable comparison can be made here but for the obscurity of the concept in early music literature and the changes in meaning the concept underwent in its later history. (N.S., K.M. edn., XXIX, 22-31.)

2 On the greater beauty of the implied or suggested figure as compared to the expressed figure, see further Ānanda, III, 37, p. 207 and Mahima, V.V., p. 73.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

53

आत्मतायास्तु का संभावना। एवंभूता चेयं व्यंग्यता, यदप्रधानभूतापि वाच्यमात्रालंकारेभ्य: उत्कर्षमलंकाराणां वितरति। बालक्रीडायामपि राजत्वमिवेत्यमुमर्थे मनसि कृत्वाह---तत्रेति।—Locana, pp. 117-118.

It must be noted here that Abhinava compares the Susliṣṭa Alañkāra to Kuṅkumālaṅkaraṇa, and raises it above the level of the altogether external jewel worn, the Kaṭaka. Bhoja realised the insufficiency of the comparison with Kaṭaka. Alañkāra as ornament of a woman also was understood by Bhoja in a large sense. Bhoja classified Alañkāras into those of S'abda, Bāhya, those of Artha, Ābhyantara and those of both S'abda and Artha, Bāhyābhyantara. The first, the most external, the verbal figure of S'abdālaṅkāra, Bhoja compared to dressing, garlanding and wearing Kaṭaka etc. The third, he compared to bath, treating the hair to fragrant smoke, smearing the body with Kuṅkuma, Candana etc. Beginning from outside, these are more intimate with the body. The second, the purely Ābhyantara Alañkāras, the Arthālaṅkāras, Bhoja compared to cleaning the teeth, manicuring, dressing the hair itself etc. These last are most intimate; nothing not forming part at all of the body is here superimposed.1

अलङ्काराश्रय त्रिधा,—बाह्या:, आभ्यन्तरा:, बाह्याभ्यन्तराश्रय। तेषु बाह्या:—वस्त्र-माल्य-विभूषणादय:। आभ्यन्तरा:---दन्तपरिकर्म-नखच्छेद-अलककल्पनादय:। बाह्याभ्यन्तरा:——गान-धूप-(विलेपनादय:) etc.— S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa.

1 Cf. Abhinava: ‘येषामलङ्काराणां वाच्यत्वेन शरीरिकरणं शरीरभूतात प्रस्तुतादर्थांत श्रयन्तरभूततया प्रशरीरायां कटकादिस्थानीयानां शरीरस्थाना-

पादनम् . . . 1—Locana, p. 117.

54

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Albeit the importance of form, one should not misunderstand rhetoric as poetry. It is possible to sacrifice poetry at

the altar of figure. There is such a thing as Aucitya, appropriateness, harmony and proportion, which is the ultimate

beauty in poetry. The final ground of reference for this Aucitya, the thing with reference to which we shall speak of

other things as being appropriate, is the soul of poetry, Rasa. The body becomes a carcass when there is no soul there,

when life is absent from it. Of what use are ornaments on a carcass ? Nīlakaṇṭha dīkṣita says :

अन्योऽन्यसंसगैविशेषम्याप्यलंकृती: प्रत्युत शोचनीयाः ।

निर्यैय्यसारे कविसूक्तिबन्धे निष्कान्तजीवे वपुषीव दत्ता ॥

—S'ivalīlārṇava, I, 36.

Kṣemendra, the systematiser of Aucitya, says : ‘Enough with Alañkāras ; of what use are the Guṇas if there is no life there ?

Ornaments are ornaments ; excellences are excellences ; but Aucitya is the life of the Rasa-ensouled Kāvya’ :

काव्यस्यालमकैरः किं मिथ्यागणितैर्गुणैः ।

यस्य जीवितमौचित्यं विचिन्त्यापि न दृश्यते ॥

अलङ्कारास्तवङ्काराः गुणा एव गुणास्सदा ।

औचित्यं रससिद्धस्य स्थिरं काव्यस्य जीवितम् ॥

—Au. v. c., 4 and 5.

See also the Vṛtti on these ; also my Ph. D. thesis, chaper on History of Guṇas, vol. I, Pt. 2, pp. 334-5.

Here Kṣemendra has only amplified Abhinava and Ānanda who say :

तथा हि अचेतनं शवशरीरं कुण्डलाद्युपेतमपि न भाति, अलंक-

ार्यस्याभावात् । यतिशरीरिं कटकादियुक्तं हस्यावहं भवति अलङ्कार्यस्य

अनौचित्यात् ।—Locana, p. 75.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

55

अनौचित्याहते नान्यत् रसभङ्गस्य कारणम् ।

प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत्परा ॥—Dhva. Ā., p. 145.

What is this Aucitya? It is the clear statement of the

proper place and function of Alañkāra, as of other elements.

उचितं प्राहुराचार्या: सदृशं किल यस्य यत् ।

उचितस्थनविन्यासादलंकृतिरलंकृति: ।

अलंकृति: उचितस्थानविन्यासादलंकृतु क्षमा भवति । अन्यथा तु अलंकृतिव्यपदेशमेव न लभते । . . . . यदाह—

कण्ठे मेखलया नितम्बफलके तारं हरणो वाञ्छति ।

. . . . . नायान्ति के हास्यतां

औचित्येन विना रुचि प्रतनुते नालंकृतिनो गुण: ॥1—Au. v. c.

Thus Alañkāras have their meaning only if they keep to their

places :

ध्वन्यात्मभूते श्रृङ्गारे समीक्ष्य विनिवेशित: ।

रूपकादिरलंकारवर्गे एति यथार्थताम् ॥—Dhva. Ā., II, 18.

Just as a pearl-garland can beautify only a full bosom, and

otherwise cannot be a beautifying factor, only an Alañkāra

1Vide below chapter on Aucitya.

औचित्यमेकमेवात्र गुणानां राशिरेकत: ।

विषयते गुणप्राम: औचिल्यपरिवर्जित: ॥

—Quoted by Municandrācārya in his Vṛtti on the Dharma

binduprakaraṇa, Agamodaya Series Edn., p. 11a.

appropriate to Artha and through it, to Rasa, can be of any beauty.

अर्थौचित्यवता सूक्तिरलङ्कारेण शोभते ।

पीनस्तनस्थितेनेव हारेण हरिणेक्षणा ॥ —Au. v. c. Kṣemendra.

Cf. Bhoja, S.K.Ā. I. 160 :

दीर्घोपाजं नयनयुगलं भूषयत्यज्ञनश्री:

तज्जामोगौ प्रभवति कुचावर्त्तिंतु हारयष्टि: । etc.

Kṣemendra proceeds to show how some poets have observed this rule of Aucitya of Alaṅkāra and how some have not. He points out the conceptual flaws in the latter, going against the main subject and sentiment. The Pratyudāha-raṇas are cases of abuses in so far as the authors of those verses have written those figures with an effort, merely because they desired to add figures. When the great poet is concentrating on Rasa, when he is a ‘रससाहित्यचेताः’, the sense of harmony and appropriateness attends on him, innate in him like instinct; there is hardly any room for impropriety. But when concentration is on figure, error creeps in. We shall consider two examples: The broken minister of the Nandas, stealing into the enemy’s city over which he had once ruled like a king, looking like a serpent stilled by incantation (भोगीव मन्त्रोषधिरुद्धवीर्य:) and consumed by his own inner fire, sees a dilapidated garden and describes it :

विपर्यस्तं सौधं कुलमिव महारंभरचनम्

सर: शुष्कं साधोर्हृदयमिव नाशेन सुहृदाम् ।

फलैर्हीना वृक्षा विगुणतृपयोगादिव न्या:

तृणैरच्छन्ना भूमिर्मतिरिव कुनीतिरविदुष: ॥

—Mudrārākṣasa, VI, 11.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAṄKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

57

The plight of the garden resembles his own pitiable state and with great appropriateness in the conceiving of the similes, Viśākhadatta has drawn a mere description nearer to the context, harnessed it for Rasa and heightened the effect of the situation.1 On the contrary, we shall now cite a verse from the Bhoja Campū where the poet has created a figure not only not in harmony with the main idea and the context but also so inappropriate as to make, as Kṣemendra says, the hearts of the Sahṛdayas shrink.

वाणीविलासमपत्न कृतोपलंभम् अंभोजभूरसहमान इवाविरासीत् ।

There is Hetu-Utprekṣā here : the poet imagines that Brahmā presented himself before the Ādikavi, as if jealous of the appearance of (his spouse) Vāṇī (speech or poesy) in another person. As a matter of fact, it is to bless and give Vālmīki his favour to sing the whole Rāmāyaṇa that the god descended.

One can make Alaṅkāra render the help its name means if he introduces it in such a manner as it will be conducive to the realisation of the chief object, namely Bhāva and Rasa ; that is, Alaṅkāra must be Rasabhāvapara. That which is adorned by an Alaṅkāra is the Rasa. Even as the ordinary ornament, the jewels, putting them on or laying them down, suggest to us the mental state of the person, so also does figure suggest the Bhāva.

रसभावादितात्पर्यमाश्रित्य विनिवेशनम् । अलंकृतिनां सर्वासामलंकारत्वसाधनम् ॥ — Dhva. Ā., II, 6.

1 A similar instance of appropriateness of figurative description is Bāṇa's description of the red evening and the approach of the night in which the king goes to help Bhairavācārya's Sādhana in the Śmas'āna.

58

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

उपमया यद्यापि वाच्योऽर्थोऽलंक्रियते, तथापि तस्य तदेवालंकरणम्,

यद् व्‍यंग्यार्थोभिव्यज्यतेनासामथ्र्योधानमिति । वस्तुतो ध्वन्यातमैव अलंकार्य: ।

कटककेयूरादिभिरपि हि शरीरसमवायिभि: आत्मैव तत्‍तत्‍चित्तवृत्तिविशेषौ-

चित्‍यसूचनात्मतया अलंक्रियते ।'—Locana, 74-75.

Thus whatever, remaining in a functuary place, aids to

embellish and add to the main theme's beauty is Alańkāra.

Rasa also can thus be employed as a decorative, as an

Alańkāra, to adorn a Vastu (idea) or Rasa.'

1

Raymond

2

expresses a similar opinion on Alańkāra :

'The one truth underlying all the rules laid down for the

employment of figures is that nothing is gained by any use of

those which does not add to the effect of the thought to which

they give expression. Language is to express our thoughts

to others and in ordinary conversation, we use both plain

and figurative language but when a man wants to give another

the description of a scene he has seen, he does not catalogue

one and all of the details of that sight, but brings only his

own idea of the landscape by adding to such of the details

as have struck him many more ideas and emotions that

have been aroused in him.' Thus he transports his mental

image to the hearer and if the representation is comparatively

plain, we have Svabhāvokti. 'On the other hand, if he

realises that it is hard for the hearer to understand him fully,

he gains his end by repeating the statement, or by adding

illustrative images to the mere enumeration of facts.' [Com-

pare Rudraṭa, VIII, 1.

सम्यक् प्रतिपादयितुं स्वरूपतो वस्तु तत्समानमिति ।

वस्त्वन्तरमभिध्यात् वक्ता यर्सिमस्तदौपम्यम् ।।]

1

Rasavad alańkāra. Locana, pp. 72, 73, 74.

2

Poetry as a Representative Art.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

59

'Thus the poet puts extra force into his language and in

order to do so, inasmuch as the force of language consists

in its representative character, he will augment the representa-

tion by multiplying his comparisons: his language becomes

figurative.'

From the verse of Rudrața quoted above, we see that

a complex situation or an anxiety for clearer or more effective

expression necessitates figures. Similarly a thought that is too

simple, too ordinary or too small to impress or get admiration

by itself, needs figurative embellishment. We shall consider

this view of Ānandavardhana with his rules for the employ-

ment of these figures in such secondary and ordinary moods

and thoughts. Even as he grants high flights in supreme

moments, he grants even the bare Śabdacitra ample provision

in Rasābhāsa. Heroic deeds, unselfish love, sacrifice-things

great in themselves appeal to us even when directly expressed

with minimum figure. But ordinary things must have purple

patches.

All these facts about decoration by figure in poetry are

realised by Ānanda who has formulated rules for the proper

employment of Alañkāra. Western writers also have laid

similar conditions regarding ornament. Pater says: 'And

above all, there will be no uncharacteristic or tarnished or

vulgar decoration, permissible ornaments being for the most

part structural or necessary'.1 He continues: 'The artist,

says Schiller, may be known by rather what he omits and in

literature too, the true artist may be best recognised by his

tact of omission. For, to the grave reader, words too are

grave; and the ornamental word, the figure, the accessory

form or colour or reference is rarely content to die to thought

precisely at the right moment, but will inevitably be stirring a

1

Style by W. Pater.

60

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

long "brain-wave" behind it of perhaps quite alien associations'. 'As the very word ornament indicates what is in itself

non-essential, so the "one beauty" of all literary style is of its

very essence and independent of all removable decoration ;

that it may exist in its fullest lustre in a composition utterly

unadorned, with hardly a single suggestion of visibly beautiful

things.' 'The ornaments are "diversions"—a narcotic spell

on the pedestrian intelligence. We cannot attend to that

figure—that How there—just then—surplusage ! For, in

truth, all art consists in the removal of surplusage.'

Such strictures had to be passed by Ānanda also ; for

when he was thinking out the essence of poetry, Sanskrit

poetry had deteriorated into an artificial stage. A blind

tribe—Gaddarīkās—was following a beaten path and was

hardly proof to errors of taste. Not poetry, but the imitation

thereof, was being assiduously produced. (न तन्मुख्यं काव्यं,

काव्यानुकारो ह्रसौ.' Dhva. Ā., p. 220.) To guide such poets,

not gifted with Sakti enough to possess an innate sense of

Aucitya, Ānanda lays down his rules for the employment of

Alañkāra. As has already been pointed out, Alańkāra is

subordinate to Rasa ; it has to aid the realisation of Rasa.

It shall suit the Bhāva and be such as comes off to the poet

along with the tide of the Rasa. It shall not monopolise the

poet's energy nor shall it be so prominent or continued as to

monopolise the reader's mind. Says Ānanda :

रसाक्षिप्ततया यस्य बन्धः श्कयक्रियो भवेत् ।

अपृथग्यत्तानिर्वर्त्यः सोऽलङ्कारो ध्वनौ मतः ॥

—Dhva. Ā., II, 17.

1 As if translating Ānanda, Tolstoy calls bad Art 'Imitations

of Art'. 'What is Art?' Ch. XI.

2 Bhoja also speaks of this Rasākṣipta and Aprthag-yatnanir-

vartya Alańkāra in his S.K.A. (Ch. V) and Sr. Pra. (Ch. XI).

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

61

(i) Alaṅkāra shall be intended to suggest Rasa.

(ii) It shall be born along with the poet’s delineation of

Rasa.

(iii) It shall be natúrálly and easily introduceable.

(iv) The poet shall not stop to take a fresh and extra effort

to effect it.

Such a figure is allowed as proper in Dhvani. This is the

‘permissible’ ‘structural’ figure that Pater speaks of. Such

Alaṅkāra is born almost of itself. Such is the poet’s genius

that when the figure is actually found there, it is a wonder.

(निष्पत्तावाश्रयभूत:-Ānanda, p. 86. प्रतिबानुग्रहवशात् स्वयमेव सम्पत्तौ

निष्पादानापेक्षायामित्यर्थ:-Abhinava, p. 86, Locana.) This Alaṅ-

kāra properly functions to heighten Rasa. For instance, in

the verse : ‘कपोले पत्राली करतलनिरोधेन मृदिता etc.’1 the S’aṭha

Nāyaka who entreațs the Khaṇḍita Nāyikā describes her Anger

as another lover who is dearer to her than himself, though he

may even fall at her feet. In the last line here, there are

S’leṣa, Rūpaka and Vyatireka Alaṅkāras, which, far from

hindering the realisation of the Rasa of Īrṣyāvipralambha,

intensify it.

Though a perusal of an Alaṅkāra text-book gives the

impression that the Alaṅkāras are artificial, elaborate and

intellectual exercises requiring great effort in turning them

out precisely,—things that must rather be avoided than handled

with all their ‘chidras’, they are not really so difficult of

effecting for a masterpoet. With him, as emotion increases,

expression swells and figures foam forth.

See my Ph.D. Thesis “ Bhoja's Sṛṅgāra Prakāśa ”, Vol. I, Pt. 2,

chapter on Alaṅkāra. Such Alaṅkāras, Bhoja says, cannot be even

spoken of as having been introduced or added.

1 See Dhva. A., p. 86.

62

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA SĀSTRA

अलङ्कारान्तराणि हि निरूप्यमाणदुघटानन्यपी रससमाहितचेतसः

प्रतिभानतः कवे: अहंपूर्विकया परापतन्ति । यथा कादम्बर्या: कादम्बरी-

दर्शनावसरे ।1

—Dhvā. Ā., pp. 86-87.

We have many instances in the Rāmāyaṇa where we clearly see this connection between emotion and figure, though not as a rule. There is at least a strong tendency to wax figurative in forceful situations. The description of lamenting Ayodhya on Bharata's return from the forest and Sītā's condemnation of Rāvaṇa on seeing him out of his guise are two of the striking examples. There is, further, a tendency in the Rāmāyaṇa to employ figures profusely in descriptions. The opening canto of the Sundarakāṇḍa contains a figure in almost every verse, surcharged as the canto is with Adbhutarasa. To quote only one instance, we shall pick out this description of the broken Viśvāmitra from the Bālakāṇḍa :

हष्ट्रा विनाशितान्पुत्रान् बलं च सुमहायशाः ।

सवीडश्रिन्तयाविष्टः विश्वामित्रोऽभवत्तदा ॥

समुद्र इव निर्वींगः भयदंष्ट्र इवोरगः ।

उपरक्त इवानिद्र्यः सद्यो निष्प्रभतां गतः ॥

1 Cf. 'The more emotions grow upon a man, the more his speech ; if he makes any effort to express his emotion, abounds in figures—exclamation, interrogation, anacoluthon, apostrophe, hyperbole (yes, certainly hyperbole !) simile, metaphor. His language is what we sometimes euphemistically describe as 'picturesque'. Feelings swamp ideas and language is used to express not the reality of things but the state of one's emotions.' J. S. Brown, 'World of Imagery'. Quoted by K. A. Subrahmanya Ayyar in his 'Imagery of the Rāmāyaṇa', J.O.R., Madras, Vol. III, pt. 4.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

63

हतपुत्रबलो दीनः ल्लनपक्ष इव द्विजः ।

हतदर्पो हतोत्साहः निवेंदं समपद्यत ॥—Rā. Bā., 55. 8—10.1

But there are also places in the epic of high strung emotion where figures are not employed at all and the sublimity or pathos of the situation (e.g. Rāma weeping on the loss of Sītā in the closing cantos of the Āranyakāṇḍa) is left to itself to appeal to us with its own grandeur and beauty.

In Kālidāsa, we have many instances of figures rushing to the poet's pen in moments of overflowing Rasa. Every line is a figure in Purūravas's description of Ūrvasī who has captivated his heart, as he sees her slowly recovering from stupor :

आविर्भूते शशिने तमसीव मुच्यमाने निशि नैशस्याचिह्नहुतभुज इव चिच्छन्नभूयिष्ठधूमा ।

मोहेनान्तर्वरतनुरियं हृश्यते मुक्तकल्पा गङ्गा रोधःपतनकलुषा गृहीतैव प्रसादम् ॥—V.U., I.

And in the Mudrārākṣasa, we have a similar situation with abundant figures. In the glee of his success, Cāṇakya exclaims as he hears that Rākṣasa has come :

केनोत्तुङ्गशिखाकलापकपिलो बद्धः पटान्ते शिवा

पाशैः केन सदागतेरगतिता सद्यस्सम्मासादिता ।

केनanekपदानिवासितसटः सिंहोद्पतिः पञ्जरे भीमः केन च नैकनक्रमकरो दोभ्र्यो प्रतिप्णोदणवः ॥

—M.R., VII, 6.

But to write such figures, the poet must be lost in Rasa and must have infinite Pratibhā. Those who do not naturally get

1 Kumbhakonam Edn.

these figures in such an appropriate manner can employ figures effectively if they do so with discrimination, Samīkṣā.

ध्वन्यातमभूते श्रृंगारे समीक्ष्य विनिवेशितः ।

रूपकादिरलंकारवर्ग एति यथार्थताम् ॥

—Dhva. Ā., p. 88, II, 18.

What is this Samīkṣā ?

विवक्षा तत्परत्वेन नाधिक्येन कदाचन ।

काले च ग्रहणत्यागौ नातिनिर्वहणौषिता ॥

निर्व्यूढावपि चाझत्वे यत्नेन प्रत्यवेक्षणम् ।

रूपकादेरलंकारवर्गस्याझत्वसाधनम् ॥

—Dhva. Ā., p. 88, II, 19-20.

(i) Alañkāras must be ancillary, Aṅgabhūta.

(ii) They must never become main, Pradhāna or Aṅgin.

(iii) The main theme shall always be kept in view and the figure in consequence must be taken and thrown away in accordance with the requirements of the main idea.

(iv) They must not be too much elaborated or overworked.

(v) Even if they are worked out, a good poet must take care to give them, on the whole, the position of Aṅga only.

(i) In the verse from the Sākuntala ‘ चलापाङ्गां दृष्टिं स्पृशसि बहुशो वेयथुमतीम् etc.’, the description of the natural acts of the bee, भ्रमरस्वभावोक्ति is introduced as Aṅga to intensify the chief Rasa of Sṛṅgāra. (ii) There are instances in which we see poets drifting along in the world of imagery itself without returning to the point on hand. The poet begins a figure and does it in such a detailed manner that it outgrows its proper limit.

1 See Dhva. Ā., pp. 89.94 for the illustration and discussion of these canons.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

65

'नाङ्गिवेनेऽति, प्राधान्येन कदाचिद्; रसादितात्पर्येण विवक्षितोऽपि

वलङ्कार: कश्चिदङ्गितेन विवक्षितो हृश्यते ।'—Dhva. Ā., p. 89.

' यत्प्रकृतस्य पोषणीयस्य स्वरूपतिरस्कारकोऽप्यज्ञभूतोऽलङ्कार:

संपद्यते । ततस्तु कृत्स्ननौचित्यमाच्छति । ।'—Locana, p. 90.

The illustration for this given by Ānanda is the verse 'चक्राभि-

घात etc.', where the main idea intended to be adorned by the

figure is lost in the elaborate reaches of the Prayāyokta, which

has overgrown and hid the main idea. (iii) Opportune

introduction is illustrated by the verse 'उद्दामोৎकलिकाम् etc.'

where S'leṣa finds timely introduction ; as Abhinava says,

this description paves the way for the coming Īṛyāvipra-

lambha. (iv) In the verse 'रक्तस्त्वं नवपल्लवैः etc.', for the sake

of the main Rasa, Vipralambha, and for the sake of another

Alaṅkāra, namely Vyatireka which is to heighten the Vipra-

lambha, the figure of S'leṣa worked out in the first three lines

is abandoned in the last line. This illustrates 'kāle tyāga'.

(v) There are instances where Alaṅkāras are merely touched

upon and left there; lesser artists sit to work them out.

In the verse

कोपात्कोमललोेलबाहुलतिकापाशेन बद्ध्वा हृदयं

नीत्वा वासनिकतनं etc.

the Rūpaka of Bāhupāś'alatikā and Bandha is not worked out

in any artificial and tiresome manner. If the poet had worked

it out, Abhinava says, it would have been very improper—परम्

अनौचित्यं स्यात्. 'This verse illustrates 'नातिनिर्वहणौषिता.' (vi)

Such a genius like Kālidāsa can work out a figure in full and

can see that the main Rasa is not only not hindered by it, but

is actually intensified by it. E.g. श्यामास्वङ्गम्, Megha. The

5

66

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Vipralambha S'ṛṅgāra of the theme is again brought to the forefront in the last line to be nourished by the Utprekṣā.

When used thus with appropriateness, Alañkāras go to enrich the ideas of the poet and add charm to the diction.

Of these Alañkāras, we shall here speak in particular about a few select ones. Figures can be classified into three main classes : (i) those based on Similarity, Upamā and all other figures involving Upamā; (ii) those based on Difference, Virodha, and (iii) those based on other mental activities like association, contiguity etc. In the third class can be brought all the figures other than those based on Aupamya and Virodha. Of these, figures involving similarity are the most abundant in poetry. 'The intellectual power called similarity or feeling of agreement is our chief instrument of invention.' 'Applied literally in the sciences, it leads to unity through induction'. In metaphysics, साधर्म्यवैधर्म्यपरীক্ষा is mentioned as means to Tattvajñāna and Niśśreyasa by Kaṇāda.

The greatness of Upamā is thus put by Appayya dīkṣita in his Citramīmāṃsā :

तदिदं चित्रं विश्वं ब्रह्मज्ञानादिवोपमाज्ञानात् ।

ज्ञातं भवतीत्यादौ निरूप्यते निखिलभेदसहिता सा ।

उपमैका शैषी संप्राप्ता चित्रभूमिकाभेदान् ।

रञ्जयति काव्यरञ्जो नृत्यन्ती तद्विदां चेतः ॥

Abhinavagupta also said : "उपमाप्रपञ्चश्रव् सर्वोऽलङ्कार इति विद्धद्रिः प्रतिपन्नमेव" (Abhi. Bhā. p. 321. Gaek. edn. II), referring evidently to Vāmana, IV. iii. 1,

प्रतिवस्तूपमात्रुपमाप्रपञ्चः ।

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

67

Great artists are said to express an idea; great poets are

explained as inculcating a lesson to the times through their

work. It is impossible to conceive of such idea and lesson

except through the principle of imagery; the great poem being

something like a big, deep-laid Anyāpades'a. In philo-

sophical teachings, simile plays a very large part. Simile,

Metaphor, Allegory, Parable—these are often employed to

inculcate the profound truths of the incomprehensible. As

Rudraṭa points out in his verse, सम्यक् प्रतिपादयितुम् etc., the

Simile is for clearer understanding. But poetic imagery, like

the variety of life, involves similarity in difference. ‘साधर्म्य-

सुपमा मेने ।’ ‘The things compared in a figure though

differing in kind possess an amount of similarity, rendering

the one illustrative of the other.’ Though ultimately, Simile,

like any other figure, must heighten the Rasa, there are,

comparatively speaking, two kinds of this figure, the intel-

lectual and the emotional. The former appeals to our

intellect and is designed for that and the latter is used to

heighten the sentiment. The intellectual simile must have

maximum catching power; it must be very striking and at the

same time, the point of similarity must be relevant; it must

not be accompanied by any further details that may distract

or mislead.

अविष्यातो यावस्त्र्यो नातिविराजते ।

अमार्गेणागतां लक्ष्मीं प्राप्येवान्वयवर्जितः ॥

—Rāmāyaṇa, Āraṇya, 8, 8.

एते हि समुपासीन विहगा जलचारिणः ।

नावगाहन्ति सलिलम् अप्रगल्भा इवाहवम् ॥

—Ramāyaṇa, Araṇya, 16, 22.

68

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA S'ASTRA

These beautiful instances from the Rāmāyaṇa have the required novelty and strikingness. As J. S. Brown

1

says, the pleasure we derive from a comparison—to which we stick, however much we may call it odious—is in the sudden bringing together of two notions which were a moment before unconnected and remote from one another. This element of agreeable surprise falls under intellectual appeal. The following are two more instances :

निद्रा काप्यमानितेव दयिता सन्न्यस्य दूरं गता ।

सत्पात्रप्रतिपादितेव वसुधा न क्षीयते शर्वरी ॥

परमातव निस्स्विहा: परकार्याणीव शीतला: (?) ।

सक्त्वो भक्षिताराजन् शुद्धा: कुलवधूरिव ॥

'The matters compared here are so different ; we are startled by the ingenuity displayed in bringing them together and the effect is an agreeable fillip of the mind.' In this respect, the danger of abuse lies in the lack of caution in the poet, in obscurity and far-fetchedness and the dwindling down of the similarity to a single and mere matter of fact point. There was a Christmas sales' advertisement in a card with a dog whose tail had been cut; the dog was looking at its shortened tail and underneath was printed 'It will not be long now before Christmas, as the dog said about its tail !' Such instances are effective means for comedy and humour and typical instances can be gathered from Dickens's Sam Weller in his Pickwick Papers.

Coming to the other kind of Upamā: Later poets, wherever they might have been, however little their knowledge

1

'World of Imagery.' Quoted by K. A. Subrahmanya Ayyar in his contributions on 'Imagery of Rāmāyaṇa', J.O.R., Madras, Vol. III, pt. 4.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

of things or imagination might have been, had a Kavisikṣā

to supply them with as many moons and lotuses as they

wanted. Though one had not seen the Himālayas, he devoted

a canto to its description with all the stock-in-trade and trite

figures, mistaken informations filling verse after verse. The

absurdity is seen clearly in the capricious geography of India

which Vāmanabhaṭṭabāṇa teaches us in his Vemabhūpāla

carita. In Upamā, the necessity for novelty is overlooked

and the anxiety to abide by the qualification ‘Sammata’ has

been the cause of monotony. Anybody could write out a

hundred verses any day on the sunrise, with the red sun,

the lotus and the bee and the waning moon, their one single

feature of looking like lovers being done to exhaustion.

Appayya dīkṣita defines Upamā thus:

उपमानोपमेयत्वयोग्ययोरर्थयोरुद्रयोः ।

हृदयं साधर्म्यमुपमेत्युच्यते काव्यवेदिभिः ॥

Others also have pointed out the defects in the form and

content of Simile. Even as it is not poetic figure to be

comparing things by their Padārthatva, it is not poetic figure

if it is too trite or too often repeated. Emotional intensity

and intellectual delights are derived only from such figures

as are ‘Āścaryabhūta’, and when there is not enough

‘Viadagdhya’ in the poet’s Vāk, the repetition is intolerable.

As a matter of fact, many Alaṅkāras have lost their force

and charm by the one reason of repetition. We do not simply

say, even in talks, one is named so, but only ‘नाम्ना भूषित’ ;

so much so, there is almost no effect produced when a poet

says मुवाम्बुज, मुकुरकपोल etc.

The inferior poets had ample Vyutpatti, unlit by imagi-

nation. As they were great scholars, we can rarely find a

70

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

technical flaw in their figures as figures. But the place where they abused is the same.1 It is their scholarship that bound them to the rule. When they got an imagery on their mind, they settled down to turn it into one of the Upamāgarbhālanikāras of the texts ; they chose one that they had not used up to that time; in their construction, they adopted the same manner of expression of that figure as given in the text-book and when there was no 'Lingavacana sāmya' for the Upamā, they artificially worked out by redistributions with the great control over lexicon and grammar they had, the conforming form of the figure. Things that are in pairs were often brought into singular number as occasion needed, and to coincide with a feminine stem, 'Padadvaya' would. become 'Padavyī.' Even Kāldāsa strains to achieve this formal correspondence. He takes the bees in a group in feminine gender to bear comparison with a lady, a single and feminine Upameya.

तं प्राप्य सर्वीयववानवचं न्यावर्ततान्योपगमात्कुमारी ।

न हि प्रफुल्लं सहकारमेत्य वृक्षान्तरं कांक्षति षट्पदाली ॥2

—R. V., VI, 69.

Let us turn to Rāmāyaṇa where this weight of Liṅgavacana sāmya does not hang on the poet :

अहं तु हतदारश्र राज्याच्च महतरश्च्युतः ।

नदीकूलमिव क्षितमवसीदामि लक्ष्मण ॥

—Rāmāyaṇa, Kiṣkindhā, 28, 58.

1 'विद्वांस एव ते न कवय:'—Rāmacandra, Nalavilāsa nāṭaka, Act vi, p. 77. Gaek. edn.

2 See also महाभृतः पुत्रवतोऽपि दृष्टि: तस्मिन्नपत्ये न जगाम तृष्णिम् ।

अनन्तपुष्पस्य मधोरिह चूतेऽद्रिरेफमाला सविशेषसक्ता ॥

—Kumāra sambhava, I.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAṄKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

71

पश्य रूपाणि सौमित्रे वनानां पुष्पशालिनाम् |

सृजतां पुष्पवर्षाणि तोयं तोयमुचामिव ॥—Kiṣ., I, 10.

नलिनानि प्रकाशन्ते जले तरुणसूर्यवत् ॥

„ „ 61.

A latter-day poet would have certainly stopped to abide by an Ālaṅkārika dictum and by some ‘Piṣṭapeṣaṇa’ and ‘Kliṣṭa Kalpana’ spoil the simple beauty of the idea presented by Vālmīki. Daṇḍin says that there are cases where neither Liṅga-disagreement nor Vacana-disagreement can spoil the beauty of an Upamā; the Sahṛdaya’s sense is the judge; if it is not disturbed, all is right with the figure :

न लिङ्गवचने भिन्ने न हीनाधिकतापि वा ।

उपमादूषणायालं यत्रोद्रेगो न धीमताम् ॥

श्रीव गच्छति षण्डोऽयं वक्येषा श्रीव पुमानिव ।

प्राणा इव प्रियोडयं मे विद्या धनमिवार्जिता ॥

—Daṇḍin, K.Ā., II, 51—3.

The following verse also is beautiful, despite liṅga-vacana-vyatyāsa :

परमातपव निर्झराः परकार्या(ण्य)णीव शीतला:(?) ।

सक्तवो भक्षिताराजन् शुद्धाः कुलवधूरिव ॥

Coming to the manner of expressing the similarity : Daṇḍin and others have given some words expressing similarity, Sādrśyavācaka śabdas. But ingenuity and eccentricity have invented other expressions to convey similarity. Śriharṣa employs these words of comparison—स्पृशति तत्कदनं कदलीतरः | Nai., IV, 8. We have other new and original words to suggest similarity—सब्रह्मचारिणी, सतार्थ्य, वर्तणडकः, संयूध्य, प्रतिद्वन्द्वी,

72

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

कल्हायमान etc.1 These words are in themselves condensed

metaphors and it is only after long Rūḍhi that they mean

simply ' similarity'. Till then the reader has to pass through

another metaphor to understand the main imagery. While it

must be accepted that it is highly diverting to have ever such

novel words of comparison, one cannot blind oneself to the

growing Aprasiddhi, involvedness and obscurity.

Considering the way in which figures are expressed : Even

very appropriate images are abused by strained expression,

resorted to with special effort, for the sake of variety as well

as metrical needs. If the poet gets a simile and gives it

natural expression which is in harmony with Rasa, there is

really effect and beauty in its employment. Poetry is after

all not an argument to be somehow read and understood;

it is something like a Mañjarī, as Bāṇa says. It has to leap

to our heart on even the mere hearing of it. Even as their

ideas, their expression also has to be beautiful.

अथवा मृदुवस्तु हिंसितुं मृदुनैवारभते प्रजान्तकः ।

हिमसेकविप्रचित्तत्र मृ नलिनी पूर्वनिदर्शनं मता ॥

—R.V., VIII, 45.

The second half here containing the figure is expressed in a

way that it is fit only to be in Tarka book. Like certain

words, only certain constructions are poetic. Such expressions

of Kālidāsa himself—‘ अतिष्ठदेकोनशतकतुत्वे ’ (R.V., III) and ‘ तव

कुसुमशरत्वं शीततरिमलत्वमिन्दौौयमिमदमयथार्थं हरयते मधुप्रेषु (S'āk.) are not

happy at all. S'rīharṣa often lapses into such wooden

1 The Lalitāstavaratna of Durvāsas and the Mūkapañcas'ati use

such expressions profusely but one does not dislike them in these

two masterly hymns. See also Āryastavarāja of a Tanjore Jagan-

nātha (Vānī Vilas edn.), another production in imitation of Durvā-

sas's Lalitāstavaratna.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

73

expressions and his Kāvya contains many sentences not more

poetic than his ‘ दृधृतावासमुखवत्‍वै: ’ Nai., II, 105.

Next in importance to the simile are Rūpaka and Ati-

sayokti. ‘Simile is used when there is a moderate degree of

excitation. When this is great, the mind naturally flies to the

metaphor as a more concentrated form of expression, represent-

ing many thoughts in a few words.’ When the emotion is

still greater, we resort to Atisayokti and even Atyukti. ‘These

metaphors play an important part in the economy of language,

the coining of metaphors being a means to our stock of names.’

Poets create the language of a people. ‘The element of re-

presentation, creation on the basis of similarity, is an essential

principle of all art and it is a factor in the construction of

language itself.’ Thus is language a book of faded metaphors.

‘Just as in the preponderance of the didactic and ex-

planatory tendency, considerations of thought overbalance

those of form, those of form overbalance those of thought in

the preponderance of the ornate tendency in which there is

failure because of an excess of representation. It is simply

natural for one who has obtained facility in illustrating his

ideas to overdo the matter at times and to carry his art so far

as to illustrate that which has been sufficiently illustrated or

is itself illustrative.’ As Ananda and Abhinava say, ‘Ati-

nirvāha’ is bad. It is not proper to work out in the following

manner Rūpakas fully and often, especially in a situation like

this full of Karuṇarasa :

अवगाढः सुदुष्पारं शोकसागरमनुव्रीत् ।

रामशोकमहाभोगः सीताविरहपारगः ॥

श्रसितोर्मिमहावर्तो बाष्पफेनजलाविलः ।

बाहुविक्षेपवारिौचः विक्रोम्तमहास्वनः ॥

74

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA SĀSTRA

प्रकीर्णकेसरौवाल: कैकेयीवडवामुख: ।

ममाश्रुवेगप्रभव: कुञ्जावाक्यमहाग्रह: ॥

वरवेलो कुशंसाया रामप्रव्राजनायात: ।

यस्मिन्मते निर्म्रोढुं कौसलyo रघवं विनीत् ।

दुस्तरो जीवता देवी ममायं शोकसागर: ॥

—Rām., Ayo., 59.

This is all the more inappropriate since it is not Kavivākya but a Pātravākya, words of the dying Dasaratha.' A similar artificial verse is found in Sugrīva's lament over the fallen body of his elder brother :

सौदर्यघातापरगात्रवाल: सन्तापहस्ताक्षिशिरोविषाण: ।

एनोमयो मामभिहन्ति हस्ती हत्सो नदीकूलमिव प्रवृद्ध: ॥

—Kiṣ., 24, 17.

The passion for figures makes a poet introduce them in such irrelevant places. Asvathāman, in deep grief at his father's death, is made to utter such a complicated expression of his sentiment :

तत्त्वरते मे तावत् तातपरिभवानलदग्यमानमिदं चेत: प्रतीकारजलावगाय ।

And in Act I, Bhāṭṭa Nārāyaṇa makes Bhīma say :

युष्मच्छासनलङ्घनान्म्मसि मया मग्रेन नाम स्थितम् ।

Poetry, being intended for the delight of the imagination, must be effective only through hint and suggestion ; and when

1 The author of the Imagery of Rāmāyaṇa (J.O.R., Madras, referred to above) characterises such instances as 'Symmetry-figures', those worked out for symmetry alone. The giving of a name to them does not take away their artificiality.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAṄKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

one makes it a bit of grammar or logic, it ceases to be poetry.

It is really surprising how there can be any beauty of figure in

such an unpoetic expression as Parisamkhyā which can never

be a spontaneous utterance. The following Parisamkhyā is a

description of the rain season in the Rāmāyaṇa :

वहन्ति वर्षन्ति नदन्ति भान्ति ध्यायन्ति नृत्यन्ति समाश्वसन्ति ।

नद्यो घना मत्तगजा वनान्ता: प्रियाविहीना: शिविन: प्रवङ्गा: ॥

—Kiṣ., 18. 27.

It is proper that Kuntaka should reject this ‘Alaṅkāra’.

From mere Rūpaka, the poet's first move in the world of

the image itself produces the Pariṇāmālaṅkāra, which is

Rūpaka with `Prakṛtopayogitva. This figure has been abused

very much. The poet moves on only in the world of imagery,

carried away by suggestions of further images from the details

of the first imagery. He does not beautify or illustrate the

main idea which he has now forgotten.

दोर्दण्डदर्पेस्तपनो यदीयस्तमो निरस्यन्नपि लोकवृत्ति ।

प्रत्यर्थिपृथ्वीपतिमण्डलस्य निमीलयामास मुखाम्बुजानि ॥

—Sahrdayānanda, I.

The first figure Rūpaka suggests a Pariṇāma and that is further

taken up to a Virodha and the last metaphor here—मुखाम्बु-

जानि—is wholly inappropriate as applied to the faces of enemies.

Such verses often become ununderstandable like puzzles,

three or four ideas intervening between the understanding

and the Rasa. Mahimā says :

‘त्रिभिरन्तरिता यथा . . . तदिदमुपाथपरम्परोपरोहनिस्सहा

न रसास्वादान्तिकमुपगन्थुमलमिति प्रहेलिकाप्रायं काव्यमेतत् . . . ।’

—V.V., I, T.S.S., pp. 17-18.

76

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

The same is the case with Paryāyokta,1 Preyān and Rasavadalankāras. The king or God is to be praised ; Prīti

for them is the main Rasa of the subject, but a minor Rasa is employed to adorn the main one. A far-fetched idea suggest-

ing some great quality of the king or God (which quality is left to hide itself in one small word) is elaborated and the

whole verse is burdened with a new picture which is a world by itself. The verse बल्लालक्षोणिपाल त्वदरिनगरे सङ्घरन्ती किराति

etc. quoted by Appayya dīkṣita in his Citramīmāmsā as an illustration of Uttarottarapallavitabhrānti aptly shows how

poets stray away from the main idea. This tendency is the main feature of the vast mass of court eulogies like the Pratā-

parudrīya (the Alaṅkāra work), Prāṇābharana, Rājendra-

karṇapūra etc. When Kālidāsa writes thus:

क्रियाप्रबन्धेषुयमध्वराणाम् अजसमाहूतसहस्रनेत्रः ।

शच्याश्रिरं पाण्डुकपोललम्बान् मन्दारशून्यानलकांशकार ॥

we have the main idea of the king incessantly doing sacrifices given adequate expression, but if we take a verse from the

Pratāparudrīya praising the king, we can see the poet rolling in the world of images themselves with little reference to the

king's qualities. Sometimes it seems that court-poetry will praise and pun and work conceits upon Gaṅgā, Kṣīrodadhi

and Candra themselves to the exclusion of what they are taken to represent, viz. the king's white fame.

Coming to Utprekṣā, we already saw one instance of a bad Utprekṣā from the Rāmāyaṇa Campū, वाणीविलासपमरत्र

etc., where the poet has gone contrary to the main theme. This figure especially shall always be closely connected with

the main theme and Rasa.

1 Vide above, criticism of चक्राभिघात etc.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAṄKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

77

गुरोनियोगाद्वनितां वदान्ते साध्वी सुमित्रातनयो जिहास्यन् ।

अवार्यतेवोस्थिथवीचिहस्तैः जहोदुहित्रा स्थितया पुरस्तात् ॥

—R. V., XIV, 51.

Here is an appropriate Utprekṣā, one in perfect consonance with the sentiment; Kālidāsa has heightened the Rasa by it.

But ingenuity and eccentricity formed the endowments of many poets who made conceits far-fetched and irrelevant.

Not to mention pleasure, even intellectual satisfaction is not produced by many Utprekṣās of S'riharṣa.

The Rasa is obscured to a single word.

As with hyperbole, so with conceits: the departure from truth must not be shocking.

Bain says: ‘Tiresome to us at least is the straining of this figure in Eastern Poetry’.

He says this of hyperbole and it is true also of conceit.

It is mistaken taste and scholarship that revels in these far-fetched figures.

लोकातीत इवार्थमध्यारोप्य विवक्षितः ।

योऽर्थस्तेनातितुष्ट्यन्ति विदग्धा नेतेरे जना: ॥

—Daṇḍin, K. Ā., 1.

Another figure with which Sanskrit composition is cheaply associated is Śleṣa.

As Keith points out, the lexicons and the Nānārthavargas did a very bad service in this connection.

It became impossible for a latter-day scholar to write except in double entendre and if we take a work like Vedāntades'ika's Subhāṣitanīvī, we can rarely find there a verse which has not got two meanings.

Sometimes we are able to set up similarity between both the ideas and sometimes we are left to satisfy ourselves with the mere pleasure of originality and admire the author's command over the language.

Often the puns revolve round silly and trivial

attributes. There are also cases of discord of varying nature

between the two ideas : the idea on hand, the Prākaraniika,

is Adhika, the other, Nyūna; the former noble, the latter,

base. The author of the Sahṛdayānanda makes a pun upon

such a trifle of an attribute as the owl having wings. It was the

boast of authors that they could pun at every step ; it was the

banner of their talents. Subandhu beats his own Paṭaha thus :

प्रत्यक्षरश्लेषमयप्रपञ्चविन्यासवैदग्ध्यनिर्धि प्रबन्धम् ।

सरस्वतीदत्तवरप्रसाद: चक्रे सुबन्धु: सुजनैकबन्धुः ॥

So much so that it became not only a possibility or ac-

complished fact but a practice of great fancy to produce

double, triple, and quadruple poems.1

But what exactly is the place of this figure? Has it any

charm to impart to the diction? It does help Alañkāra, all

Alañkāras except Svabhāvokti :

श्लेष: पुष्टिं सर्वासु प्रायो वक्रोक्तिषु श्रियम् ।—Daṇḍin.

Abhinava also points out that it helps Upamāgarbha figures.

Used with restraint, it can be charming and effective. The

two meanings must be well known; the figure must have

come off easily. Bāṇa says : श्लेषोऽलङ्कृष्टः । Harṣacarita.. The

following are two instances of simple and beautiful S’leṣa,

used with an eye to increase the effect of the situation :

वाष्पेण पिहितं दीनं रामस्सौमित्रिणा सह ।

चक्रर्षेव गुणैरब्ध्या जनं पुरनिवासिनम् ॥

—Rām., Ayo., 41. 12.

1

See my article ‘Anekasandhāna kāvyas’ in the Annals of the

Oriental Research Institute, University of Madras, Vol. III. pt. 1.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

79

शरत्कालं प्रतीक्षिष्ये स्थितोऽस्मि वचने तव ।

सुप्रीवस्य नदीना च प्रसादमनुपालयन् ॥

—Rām., Kiṣ., 27. 42.

Kālidāsa, who rarely resorts to this figure, gives a similar simple S'leṣa in his R. V., III :

न संयतस्तस्य बभूव रक्षितु: विसर्जयेचं सुतजन्महर्षित: ।

ऋणाभिधानात्स्वयमेव केवलं तदा पितॄणां मुमुचे स बन्धनात ॥

In Bāṇa, we meet with both uses and abuses of this figure. As in his life, so in his writings, Bāṇa was exuberant and was responsible for excess. He often forgot proportion and in Utprekṣā, he became endless sometimes, as in that long and tiring description of the king's elephant, Darpas'āta, in Ucchvāsa II of the Harṣacarita. He could deal in pointiless S'leṣas like वैनतेय इव गुरुपक्षपाती.

He was a master of S'abda-bhaṅgas'leṣa, in which the words have to be differently split for the two meanings. This Bhaṅgas'leṣa is denounced by foreigners; but those who have complete acquaintance and are familiar with all the nooks and corners of a language can understand a Bhaṅgas'leṣa very easily. S'leṣa in general is very effective in gnomic utterances where they help to nail the maxim into our head; they are equally catching in Cāṭus or eulogies. In Cāṭus, the Bhaṅgas'leṣa also is freely employed and in the following Cāṭu, Bhaṅgas'leṣa is certainly very striking :

भवान् हि भगवानेव गतो भेद: परस्परम् ।

महत्या गदया युक्त: सत्यभामाविराजित: ॥

When overdone or when handled by lesser artists, the Padabhaṅgas'leṣa can become one of the obstacles to

80

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

understanding and realization of Rasa. Ānandavardhana

classes it along with the Duṣkaras, the Yamaka, the Bandhas

etc. which have to be avoided during the delineation of Rasas

like S'ṛṅgāra, Vipralambha and Karuṇa.

—यमकप्रकाराणां निबन्धनं दुष्करशब्दभङ्गाश्लेषादीनां शक्तावपि

प्रमादित्वमिति ।—Dhva. Ā., p. 85.

As compared with this Bhaṅgas'leṣa of S'abda, Arthas'leṣa

is less of an impediment to Rasa ; used discriminately, it can

help Rasa even. Says Abhinava :

शब्दभङ्गाश्लेषेति । अर्थाश्लेषो न दोषाय, यथा रक्तस्वमित्यादि ।

शब्दभङ्गोऽपि कृष्ट एव दुष्टः, न तु अशोक-सशोकादौ ।

Locana, p. 85.

The next prominent figure which had found a place

in the Rāmāyaṇa and had become monotonous in later poets

is the Samāsokti. Poets see the world shaped in beauty.

To them there is music in the spheres. Words in the

feminine gender fascinates them.

तथा हि 'तटी तारं ताम्यति' इत्यत्र तटशब्दस्य पुंस्त्वनपुंसकत्वे

अनावृत्य स्त्रीत्वमेव आत्ते सहृदयः: 'स्तनभारौ मधुर' इति कृत्स्ना ।

—Locana, p. 160.

सति लिङ्गान्तरे यत्र शीलिङ्गं च प्रयुज्यते ।

शोभानिष्पत्तये यस्मिन् नामैव स्रीति पेशलम् ॥

—Vakroktijīvita, 93.

This employment of Samādhiguṇa ‘with which poets, as with

magic, give life and motion (emotion ?) to every inanimate

part of nature’ is praised by Daṇḍin as ‘Kāvya sarvasva.’

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAṄKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

81

तदेतत् काव्यसर्वस्वं समाधिनोऽम यो गुणः ।

कविसार्थस्समग्रोडपि तमेनमनुगच्छति ॥— K. Ā., I.

Samādhiguṇa produces the Samāsokti figure. Vālmīki has two

beautiful verses of this class, in the former of which elements

of Samāsokti go to beautify the main figure of Upamā.

सेवमाने हृयं सूर्ये दिशमन्तकसेविताम् ।

विहीनतिलकेव स्री नोत्तरा दिक् प्रकाशते ॥—Āraṇya, 16. 8.

चष्यचन्द्रकरस्पर्शसमुन्मीलिततारका ।

अहो रागवती सन्ध्या जहाति स्वयमंबरम् ॥

—Kiṣkindhā, 30. 46.

There are some very fine verses of this type in Canto XI of

the S'iśupālavadha where Māgha gives us a description of

dawn. But soon, poets with neither originality nor restraint,

began to repeat images ; the same three or four objects, the

sun, the moon, the Padminī, the Kairaviṇī, the Prācī and the

Pratīcī diks were exploited for many verses together, the

points of attraction dwindling to trifles, and with variety

almost non-existent. Gradually this figure became intellectual

and no wonder, it begot the new subvarity called S'āstra-

samāsokti.

In Sanskrit Literature, there are some strange metaphors

at which some English critics evince surprise. As for

instance, we never have simple Asi (sword), but have only

असिलता. Among our own critics, Kṣemendra has said—in his

Aucityavicāracarcā—that such a delightful object as moon

ought not to be conceived as Citācakra. Things repellent

and terrible by :themselves must never be conceived in

images of charm and love. But while describing the death

82

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

of enemies, their sufferings etc., the poet does employ such

imagery, sometimes in callousness and sometimes in the light

vein. The falling warriors are said to embrace Earth ; and

Kālidāsa describes Tāṭakā passing away into Death's abode

as going to her lover.

S'āstrasamāsokti has given rise to sheer pedantry. In

an age of poetry when poets were scholars with Vyut-

patti in all the Darśanas and branches of learning,

nothing could satisfy the writer or reader but high-flown

rapprochement with S'āstraic ideas. Viśākhadatta's claim

for dramatic genius will hardly become less if he had not

written साध्ये निश्चितमन्वयेन घटितं बिभ्रत्सपक्षे स्थितिं etc. The

Naiṣadhakāra's own Diṇḍima is on this point—ग्रन्थप्रन्थ्यरिह

कोविदकविदपि न्यासि प्रयत्नान्मया।

All the Darśanas and the subt-

leties thereof find a place in his poem. See the Tarka here :

'अनुमितोडपि स वाष्पनिरिक्षणात् व्यभिच्चार न तापकरोडनलः' IV.

Naiṣadha. Surely, poetry must give Upadeśa ; the sublime

thoughts, the deep philosophies—all these the poet must give

expression to ; but this S'āstrasamāsokti is hardly that.

The last Alañkāra that we shall consider here specially is

that variety of Aprastutapraśaṃsā or Anyokti called Anyā-

padeśa. If poetry is a criticism of life, Anyāpadeśa is poetry

above all other types. In it, the poet points out the flaws and

failings of men, praises their nobility, bitingly remarks about

men's meanness, and makes fun of and satirises every aspect of

human character. Bhaṭṭa Bhallaṭa's century of Anyāpadeśa

has some very fine verses. Nīlakaṇṭha dīkṣita's Anyāpadeśa

is unequalled in this branch. In the anthologies, there are

some brilliant Anyāpadeśa verses. Most of the other Anyā-

padeśa centuries are trash. A few objects like the sea, the sun,

the moon, the lotus, the Kokila and the mango in contrast with

the crow and the Margosa, the rains and the frogs—these

trite things in some stale ideas were exploited for a hundred and more verses. The poet did not pick out any particular,

subtle or prominent defect of humanity to criticize, or good quality to praise. Not feeling anything to write a verse with

life, these poets dashed off verse after verse, retailing one triviality after another. Anyāpades'a is a type of literature

that can never be written at a sitting, by Āśukavis, but must be written on occasions, must be made to accumulate into a

collection in the course of the varied life of a poet, full with experience. If Bhallaṭa wrote the verse on the ignoble Dust,

which, by the kicking up of the fickle wind, got on the very tops of the mountains—ये जायो लघवः सदैव गणनां याता न ये

कुत्नचित etc., we know Bhallaṭa felt the poignant grief ; we know from the Rājataranginī that in the reign of the mean

and wicked S'ankaravarman (A.D. 882—902), great men like poet Bhallaṭa had to earn their livelihood by doing all sorts of

services, that poets were not given gifts and that peons drew fabulous salaries, holding high authority.'

1

त्यागभीर्त्या तस्मिन् गुणिसंगपराड्मुखे ।

आसेवन्ताराः वृत्तीः कवयो भल्लटादयः ॥

निर्वेतनासुकन्यो, भारिको लघडस्त्वभूत् ।

प्रसादातस्य दीनारसहस्रदयवेतनः ॥

See also my article on the Bhallata S'ataka in the Annals of the Venkatesvara Oriental Institute, Tirupati, Vol. I. No. 1.

84

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

We have thus far considered figures of sense. Poetry, as it is required to be sensuous, must be pleasing to the ear also. The form of the form itself must be beautiful, must have a music and flow. The poet must look to harmony, balance, and climax in his sentences. Metre itself owes its origin to this requirement as also to the emotional outburst. Keith grants that the Sanskrit poets have ‘certainly a better ear than themselves (foreigners) to the music of the words’—the appropriateness of sound to suggest the meaning and sentiment. What a verse did Bhavabhūti write !

वज्रादपि कठोराणि मृदूनि कुसुमादपि ।

लोकोत्तराणां चेतांसि को हि विज्ञातुमर्हति ॥

It is really a marvel of sound effect that Bāṇa produces with utmost ease :

‘अपराद्धप्रचारप्रचलिते चामरिणि चामीकृततटतताड़नरणितरदने

रदति सुरसवतीरोघांसी स्वैरमैरावते ।’

‘क्रमेण अधोड्योधावमानधवलपयोधराम्’

‘ग्राहग्रामग्रामस्कलनमुखरितम्रोतसम्’—Harṣacarita, I.

‘विरलीभवति व्रजतां व्रजावलाश्रयिणीनां मञ्जुगुणी मञ्जीरशिञ्जि-

तजडे जल्पिते ।’—Ibid., III.

One cannot pick out in Bāṇa ; the reader with keen sensibility hears the metallic sound of Airāvata striking its tusk on a golden pavement, sees the rolling clouds, sees the current stumbling and rushing out of each of the three blocking words, Grāva, Grāha, Grāma ; and in the `stillness of his mind, he feels the long-drawn silvery voice of female swans, in the ponds on the outskirts of the city, slowly dying. Colour,

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

85

smell, sound and touch we are able to directly realize in

Kālidāsa's verse :

दीर्घीकुर्वनपटुमदकलं कूजितं सारसानां

प्रत्युषे षुफुटितकमलामोदमात्रीकषाय :

यत्न शृङ्गां हरति सुरतस्नानिमगानुकूल-

रिश्रावात: प्रियतम इव प्रार्थनाचाटुकार: ॥

Note especially the onomatopoeic effect of the sibilant

'S', doubled by the Sandhi, in the expression 'S'ipravātah'.

When Kālidāsa said of Aja, 'तल्पमुज्ज्वांचकार', we see how Aja

briskly rose up from his bed, unlike the slothful and sleepy;

and the sternness of Nandin's command to the Ganas not to

give way to Cāpala, rings in our own ears when we read—

तच्छासनात्कननमेव सर्वे चित्रापितारम्भभिवावतस्ये ।—K.S., III.

Bhavabhūti was as great a master with the words; surely the

delicate and charming effects are easy of achievement for him

when they are needed; but he discovered the sound effects

required for the Raudra and Bībhatsa Rasas; what he created,

others still live upon. In the S'mas'ānānka of the Mālatī-

mādhava, he makes one's flesh creep, hairs stand on end, and

feet step back in fright. The owl, the jackal, the water of

the river rushing through skeletons,—eeriness gathers round

when we read

गुज्जत्कुञ्जकुटीरकौशिकघटाटङ्कारसंवेल्लित-

कन्दत्फेरवचण्डधात्कृतिभृतप्राग्भारभीमैस्तटै: ।

अन्त: कीर्णकरकपररतरतसंरोधिकूलंकष-

सोऽनिगमघर्घररवो पारेमशानं सारत ॥—M.M.

86

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Take that verse again in his Mahāvīracarita which brings on Tāṭakā, the demoness—

अन्तमोतवृंहत्वपालनलककूरकरणत्कंकण etc.1

The concepts of Rīti and Vṛtti in poetics owe their formulation to a study of these sound-effects. These also count for Rasa. It is said that the first gait of the actor on the stage interprets him and his character to the audience; that first impression stands to the last. So also the first effect a verse on its mere reading or hearing produces, holds the mind to the end. For the Rasa to be suggested, even the jingle in the sounds or the clash of words is welcome and appropriate means.

A further carrying out of these ideas gives rise to the S'abdālaṅkāra of Anuprāsa of different varieties. But Yamakas, as Daṇḍin says, are not good—ततु नै कान्तमधुरम्. They have least to do with Rasa. Ānandavardhana lays down the following rules for the use of Anuprāsa and Yamaka :

शृङ्गारस्याङ्गिनो यत्रादेकरूपानुबन्धनात् ।

सर्वेष्वेव प्रभेदेषु नानुप्रास: प्रकाशक: ॥

ध्वन्यासम्भूते शृङ्गारे यमकादिनिबन्धनम् ।

शक्तावपि प्रमादितं विप्रलंभे विशेषत: ॥

—Dhva. Ā., p. 85; Kār. 15-16.

In such Rasas as S'ṛṅgāra and Karuṇa, the elaborate and artificial figures of sound have no place. Vālmīki has shown that in a mere description, rhymes find a proper place. The famous description of the moonlight night in the Sundarakāṇḍa 'स तत्र मध्यंगतमञ्जुमन्तम् etc.' is an example. There is a particular

1Vide below chapter on Aucitya. Also Dhva. A., III.

tendency in the Rāmāyaṇa, which is seen even in the Ṛgveda,

to juxtapose similar sound groups, an effect which Kāli-

dāsa and Asvaghoṣa adopted from the master. Vālmīki

writes—‘पद्भ्यां पादवतीं वरः’, ‘दक्षिणो दक्षिणां दिशम्’, ‘रावणो

लोकरावणः’ etc. These do not do violence to the sense and

at the same time add to the charm of the diction. Kālidāsa

in his Raghuvaṃśa especially delights in such innocent

assonances :

तस्मै सभ्या: सभार्याय गोत्रे गुप्ततमेन्द्रिया: ।

अर्हणामहते चक्रु: मुनयो नयचक्षुषे ॥—R.V., I.

इत्यं द्विजेन द्विजराजान्त: आवेदितो वेदविदां वरेण ।

प्तोनिवृत्तेन्द्रियगतिरेनं जगद् भयो जगदेकनाथ: ॥

—R.V., V.

ततो मृगेन्द्रस्य मृगोन्द्रगामी etc. R.V., II.

Cf. S’rīharṣa, Naiṣadha, VI, 1.

दूत्याय दैत्यारिपते: प्रवृत्त: द्विषां निषेध्दा निषधप्रधान: ।

स भीमभीमपतिराजधानी लक्ष्मीचकाराथ रथस्यदस्य ॥

Yamaka differs in that it needs special effort and drags

the poet away from his Samādhi in Rasa. Not only that :

However much, like a latter-day adept at this Yamaka-craft,

a poet may get it easily, it is bad and improper in so far as it

distracts and stops our minds from proceeding beyond itself,

our minds which must reach the ‘Rasa’ obscured in the inner

sanctum. (See Dhva. Ā., p. 85). In the ninth canto of the

Raghuvaṃśa however, the theme is only a description of

summer and the hunt of the king. In such places, Ānanda

allows option in using the Yamaka. But there are descrip-

tions both by Vālmīki and Kālidāsa which do not employ

88

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

sound-figures and link every descriptive detail with the context.

For example, the Vasan­ta-description opening the Kiṣkindhā-

kāṇḍa and the Śarad-description in Canto IV of the Raghu-

vamśa. The canonists permit the Yamaka-nad and Duṣkara-

mad poets to satisfy themselves in situations of Rasābhāsa.

The Bandhas of various types, Ekākṣara, Niroṣṭhya—these

have nothing to do with poetry. It is regrettable that after

Bhāravi and Māgha, these became part of the definition of

Mahākāvya.

A bad ideal for prose was deduced by the latter-day poets

from Bāṇa and from such remarks as गयं कवीनां निकषं वदन्ति,

ओजस्समासभूयस्त्वमेतद्वयस्य जीवितम् etc. Without endless com-

pounds and jingle of sounds, no prose was possible after a time.

So much so that as time passed, certain word groups were

effected, one word in which would not occur without the

other. मह्ट्री would not come out without वह्ट्री and the sound

of नूपुर will always be introduced as ‘मञ्जुमञ्जीरशिञ्जा’.

In ideas and words, a stock

diction had grown and poesy became a mechanical craft.

In his book on Poetic Diction, Thomas Quayle says of the 18th

century poetry in England : ‘And the same lack of direct

observation and individual expression is obvious whenever the

classicists have to mention birds or animals. . . . . . .

. . . . And it has been well remarked that if we are to

judge from their verse, most of the poets of the first quarter

of the eighteenth century knew no bird except the gold finch

or nightingale and even these probably only by hearsay.

For the same generalised diction is usually called upon and birds

are merely a “feathered”, “tuneful”, “plumy” or “warbling” choir . . . ’.

How true these remarks are of our

Sanskrit poets who produced Mahākāvya­s at the shortest notice,

who could describe the Himalayas and the Ganges and the

ocean without seeing them and at whose command there were

Kos'as and stock expressions and stock ideas, white fame of

the king like the autumnal moonlight, the blazing sun of

his prowess, the Vasanta, the Malaya māruta, the भृंगीसंगीत

and so on. To this race of poets apply these lines of

Keats :

Beauty was awake !

Why were ye not awake ? But ye were dead

To things ye knew not of,—were closely wed

To musty laws lined out with wretched rule

And compass vile ; so that ye taught a school

Of dolts to smooth, inlay, and clip, and fit,

Till, like the certain wands of Jacob's wit,

Their verses tallied. Easy was the task :

A thousand handicraftsmen wore the mask

Of Poesy.

—Sleep and Poetry.

To conclude, poetry is neither pure emotion and thought

nor mere manner. A beautiful idea must appropriately in-

carnate itself in a beautiful expression. This defines Alañkāra

and its place and function. The function of Alañkāra is to

heighten the effect ; it is to aid the poet to say more pointedly.

Whether the poet exalts or does the opposite, Alañkāra is to

help him. Says Mahimabhaṭṭa :

विनोत्कर्षपकर्षाभ्यां स्वदन्तेऽर्थो न जातुचित् ।

तदर्थमेव कवयोऽलङ्कारान्प्रयुपासते ॥

—V.V., T.S.S., p. 53.

As such, these Alañkāras should flow out of Rasa. Even as

emotion is depicted, these must come off, without the poet

consciously striving after them. They must be 'irremovable';

90

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

structural, organic : Rasākṣipta, Aprthag yatna nirvartya.

These words of Mahimabhaṭṭa are pertinent here :

किच्च सौन्दर्योतिरेकनिष्पत्तयेडर्थस्य काव्यकीयारंभः कवे:, न तु अलङ्कारनिष्पत्तये, तेषां नान्तरीयकतयैव तत्सिद्धे:, भङ्गिभणितिमेदानामेव अलङ्कारत्वोपगमात् ।

न चालङ्कारनिष्पत्त्यै रसबन्धोद्यतः कवि: ।

यतते, ते हि तत्सिद्धिनान्तरीयकसिद्धय: ॥ 1

V.V., II., T.S.S., p. 87.

Figures are thus legitimate, though a proper use of them is a gift which only the greater among the poets are endowed with.

Be it a S'abda-alañkāra or an Artha-alañkāra, be it a sound-effect or a striking turn of the idea, it is not 'Bahi-

raṅga' for Rasa, so long as it is useful for Rasa.

Effective expression, the embodiment of the poet's idea, is Alaṅkāra.

It is not as if it were in some separate place, like jewels in a box, to be taken and added.

As has been explained in the opening part of this chapter, it is the several ways of expressing ideas which are to convey the Rasa that are called Alaṅkāras.

—युक्तं चैतत्। यतो रसा वाच्यविशेषैरेव आक्षेप्तव्या:, तत्प्रतिपादके च शब्दे:, तत्काशिनो वाच्यविशेषा एव रूपकादयोऽलङ्कारा: । तस्मात् तेषां बहिरङ्गत्वं रसाभिव्यक्तौ ।—Ānanda, p. 87.

रसस्याऽज्ञं विभावाद्या: साक्षान्निष्पादकत्वतः ।

तद्वैचित्र्योक्तिप्रपञ्चोऽलङ्कारास्तु तदाश्रया: ॥

—Mahimā., p. 87.

1 Vide also the Āntara S'lokas 76-77 on p. 87, V.V.

There are very valuable ideas on Alaṅkāra-aucitya in Vimarsa Two of the Vyaktiviveka.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALAÑKĀRA IN SANSKRIT

From Rasa to the musical sound which aids its realisation,

poetry is one unity, one complex of rich experience.

The purposiveness of Alaṅkāra is inevitable like the pur-

posiveness of poetry. But this does not mean that one

should judge Alaṅkara and poetry from a purely utilitarian

point of view. There is simply beautiful poetry, which is

nothing but the poet's desire to express taken shape. ‘These

very decorations carry the emotional motive of the poet which

says “I find joy in my creations; it is good”.1 ‘When in

some pure moments of ecstasy we realise this in the world

around us, we see the world not as merely existing but as

decorated in its forms, sounds, colours, and lines, we feel in

our hearts that there is one who through all things proclaims

“I have joy in my creation”.1 Nature is the creation of

God's Līlā, Poetry, of the poet's Līlā.

1 Tagore.

THE HISTORY OF SVABHĀVOKTI IN SANSKRIT POETICS

जातिमिव अलङ्कृतिनां . . . अधिकमुद्रासमानाम् ॥

—Dhanapāla's Tilakamañjarī, p. 130.

It is a proper emphasis on both the content, Emotion and Thought, and the form, the Poetic Expression,1 that is contained in the dictum of the Sanskrit critics that poetry is Uk ti pradhāna or Abhidhā pradhāna. As Tauta says in the well-known passage quoted by Hemacandra (K.A., p. 316), one may have the vision, Darśana, and be only a seer, Ṛṣi, but he becomes a poet, Kavi, only when he renders that vision into beautiful language, Varnanā. The poetic expression is, generally speaking, heightened or made striking by an out-of-the-way-ness, which is called Vakrokti or Alaṅkāra. This figurative strikingness is pervasive of the whole range of the form and helps to detect poetry. When the figurative deviation from the ordinary mode of speaking is scrutinized, it is found that, in some cases, the deviation is more than in other cases. Indeed, there are cases which do not show any determinable and definable deviation, cases which we call ‘natural description’. Such ‘natural description’, when it is of an emotional situation is called a case of Rasa, or Rasa-uk ti according to Bhoja; and when it is of anything else or of an

1 Says Oscar Wilde in his Picture of Dorian Gray, p. 159 :

‘For, canons of good society are, or should be, the same as canons of art. Form is absolutely essential to it.

HISTORY OF SVABHĀVOKTI

93

object of Nature, it is called Svabhāvokti. To a survey of the

history of this concept, Svabhāvokti, is this chapter devoted.

We first catch sight of Svabhāvokti in the introductory

verses in Bāṇa's Harṣacarita :

नवोढा जातिरग्राम्या ह्रषीकदृष्टः स्फुटो रसः ।

विकटाक्षरवन्धश्र्च कृतकामेकत्र दुर्लभम् ॥

Jāti is the old name of Svabhāvokti. Bāṇa says that Jāti or

Svabhāvokti must not be Grāmya, ordinary, vulgar, insipid or

stale. Jāti is the statement of things as they are. That is

what the ordinary speaker and writer make; poverty of poetic

power, absence of a wizard-force with words, a sense of bare

necessity, parsimony in expression, a sense of sufficiency, an

anxiety to state the bare truth with absolute fidelity to facts—

these produce a kind of expression which is a bare statement

of things as they are. Ordinary talk, legal expressions, and

scientific writings are examples. These two, ordinary bald

talk and the technical jargon of science, Laukika and S'āstrīya

expressions, are both excluded from the scope of Jāti. Jāti is

a poet's statement of the natural state of things. Hence does

Bāṇa say that Jāti has to be Agrāmya.1

1 Vidyānātha qualifies Svabhāvokti by the word Cāru :

स्वभावोक्तिरसौ चारु यथावद्वस्तुवर्णनम् ।

And Kumarasvāmin explains that Cāru means Agrāmya : only a

beautiful statement of things as they are, is Svabhāvokti :

यत्र चारु सम्यगग्राम्यम् । . . . अत एवं ग्राम्यं नालङ्कार: इत्युक्तं दोषप्रकरणे ।

Pra. rud. Bāla m. Edn., p. 297.

This Cārutva and Agrāmyatā are involved in the very conception

of the Svabhāvokti Alaṅkāra and hence, Kuntaka's fear that the

cart-driver's talk also will become Svabhāvokti is unfounded.

स्वभावयुक्तमेव सर्वथा अभिधेयपदवीमततरतोति शाकटिकवाक्यानामपि सालङ्कारता

प्राप्ति:, स्वभावयुक्तत्वे । V.J. 1, p. 24.

94

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

How this ‘natural description’ came to be called Jāti is

a question worth investigating. Perhaps Jāti refers to its origin

from the root ‘Jan’ and means the presence or presentation

of things as they arise or are. Or Jāti refers to the general

characteristics that go to mark out a thing or a class of things.1

Objects like trees, birds and deer are described, delineating

graphically the attributes and actions of their class. This

would form a description of Jāti and perhaps this was the

earliest variety of natural description to be recognized and

christened, among Alañkāras. As a matter of fact, we find

Dandin giving four classes of Svabhāvokti,—Jāti, Dravya,

Guṇa and Kriyā. It is reasonable to believe that the first and

earliest variety, Jāti, was extended as name to the rest also.

Says Dandin :

स्वभावोक्तिश्च जातिश्रेयस्यां सालङ्कृतीर्यथा । II. 8.

जाति-क्रिया-गुण-द्रव्य-स्वभावाल्यानमीदृशम् । II. 13.

And he illustrates Jāti-svabhāvokti by a description of the class-

attributes of the species of birds called parrots :

शुण्डैराताम्रकुटिलैः पक्षैर्हरितकोमलैः ।

तिर्यग्जालिभिः कण्ठैः पादैः पञ्जरस्थैः शुकैः ॥ II. 9.

We miss the word Jāti in Bhāmaha but not the concept

of ‘natural description’. In the introductory paragraph, it

was pointed out that the proper cloak of poetic idea is a

stricking form, emphatic by virtue of its heightened nature ;

but that within its realm, there are varying degrees of striking-

1 Compare the discussion in S’āstras about Jāti as a Padārtha,

along with Vyakti and Ākrti. The view that ‘Jāti’ is Padārtha

was held by Vājapyāyana and also by the Mīmāṃsakas.

ness and deviations from the normal mode of expression ; and that, comparatively speaking, there are cases in which such deviation is least and which, as a consequence, are called Svabhāva-ukti, 'natural expression'.1 Now, Bhāmaha proceeded with his treatment of poetry thus : Flaws must be avoided in expression and though a flawless piece by itself may be lovely, because of its natural beauty, yet embellishments beautify it, as ornaments beautify even the naturally lovely face of a woman.

रूपकादिरलङ्कार: तस्यान्यैरैवभूषोदित: । न कान्तमपि निर्भूषं विभाति वनितामुखम् ॥ I. 13.

When Bhāmaha says thus that a lovely face does not shine without ornaments, he seems to contradict himself. The conclusion we can draw from this verse is that though Bhāmaha emphasizes ornament very much, he is aware of a beauty which is natural to a piece of poetry, and which is not born of ornament. This ornament or Alañkāra is a certain striking deviation in expression for Bhāmaha. When no such striking deviation is recognizable, the expression is no Alañkāra. This is clear when Bhāmaha refutes Hetu, Sūkṣma and Leśa as Alañkāras, since, according to him, the expression as a whole in these cases does not show any Vakrokti.

हेतुः सूक्ष्मोदथ लेशश्च नालङ्कारतया मतः । समुदायाभिधानस्य वक्रोक्त्यनभिधानतः ॥ II. 86.

1 Rudraṭa made such an analysis of figures and his first class of Alañkāras forming the Vāstava group involves the least figurative Vaicitrya. Of the many in this group, the Vāstava figure par excellence, as Namisādhu specially points out, is Jāti. And it is because Jāti concerns itself directly with the thing as it is, without any great śabda vaicitrya, that Bhoja counts Jāti as an Arthālaṅkāra and that, the first.

96

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA SĀSTRA

If this Vakratva is not to be found, the expression is mere

' news', mere information-giving ; it is Vārtā. Following the

above quoted verse, Bhāmaha says :

गतोऽस्तमको भाति नु. यान्ति वासाय प्रातिप्रा: ।

इत्येवमादि किं काव्यं? वार्तामेनां प्रकक्षते ॥ II. 87.

The first line here is an instance of an utterance which as a

whole, Samudāya abhidhāna, is bereft of any Vakrokti ; and

this is what is called Vārtā, news. Thus as against poetry,

there is set this Vārtā, which may be inspid Loka Vārtā or

technical S'āstra Vārtā. Vārtā, however, differs from Jāti or

Svabhāvokti; for Vārtā is, to adopt Bāṇa's language, Grāmyā

Jātiḥ. Thus we have ordinary expression which is Vārtā;

then natural poetic expression called Jāti or Svabhāvokti and

then Vakrokti.

If these meanings are not settled thus, there will arise a

loose use of Vārtā or Jāti. Daṇḍin uses the word Svabhāvokti

or Jāti loosely when he says: शाखावेषस्यैव साम्राज्यम्; he refers

here to Vārtā only. Similarly Vārtā also has been loosely

used as a synonym of Jāti. Just after Atisayokti, Yathāsaṁ-

khya and Utprekṣā, we find Bhaṭṭi illustrating a figure called

Vārtā, by a verse describing the mountain Mahendra.

वार्ता—विषधरनिलये निविष्टमूलं शिखरशतै: परिमृष्टदैवलोकम् ।

घनविपुलनितम्बपूरिताशं फलकुसुमाचितवृक्षरम्यकुज्जम् ॥

X. 45.

This shows that Vārtā is meant as a synonym of Jāti or Sva-

bhāvokti and that in the pre-Bhāmaha literature, Svabhāvokti

was recognized by some, some called it Svabhāvokti, others

Jāti and still others Vārtā. Bhaṭṭi must be taken to call it

HISTORY OF SVABHĀVOKTI

97

Vārtā. The Viṣnudharmottara, in its small section on Alañ-kāra, calls it Vārtā :

यथास्वरूपकथनं वसन्तेति परिकीर्तितम् ।

In Bhāmaha, we find Vārtā used separately from Svabhāvokti ; he restricts Vārtā to non-poetic utterances in which there is no Vakrokti. Daṇḍin does not mention the word Vārtā, (amidst Alañkāras) but uses the words Jāti and Svabhāvoktiassynonyms.

The Jayamaṅgalā on Bhaṭṭi has an original explanation to offer on Vārtā, not found elsewhere. It says :

वार्तेति तत्त्वार्थकथनात् । सा विशिष्टा, निर्विशिष्टा च । तत्र या पूर्वा सा स्वभावोक्तिरुदिता, यथेयमेव । तथाचोक्तम्—

स्वभावोक्तिरलङ्कार: इति केचित्प्रचक्षते । अर्थस्य तादवस्थ्ये च स्वभावोऽभिहितो यथा ॥

(Bhāmaha, II, 93.)

निर्विशिष्टा वार्ता नामालङ्कार: । यथोक्त—

गतोडस्तमकौ भातीन्दु: यान्ति वासाय पक्षिण: ।

इत्येवमादिकं काव्यं वार्तामेनां प्रचक्षते ॥ इति

Under X, 46, N.S. Edn.

In Bhaṭṭi, the word Svabhāvokti is absent. There is only Vārtā, which is illustrated by a natural description of a

1 There is a good amount of difference between the Jayamaṅgalā and Mallinātha's gloss on Bhaṭṭi on the question, which Alañkāra is illustrated in which verse by Bhaṭṭi. अथ लक्षण etc. X. 42 or 43 is an illustration of Svabhāvokti for Mallinātha and of Atis'ayokti (what a difference !) for the Jayamaṅgalā. If the Jayamaṅgalā sees Vārtā in X. 45 or 46, Mallinātha sees Atis'ayokti there. In the case of some verses, Mallinātha does not point out any figure. And this difference between the commentators on Bhaṭṭi does not seem to have been pointed out by scholars.

7

98

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA SĀSTRA

mountain. From this we concluded that Bhaṭṭi must be

understood to hold according to writers whom Bhāmaha did

not follow, that Vārtā was synonymous with Jāti and Svabhā-

vokti. But the Jayamaṅgalā is a close follower of Bhāmaha

whose text alone it quotes. It explains Bhaṭṭi by Bhāmaha

and naturally there is some difficulty. The Jayamaṅgalā

starts with two definite ideas: (1) that Bhāmaha accepts an

Alaṅkāra called Svabhāvokti and (2) that the verse on Vārtā is

a verse on an Alaṅkāra called Vārtā, with an illustration in

the first line. Hence, the Jayamaṅgalā reads the verse on

Vārtā differently :

इत्येवमादिकं काव्यं वार्तामेनाॅं प्रचक्षने।

इत्येवमादि किं काव्यं वार्तामेनाॅं प्रचक्षते।

Having started with these two ideas, the Jayamaṅgalā

has to indicate the difference between Vārtā and Svabhāvokti.

It says ingeniously that there is one major Alaṅkāra called

Vārtā which is the stating of things in strict accordance to their

natural state and that it has two subdivisions, Visiṣṭa and

Nirvisiṣṭa. The Visiṣṭa Vārtā is called Svabhāvokti and the

Nirvisiṣṭa vārtā is simply Vārtā. Bhaṭṭi's verse is an illustra-

tion of the former. From the Jayamaṅgalā's remarks, we see

that by ‘Visiṣṭa’, it means the description of one particular

object with its attributes, and by ‘Nirvisiṣṭa’, the description

of a composite view of Nature ; the former is illustrated by

Bhaṭṭi's description of Mt. Mahendra with its attributes, and

the latter by ‘गतोऽस्तमकः etc.’1

1 Dr. S. K. De says (Skr. Poe., I, p. 53) that Bhatti does not

recognize Svabhāvokti. We do not know that, for as Dr. De

himself points out (p. 52), the Jayamaṅgalā is the guide to

know what Bhaṭṭi recognized and illustrated. According to

But Bhāmaha kept Vārtā and Svabhāvokti separate. The latter, he refers to as an Alañkāra and illustrates. The former, he refers to with derision, as a name for insipid detailing of some facts, for expressions devoid of striking deviation. Closely following, as it does, his rejection of Hetu, Sūkṣma and Leśa which do not show any Vakratva, the verse does not seem to yield itself to the different reading and consequent different meaning which the Jayamaṅgalā gives it. That the verse mentioning Hetu, Sūkṣma and Leśa and the next verse speaking of ‘गतोऽस्तमर्कः etc.’ as mere Vārtā, go together is proved by a reference to Daṇḍin where Bhāmaha, II, 86-87 are taken together. Daṇḍin, in the Hetucakra, speaks of ‘गतोऽस्तमर्कः etc.’ as Jñāpaka Hetu Alañkāra and considers it as ‘Uttamabhūṣaṇa’ as if to spite him who referred to Hetu together with Sūkṣma and Leśa as no Alañkāra at all.

Thus I am of opinion that the word Vārtā in Bhāmaha is no name of an Alañkāra. Dr. De is of opinion that there is an Alañkāra called Vārtā which Bhāmaha mentions and rejects in the passage discussed above. On p. 36 of Vol. II of his Poetics, he says that in the second stage of the development of Alañkāras was added ‘a seventh figure Vārtā which is referred to by Daṇḍin in I. 85 but which is not accepted by Bhāmaha’. On p. 109, ibid., he says : ‘With Bhāmaha, he (Daṇḍin) alludes to Vārtā (I. 85) which is illustrated by Bhaṭṭi, but which disappears from later poetics, being included perhaps in the scope of Svabhāvokti. Mr. P. V. Kane also opines that in the passage discussed above, an Alañkāra called Vārtā, Mallinātha, X, 42 (or 43) अथ लक्षणं etc. is Bhaṭṭi’s illustration of Svabhāvokti ; and in X, 45 (or 46) where the Jayamaṅgalā sees Vārtā, Mallinātha sees Atis’yokti !

1 From this we have to infer that some predecessor of Bhāmaha whom Bhāmaha criticises but whom Daṇḍin follows, gave the instance गतोऽस्तमर्कः etc. and held it as an Alañkāra called Hetu.

100

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Vārtā is rejected by Bhāmaha. Such a view does not seem to be tenable. The Jayamaṅgalā which speaks of a Vārtālaṅkāra has a curious reading for the second line of Bhāmaha's verse. This reading itself does not agree with the context in Bhāmaha. If Bhāmaha is refuting an Alaṅkāra of some predecessor called Vārtā in that verse, the verse must have been written otherwise. As it is, it must be taken as closely connected with the previous verse refuting Hetu, Sūkṣma and Leśa and must be taken to give an instance of an ‘Abhidhāna samudāya’, an expression as a whole, which has no Vakrokti (Vakrooktyanabhidhāna) ; and hence a case of no Kāvya (इत्येवमादि किं काव्यम्?) but only a bald communication of facts (वात॑मेनां प्रचक्षते). It is clear that in Bhāmaha, Vārtā is not used as the name of an Alaṅkāra. Nor has Vārtā the Alaṅkāra anything to do with the word Vārtā in Daṇḍin, I. 85, but of which more in the section on Daṇḍin.

Soon, finishing a few Alaṅkāras, Bhāmaha comes to Svabhāvokti :

स्वभावोक्तिरलङ्कार इति केचित्प्रचक्षते ।

अर्थस्य तदवस्थत्वं स्वभावोऽभिहितो यथा ॥

आक्रोशनाह्वानन्यायैराधावनमण्डलैरुदन् (or नुदन्) ।

गा वारयति दण्डेन गोपः सस्यावतारिणीः ॥ II. 93-94.

There is a discussion among scholars on the question: Did Bhāmaha accept Svabhāvokti as an Alaṅkāra? Some say that the somewhat in different reference to it in the words ‘इति केचित्प्रचक्षते’ shows that Bhāmaha did not accept it as an Alaṅkāra. As regards Bhāmaha's attitude towards Svabhāvokti, one Pūrvapakṣa is completely ruled out namely that it is not mentioned by him. Bhāmaha mentions, defines and

HISTORY OF SVABHĀVOKTI

101

illustrates it. In this respect, it resembles Āśis, III, 55-56.

To begin with, that Bhāmaha defines and illustrates Svabhā-

vokti is some proof of his acceptance of it as a figure. The

figures which Bhāmaha does not accept are not referred to

by him in such terms. If he does not accept a figure, he says

नालङ्कारतया मतः। Witness the case of Hetu, Sūkṣma and Leśa.

The words ‘इति केचित्प्रचक्षते’ is no argument for taking that

Bhāmaha did not accept Svabhāvokti. Many Alañkāras are

introduced in these terms. These words cannot serve as an

argument even for the view that Svabhāvokti has a dubious

existence in Bhāmaha. Dr. De sometimes speaks of Svabhā-

vokti as having a dubious existence in Bhāmaha though in

Vol. II of his. Poetics and in his Introduction to his edition of

the Vakrokti jīvita, he views that Bhāmaha does not accept

this figure. Dr. A. Sankaran opines in his Theories of Rasa

and Dhvani (p. 22) that Bhāmaha does not accept this figure.

Mr. D. T. Tatacharya Siromani examines these views and

replies to them in his M.O.L. Essay on the Definition of

Poetry, published in the J.O.R., Madras. Udbhata and

Kuntaka considered Bhāmaha as accepting Svabhāvokti.

Udbhaṭa has enumerated and defined Svabhāvokti in the same

order and place as in Bhāmaha. The ‘ancients’, cirantanas,

who figure in Kuntaka’s Pūrvapakṣa as accepting Svabhāvokti,

include Bhāmaha. Bhoja who digests completely Bhāmaha,

Dandin and Rudraṭa gives Bhāmaha’s illustration of Svabhā-

vokti in his treatment of that figure which shows that, accord-

ing to Bhoja, Bhāmaha accepted that figure. If Kuntaka had

the slightest hint that Bhāmaha did not accept this figure, he

would have reinforced his critique against Svabhāvokti with a

reference to Bhāmaha’s text to that effect.

On p. 61 of Vol. II of his Poetics, Dr. De says: ‘When

words are used in the ordinary manner of common parlance,

102

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

as people without a poetic turn of mind use them, there is no

special charm or strikingness. Such Svabhāvokti or “ natural ”

mode of speech to which Danḍin is so partial but which he

also distinguishes from Vakrokti, is not acceptable to Bhāmaha

and Kuntaka, who refuse to acknowledge it as a poetic figure

at all.' One cannot point out any passage in Bhāmaha

which refutes Svabhāvokti and it is wrong to club Bhāmaha

with Kuntaka who elaborately argues against Svabhāvokti,

as can be seen in a further section. And there is nothing like

partiality for Svabhāvokti in Danḍin. If one views Bhāmaha

as being inimical to this figure, he imagines Danḍin to be

overfond of it. Nor is the attribute ‘ माधा अलङ्कृितः ’ applied

by Danḍin to Svabhāvokti a sign of his partiality for it. The

attribute only means that, in the field of poetic expression

where Vakrokti rises gradually, Svabhāvokti stands first or at

the bottom involving least Vakratā ; it is the starting point ;

it is the ground for Vakrokti to come into further play.

Mr. Tatacharya has, it seems, committed an excess while

trying to prove that Bhāmaha accepted Svabhāvokti. He says

that when Bhāmaha said –

युक्तं वक्रोक्त्या सर्वमेवैतदिष्यते । I. 39.

he meant like Danḍin to divide poetic expression into two

realms, Vakrokti and Svabhāvokti ; and Mr. Tatacharya puts

a forced interpretation on ‘ Vakrasvabhāvoktyā ’ which does .

not mean वक्रोक्त्या and स्वभावोक्त्या but means only वक्रस्वरू-

पोक्त्या, the word Svabhāva here meaning ‘ of the nature of ’.

Consequently Mr. Tatacharya views that Bhāmaha also, like

Danḍin, classified Vāñmaya into two classes, Svabhāvokti and

Vakrokti. Mr. Tatacharya says: ‘ As is shown above, in

Bhāmaha's view, all the Alañkāras other than the one

HISTORY OF SVABHĀVOKTI

103

'Svabhāvokti, are governed by the Vakrokti principle.' This is Daṇḍin's view,1 not Bhāmaha's. To Bhāmaha, the absence of Vakratā or Vakrokti eliminates an expression from the fold of Alaṅkāra ; it will not be Svabhāvokti but Vārtā,—not like आकाशलाहयन etc. but like गतोदस्तमकः etc. For Bhāmaha Vakrokti is Alaṅkāra, and Svabhāvokti also which has got its own degree of Vakratā marking it off from mere Vārtā is comprised in Vakrokti. Daṇḍin examined the realm of poetic speech with greater scrutiny and said that since in Svabhāvokti, the Vakratā is least, let it stand apart. And even to this Daṇḍin, the expression of Rasa, Rasa-ukti, is still part of Vakrokti, and Bhoja therefore analyzed poetic expression into three parts, Svabhāvokti, Rasokti and Vakrokti.

Just as Bāṇa said that a Jāti should be Agrāmyā, Daṇḍin says that it should bring before our eyes the picture vividly. नानावस्थं पदार्थानां रूपं साक्षाद् विवृणवती । II. 8. 'प्रयक्षमिव दर्शयन्ती' says Taruṇavācaspatí, while the Hṛdayamgamā which says 'साक्षादवयाजेन विवृणवती' emphasizes that no artificial aid of a figurative flourish shall be used here. As previously indicated, Daṇḍin gives four classes of Svabhāvokti—Jāti, Kriyā, Guṇa and Dravya, II. 13. Bhoja (S.K.Ā., III, 6-8) multiplies the classes,—Svarūpa, Samsthāna, Āvāsthana, Veṣa, Vyāpāra etc. ; child, maiden, animal ; time, place etc.,—elaborations borrowed by him from Rudraṭa.2

1 K.Ā., II, 362. Madras Edn.

2 The anonymous gloss on the Kāvyādarśa in the N.S. Edn. has a strange comment on 'नानावस्थ' in Daṇḍin's definition of the Svabhāvokti. It says that, according to some who base themselves on this condition of 'Nānāvast'ha', only a description of an object in several states or of several objects in several states, constitutes a Svabhāvokti, and not the description of an object in a single state ! This too literal an interpretation of Daṇḍin is not justifiable.

104

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ASTRA

What about Vārtā in Daṇḍin ? It is not found in the con-

text of Svabhāvokti nor anywhere in Ch. II. We find it in

Ch. I in Daṇḍin's treatment of the Guṇa called Kānti,

I, 85-87.

कान्तं सर्वैर्गतकान्तं लौकिकार्थानतिक्रमात् ।

तच्च वातांविधानेपु वर्णनास्वपि दृश्यते ॥

Kānti has a certain amount of kinship with Svabhāvokti,

since in both, there is no perceptible stepping out of the

normal mode of saying, Laukikārtha-anatikrama. Such Kānti,

Daṇḍin says, is found in Vārtābhidhāna and Varnanā and

illustrates Vārtābhidhāna with the following verse :

गृहाणि नाम तान्येव तपोराशिर्भवाव्‌द्रश: ।

सम्भावयति यान्येवं पावने: पादपांसुभि: ॥ I. 86.

The Gauḍī style which would not be content with this expres-

sion with Kānti, would say: देवघिष्ण्यमिवाराञ्यम् etc. This

Vārtā is a sweet complement or word of welcome or enquiry

on the occasion of the arrival of a worthy guest. It is thus

clear that Vārtā here is not any Alañkāra, nor the Alañkāra

which the Jayamaṅgalā says Baṭṭi is illustrating. Such is the

view of the commentators and later writers also, none of

whom sees reference to any Alañkāra in the Vārtā here.

“वार्ता नाम अन्योन्यकथनम्” says the Hṛdayañgamā. Hema-

candra, while reviewing the old Guṇas in his gloss un his own

K. Anusāsana, refers to Daṇḍin's Kānti in Vārtā and Varnanā

and interprets Vārtā as a ‘complement’ “तत्र उपचारवचनं वार्ता ।

प्रशंसावचनं वर्णना ।’

p. 200, K. A. Siṅgabhūpāla also says that

Vārtā is a welfare-enquiry : वार्ता नाम कुशलप्रश्नपूर्विका सङ्कल्पा ।

HISTORY OF SVABHĀVOKTI

p. 67, T.S.S. Edn. Ratneśvara's gloss on S.K.Ā., I, p. 114 :

'अनाअये प्रियालापे वार्त वार्ता च कीर्त्यते ।'1

Rudraṭa classifies the Arthālaṅkāras into four classes,

Vāstava, Aupamya, Atisaya and S'leṣa. All the three here

except the first involve an embellishment by a simile or an ex-

aggeration or a play on the words. In Vāstava, we have the

bare idea as it is, untwisted, Aviparīta; but even as Bāna

said 'Agrāmya', Rudraṭa says, 'Puṣṭārtha'. Apuṣṭa, the

bald statement, comes under the Doṣas.

वास्तवमिति तज्ज्ञेयं क्रियते वस्तुस्वरूपवर्थनं यत् ।

पुष्टार्थम् अविपरीतं निरुपमम् अनतिशयम् अश्लेषम् ॥

K. A. VIII, 10.

Namisādhu : पुष्टार्थग्रहणम् अपुष्टार्थनिवृत्त्यर्थम् । तेन—

'गोरपत्यं बलीवर्दे: तृणान्यत्ति मुखेन स: ।

मूत्रं मुञ्चति शिक्षेन अपानेन तु गोमयम् ॥

अस्य वास्तत्वं न भवति ।

To this class of Vāstava figures, Rudraṭa assigns Sahokti,

Samuccaya, Jāti, Yathāsaṅkhya, Bhāva, Paryāya, Viṣama,

Anumāna, Dīpaka, Parikara, Parivrtti, Parisamkhyā, Hetu,

Kāraṇamālā, Vyatireka, Anyonya, Uttara, Sāra, Sūkṣma, Leśa,

Avasara, Mīlita and Ekāvalī. Of these Jāti is Vāstava par

excellence. In VII. 30-31, Rudraṭa speaks of the several

varieties of Jāti, Form, Pose etc., and subjects for Jāti like

children, maidens etc., as already mentioned. There is one

1 Cf. Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgar's gloss on the Kāvyādarśa :

"वार्ता अनामयप्रियालाप: । 'अनाअयप्रियालाप: वृत्तिः: वार्ता च ऋश्यते' इति वचनात् । "

Here is mentioned another meaning also of Vārtā as 'इतिहासवर्णन'

which is not satisfactory. But none has taken Dandin's Vārtā

here as the name of Alaṅkāra.

106

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

point in Namisādhu's gloss on Jāti in Rudraṭa which is worth noting. He says that whereas Vāstava means only a statement of a thing as it is, Jāti implies a vivid picture that can create an experience, an Anubhava, of the thing in the mind. जातिस्‍तु अनुभवं जनयति। यत्र परस्य स्वरूपं वर्ण्यमानेव अनुभवमिवैति ति स्थितम् । This is the significance of the qualification to Jāti which writers add, Agrāmya, Cāru, Puṣṭa and so on.

Udbhaṭa recognizes Svabhāvokti and gives it with a definition and illustration in the third Varga :

क्रियायां सम्प्रवृत्तस्य हेवाकानां निबन्धनम् । कस्यचिन्मृगडिम्बादे: स्वभावोक्तिरुदाहृता ॥ क्षणं नष्टार्धविलित: शशृङ्गणाग्रे क्षणं नुदन् । लोलीकरोति प्रणयाद् इमामेष मृगारभेक: ॥ III. 8. 9.

What must be noted in Udbhaṭa's treatment of Svabhāvokti is his unwarranted restriction of the scope of Svabhāvokti to the Hevāka, eagerness or fondness, in their respective activities of young ones of animals and the like. Neither to one class of beings like young ones of animals nor to one aspect only viz., action, Kriyā, can Svabhāvokti be restricted.

The commentary on Udbhaṭa's K.A.S.S. published in the GOS. as Tilaka's, definitely says that a description of the nature of things as such is not Svabhāvokti but only the ' Hevāka ' of Bālamṛga and the like in their activities : व्यापार-प्रवृत्तस्य बालमृगादे: समुचितहेवाकनिबन्धनं स्वभावोक्तिः । न तु स्वभावमात्र-कथनम् । But, fortunately, Pratīhārendurāja liberally interprets Hevāka and enlarges the scope of this figure to its normal extent.

Bhoja's treatment of Svabhāvokti has something noteworthy, both in his Sarasvatīkanṭhābharṇa (S.K.A.) and

the S'ṅgāra Prakāśa (S'ṛ. Pra.). The S.K.Ā. says in III. 4-5 :

नानावस्थासु जायन्ते यानि रूपाणि वस्तुनः ।

स्वेष्य: स्वेष्यो निसर्गेष्य: तानि जातिं प्रचक्षते ॥

अर्थव्यक्तेरियं भेदम् इयता प्रतिपद्यते ।

जायमानप्र(नमि)¹यं वक्ति रूपं सा सार्वकालिकम् ॥

Characteristics which are born in things in their several states and which, by nature, pertain to them form the subject of Jāti. By the second qualification that the characteristics shall pertain to the things by nature,—‘स्वेष्य: स्वेष्यो निसर्गेष्य:’—Bhoja, as explāined by Ratnesvara, excludes external associations like reminiscences, reflections etc., on seeing the objects.² The first qualification is fully explained in the second verse from which we learn that it is intended to keep distinct the Alaṅkāra Svabhāvokti and the Guṇa Arthavyakti. This question takes us to Vāmana’s Arthaguṇa Arthavyakti in the definition of which Vāmana uses the word Vastusvabhāva and whose two illustrations are simply two cases of Svabhāvokti. (K.A. Sū. III. ii. 13). वस्तुस्वभावस्प्फुटत्वमरथव्यक्तिः । वस्तूनां भावानां स्वभावस्य स्प्फुटत्वं यत् . असौ अर्थव्यक्तिः ।

It is clear from this that either Arthavyakti or Svabhāvokti does not obviate the need for the other ; nor is there any need to point out how the two do not overlap. It is rather illogical to distinguish two things of two different classes, one a Guṇa and another an Alaṅkāra. This Arthavyakti of Vāmana is a quality pertaining to the

¹ For this correct reading, see Bhaṭṭa Gopāla’s gloss on the Kāvyaprakāś'a T.S.S. Edn.

² नन्वेवं ‘य एते यज्वानः + + विलसति मूद्रेषा भगवती’ इत्यादावपि जातित्वं स्यादत आह—स्वेष्य: स्वेष्य इति । स्वभावभूतान्वयस्थः । Ratnes'vara.

108

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Alañkāra called Svabhāvokti, and to other kinds of expressions

also.1 Still Bhoja tries to show us the difference between

Arthavyakti and Svabhāvokti. He says that in Arthavyakti

only those aspects of an object are presented which form its

permanent distinguishing attributes, Sārvakālikam rūpam,

whereas in Svabhāvokti those aspects which are manifest as a

result of a particular mood or situation, Avasthāsu jāyamānām

rūpam, are presented. This latter is, as contrasted with the

Sārvakālika svarūpa, an Āgantuka svarūpa. Says Ratnes'vara :

'वस्तुस्वरूपोद्देश्थनार्थ (थं) व्यक्तिः अर्थगुणेषु उत्तां । तत्र सार्वकालिकं रूपम्

उपजनापायान्तरालव्यापकमित्यर्थे: । अत्र तु जायमानमागन्तुकनिमित्तं समव-

धानप्रभवं व्यभिचरितमित्यर्थे:' । This is an unnecessary distinction

which brings in its train an unwarranted restriction of the

scope of Svabhāvokti to 'special states'. Bhoja here re-

sembles those who dragged down the Prabandha Guna

Bhāvika to the state of Vākyalañkāra and then began pro-

pounding its difference from Svabhāvokti.'

The Agnipurāṇa which draws upon Bhoja to a great

extent,3 borrows this classification of the nature of a thing

into Sārvakālika and Āgantuka or Jāyamāna. The Agnipurāṇa

1 Mammata rightly realises Arthavyakti to be a quality pre-

eminently necessary for all good poetry and gives its scope as

embracing not only Svabhāvokti but cases of Rasadhavani etc. also.

See Ch. 8, p. 187. T.S.S. Edn. of the Kāvyaprakāśa. When Hema-

candra says that Vāmana's Arthavyakti guṇa is needless, because

it is nothing but the Alañkāra named Jāti, he is not making a proper

criticism. (अपि च जातिरन्वमयमलङ्कार इति p. 199). Cf. Bhaṭṭa Gopāla-

वामनमर्यादया तु अर्थव्यक्त्या स्वभावोक्त्यपलाप: । p. 187, T.S.S. Edn.

2 See also Ch. on Bhoja and Svabhāvokti in my Ph. D. Thesis

on Bhoja's S'r. Pra. Vol. I. pt. 1. pp. 139-144.

3 For other ideas in the Agnipurāṇa taken from Bhoja, see the

present writer's Riti and Guṇa in the Agnipurāṇa in the IHQ.

Vol. X, pp. 767-779.

calls Svabhāvokti by the name Svarūpālaṅkāra. (Ch. 344).

स्वरूपमथ साधुंयम् उत्प्रेक्षातिशयावापि । It defines the figure thus :

स्वभाव एव भवानां स्वरूपमभिधीयते ।

निजमागन्तुकं चेति द्विविधं तदुदाहतम् ॥

From its stopping with this and saying no more, we have to conclude that the Agnipurāṇa would have Svabhāvokti in both cases unlike Bhoja who would have Arthavyakti in the former case.

Besides reproducing what he said in the S.K.Ā. on Sva-bhāvokti or Jāti, Bhoja gives an additional idea in his S'r. Prakāsa. As indicated once previously, he carries out to its scientific length the classification in Daṇḍin of poetic expression into Svabhāvokti and Vakrokti. He separates the Rasas from Vakrokti's fold and constitutes them into the third class called Rasokti. While doing so, he defines each of these three as expression dominated respectively by Guṇa, Upamā and other Alaṅkāras, and Rasa.

“तत्र उपमाद्यलङ्कारप्राधान्ये वक्रोक्तिः । सोऽपि गुणप्राधान्ये स्वभा-वोक्तिः । विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोगाद् रसनिष्पत्तौ रसोक्किरिति ।” S'r. Pa., Madras MS., Vol. II, ch. xi, p. 372. This is just hinted in the fifth ch. of the S.K.Ā. where Bhoja says :

वक्रोक्तिश्च रसोक्किश्च स्वभावोक्किश्च वाड्मयम् ।

सर्वासु ग्राहिणी तासु रसोक्किः प्रतिजानते ॥ V. 8.

The idea in defining in the S'r. Pra. Svabhāvokti as expression dominated by the Guṇas is that when there is none of the figures beginning with Upamā, the only thing the expression possesses is the Guṇas. This has been explained at length in my thesis on Bhoja's S'r. Pra., Vol. I. pt. 1. pp. 143-4.

110

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Bahurūpamisra accepts this three-fold classification of

poetic expression in his commentary on the Dasarūpaka

which I have reviewed in detail in J.O.R., Vol. VIII, p. 325.

The anonymous Sāhityamīmāmsā, now edited in a very

unsatisfactory manner in the T.S.S. (No. 114), is a work

based on Bhoja's S'r. Pra. which it reproduces extensively.

It gives Bhoja's classification of Kāvya-ukti into these three

classes of Svabhāva, Vakra and Rasa Uktis ; only it calls

Svabhāvokti, Rjūkti (p. 99). It reproduces also the S.K.Ā.

verse on the difference between Svabhāvokti and Arthavyakti.

In connection with Mammata's treatment of Svabhāvokti,

the only interesting point to which attention can be drawn is

Vidyācakravarttin's rather incorrect understanding and conse-

quent needless criticism of the Sāndhivigrahika i.e., Visva-

nātha, a point which I have set forth at some length in

a note in the Annals of the B.O.R.I., Vol. XIV, pp. 251

and 254.

In the history of the concept of Svabhāvokti, the names

of Kuntaka and Mahimabhaṭṭa stand out prominently. The

former denies that it is an Alañkāra and the latter comes out

with an eloquent defence of it as an Alañkāra. Kuntaka

must be put down as a follower of Bhāmaha with this diffe-

rence that while for Bhāmaha, Svabhāvokti is comprehended

as a variety of Alañkāra in Vakrokti, for Kuntaka, Svabhā-

vokti is not to be called an Alañkāra or a species of Vakrokti

because it is the very nature of the idea which forms the

material for the further employment of Vakrokti. That is,

Kuntaka considers Svabhāvokti as the Alañkārya, i.e., the

Kāvya S'arīra and if it is itself called Alañkāra, it will be an

impossible case of Alañkāra decorating itself, as impossible as

one mounting one's own shoulders. Kuntaka is not behind

anybody in his appreciation of verses of unembellished grace,

HISTORY OF SVABHĀVOKTI

111

but in all those cases he would say that the subject or idea

itself, the Vastu, has an innate Saundarya or Vakratā. Cases

which are Svabhāvokti for others would be cases of Vastu

vakratā for Kuntaka. But Vastu which has Vakratā is diffe-

rent from ordinary Vastu devoid of Vakratā, as in ordinary

talk. Does not this distinguishing Vakratā which separates

Loka vastu and Kāvya vastu amount to Alańkāra ?

It may not be so much Vicchitti as is found in other species of Vakrokti

but yet it is some Vicchitti and as such is Alańkāra ; and it

does not pertain ordinarily to all instances ; only poets are

able to say things with that Vastu vakratā. And Vakratā is

concerned, only such Vastu as has beauty is relevant ; the

bald Vastu is out of the scope of the discussion. But, if on

the score of this Vakratā, one would call a Svabhāvākhyāna

as Svabhāvokti Alańkāra, Kuntaka would seem to yield a

little that there is after all only a dispute in names.

यदि वा प्रस्तुतौचित्यमाहात्म्यानुरक्ततया भावस्वभावः सातिशय-

त्वेन वर्ण्यमानः स्वमहिम्ना भूषणान्तरासहिष्णुः स्वयमेव शोभातिशयशालि-

त्वात् अलङ्कार्योऽपि अलङ्करणमित्यभिधीयते,1 तदयमस्माकीन एव पक्षः ।2

V. J., p. 139.

In the second Vimarsa of his Vyakti viveka, Mahima-

bhatta speaks of five flaws the last of which is Vācya-avacana

under which he treats of a closely related flaw, Avācya-vacana,

1 As Vālmiki also would say (while describing Sītā) : ‘नपुंस-

चाप्यलड्कृता’. Sundara. 17. 25.

2 Some other minor objections are also pointed out by Kuntaka.

He asks that if Vastusvabhāva itself is Alańkāra, what then shall

an Alańkāra adorn and adds that if Vastusvabhāva itself is one

Alańkāra, every case of another Alańkāra will be a case of Sańkara

or Samsṛṣṭi (V.J., pp. 24-25).

112

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

the putting in of what ought not to be put in. Attributes

which do not add to the significance or words which do not

heighten or aspects of things which are commonplace and are

devoid of any charm-these if expressed form the flaw of

Avācya-vacana. Sometimes when a poet nods, when lesser

writers have got to fill in parts of the metrical line, such things

get in. These Mahimā calls 'Apratibhodbhava', born of a

mind lacking Imagination and Inspiration. These are the

'dust' that must be swept out of poetry, 'Avakara' as Mahimā

calls them.

यत्स्वरूपानुवादैकफलं फल्गु विशेषणम् ।

अप्रत्यक्षायमाणार्थ स्मृतममृतिभोद्द्रवम् ॥

तदवाच्यावचो मतिर्जेयं वचनं तस्य दूषणम् ।

तद् वृत्तपुरणायैव न कवित्वाय कल्पते ॥

II. p. 107. V. V. T.S.S. Edn.

This topic directly leads Mahimabhaṭṭa to an examination of

Svabhāvokti Alañkāra. When a poet describes a thing as it

is he must not present us with the well-known and common-

place aspects of things, a description of which does not make

the picture live before our eyes, अप्रत्यक्षायमाणार्थ. Thus a case of

Svabhāvokti is most liable to the flaw of Avācya-vacana

described in the terms स्वरूपानुवादैकफल, फल्गु and अप्रत्यक्षायमाणार्थ.

Hence did Bāṇa qualify Jāti by Agrāmyatva and Rudraṭa by

Puṣṭārthatva.1 One must be a poet of imagination and in-

spiration to write a real Svabhāvokti with power to live before

1 A bald statement comes under an Arthadoṣa called Apuṣṭa,

Niralañkāra and so on.

वस्तुमात्रानुवादस्तु पूरणैकफλο मतः । अर्थदोषस्स दोषज्ञैः श्रपुष्ट इति गीयते ॥

V.V., p. 109. See also Bhoja's S.K.Ā., pp. 30, 37 and 38 and

Ratnes'vara's com. there.

our mind's eye. In I. 12, p. 23, Kuntaka said that nothing

can be talked of without reference to its Swabhāva or nature,

and that there can be no case of expression devoid of Svabhāva-

delineation; for no object is conceivable without its nature

and attributes.

स्वभावव्यतिरेकेण वक्तुमेव न युज्यते ।

वस्तु तद्रहितं यस्मान्निरुपाख्यं प्रसज्यते॥ V. J. I, 12.

A statement of this unavoidable Svabhāva cannot be an Alaṅ-

kāra. With reference to this Mahimā says :

कथं तर्हि स्वभावोक्तेरलङ्कारत्वमिष्यते ।

न हि स्वभावमात्रोक्तौ विशेष: कश्चनायते: ॥

उच्यते वस्तुनस्तावद् द्वैरूप्यमिह विधते यते ।

तत्रैकमत्र(स्य)1 सामान्यं यदृक्प्रकपैगोचर: ॥

स एवं सर्वशब्दानां विषय: परिकीर्तित: ।

अत एवंाभिधेयं ते श्या(ध्यā2)मलं बोधयन्यलम् ॥

विशिष्टमस्य यदूपं तत् प्रत्यक्षस्य गोचर: ।

स एवं सत्वविगिरां गोचर: प्रतिभासुवाम् ॥

यतः--रसानुगुणशब्दार्थचिन्तास्तिमितचेतस: ।

क्षणं स्वरूपस्पर्शो(र्शो)त्था (or चिन्तोत्था) प्रज्ञैव प्रतिभा कवे: ॥

सा हि चक्षुर्भगवत: तृतीयमिति गीयते ।

येन साक्षात्करोत्येष भावांश्चैकाल्यवर्तिन: ॥

1 This correct reading अस्य is found in the 'different readings'

given at the end of the T.S.S. Edn. of the V.V., and is found also

in Hemacandra who reproduces these verses on p. 275 of his K.A.

Vyā.

2 See Hemacandra for the correct word 'Dhyāmala', meaning

'impure, tainted'.

8

114

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

इत्यादि प्रतिभातत्वमस्माभिरुपपादितम् ।

शास्त्रे तत्त्वोक्तिकोशस्ये इति नेह प्रपञ्चितम् ॥

अर्थ (अस्य)1 स्वभावस्योक्तिर्या सालङ्कारतया मता ।

यतः साक्षादिवाभान्ति तत्रार्थः प्रतिभापिताः ॥ p. 108.

सामान्यस्तु स्वभावो यः सोऽन्यालङ्कार (सोडनलङ्कार)2 गोचरः ।

म्लिष्टमर्थमलङ्कर्तुमन्यथा को हि शक्तुयात ॥

वस्तुमात्रानुवादस्तु पूरणैकफलो मतः ।

3अर्थदोषस्स दोषैरपुष्ट इति गीयते ॥

p. 109, V.V. T.S.S. Edn.

The commentary on the V. V. does not extend to this section

but the following extracts will serve to show how Hemacandra

and Māṇikyacandra understood the above verses of Mahima-

bhaṭṭa :

कविप्रतिभया निर्विकल्पकप्रत्यक्षकल्पया विषयीकृता वस्तुस्वभावा

यत्रोपवर्ण्यन्ते स जातिविषयः । एवं च—

‘ अलङ्कारकृतां येषां स्वभावोक्तिरलङ्कृति: ।

अलङ्कार्यतया तेषां किमन्यदवशिष्यते ॥’ (Kuntaka)

इति यत्कैश्चित्प्रतिपादितं, तन्निरस्तमेव । वस्तुनो हि सामान्य-

स्वभावो लौकिकोडर्थोऽलङ्कार्यः । कविप्रतिभासंरम्भविशेषविषयस्तु लोकोत्त-

राथोडलङ्करणमिति । तथा च—(quotation of the above verses from

Mahimā)’. Hemacandra, p. 275, com.—

1 See Hemacandra.

2 Hemacandra also reads incorrectly ‘ Anyalaṅkāra. ’

3 This half is missing in the T.S.S. Edn. and is supplied here from Hemacandra.

HISTORY OF SVABHĀVOKTI

115

इह वस्तुस्वभाववर्णनमात्रं नालङ्कारः । तत्त्वे सर्वे काव्यमलङ्कारः स्यात् । तस्मात् सामन्यस्वभावो लौकिकोडर्थोंडलङ्कार्यः । कविप्रतिभागो-

चरस्य तु अत एवं तत्रिमित्तस्य स्वभावस्य उक्तिः अलङ्कारः । p. 403, Mysore Edn. Mānikyacandra's gloss on the K. Prakāśa.

It is accepted by logicians that in one's apprehension of an object there are really two kinds of awareness, one of the object itself as such and another of the object as possessing a name and as belonging to a class. Perception is thus indeterminate and determinate, Nirvikalpaka and Savikalpaka.

Somewhat similar to this, there are the two apprehensions of an object by a poet endowed with penetrating imagination and by an ordinary man. The latter sees what is but the common nature, Sāmānyarūpa, of an object ; the expression which he uses in communicating about that object communicates only the ordinary nature of the object. But the imaginative eye of the poet which is like a Yogin's vision or a divine third eye, sees a special aspect of the thing, not with reference to its common nature, but details whose presentation reveal a wondrous picture of it.

If we understand Mahimabhaṭṭa's Sāmānya and Viśeṣa Svabhāvas in such a general manner, his verses do not offer any problem for interpretation. The commonplace Svabhāva of thing will be the scientific facts about an object, its attributes as pertaining to a class ; a bald statement of these as in गोरपत्यं बलीवर्दः etc. would not constitute Svabhāvokti Alaṅkāra; this ordinary nature of the thing is the fact available in the world and forms the material for the play of the poet's imagination and fancy ; it is the Alaṅkārya.

The striking and special aspect of the thing, its Viśiṣṭa Svabhāva, which the poet's eye alone sees and his imagination alone embodies in words of poetry, is the object of

116

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Svabhāvokti Alañkaraṇa. In as much as this Viśiṣṭa Svabhāva is not ‘Siddha’, but is ‘Sādhyamāna’ through the play of the poet’s Pratibhā, it is Alañkāra. The drab matter of fact Svabhāva is out of the scope of any Alañkāra. Hence did the previous writers also insist on Jāti being Agrāmya, Puṣṭa,1 Cāru and so on. Ruyyaka calls this Sūkṣma svabhāva and Vidyādhara, Uccais svabhāva. Kuntaka would, however, reply that he is still unanswered ; for, to him, it is the Viśiṣṭa svabhāva that forms the Kāvya śarīra and the other Svabhāva is out of account in a discussion in poetics.

अनुत्कृष्टधर्मयुक्तस्य वर्णनीयस्य अलङ्करणमप्यस्मुचितभित्तिभागोल्लिखितालेख्यवन् न शोभातिशयकारितामावहति । यस्मादत्यान्तरमणीयस्वाभाविकधर्मयुक्त वर्णनीयवस्तु परिग्रहणीयम् । V.J. III, p. 135.

Artha in Kāvya is, by necessity, Sundara : अर्थः सहृदयह्लादकारिस्वस्फुरन्मसुन्दरः । I. 6, V.J. The Viśiṣṭa Svabhāva varṇanā is a case of the Vastu itself having the requisite Vakratā. But to others, as has already been said, this Vakratā which is surely a result of the poet’s power and is not something existing there already, is reason enough to call the case an Alañkāra.

Ruyyaka has something special to contribute to the study of Svabhāvokti. He has touched an aspect of the question not dealt with by others. It is his distinction of Svabhāvokti from Bhāvika. It is, however, a question which cannot be gone into fully except after a survey of the history of the. concept of Bhāvika from the beginning and for this reason is reserved for the next chapter.

1 Cf. Apuṣṭa doṣa and Niralankāra doṣa (in cases where the Sāmānya Svabhāva is given) in the Doṣa prakaraṇa of the books.

THE HISTORY OF BHĀVIKA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Bhāmaha says at the end of his Alañkāras :

भाविकत्वमिति प्राहुः प्रवन्धविषयं गुणम् ।

प्रत्यक्ष इव दृश्यन्ते यत्रार्था भूतभाविनः ।।

चित्रोदात्ताद्युतार्थत्वं कथाया: स्वभि(or वि)नीतता ।

शब्दशास्त्रकुलता चेति तस्य हेतुं प्रचक्षते ।। III. 52-53.

Bhāmaha here speaks of a concept which he calls a Guṇa, not of Vākya, but of the Prabandha as a whole. As it has been treated of at the end of Alañkāras, we have to suppose that Bhāmaha considered this also as an Alañkāra, with this difference, that while the rest were restricted to a Vākya, this was pervasive of a whole part of a poetic composition or of the whole composition itself. As a matter of fact, Bhāmaha calls this Bhāvikatva an Alañkāra in the beginning of the third chapter :

भाविकत्वं च निजगुरुललितं सुमेधसः । III. 4.

That Bhāmaha considered this Bhāvikatva described as a Prabandha guṇa as an Alañkāra is confirmed by the words of the Jayamaṅgalā on Bhatti also :

भाविकत्वललितारः प्रबन्धविषय उक्तः ।

What is this Bhāvikatva ? Bhāmaha defines this as the quality which pertains to that part of a composition where the

ideas of the past and the future presented by the poet are so vivid as to look like belonging to the present. The term ‘Prabandha’ may be rendered here as ‘that part of the poem’ on the force of the word ‘yatra’ and on the basis of the Jayamañgalā which points out only one canto in illustration of this Bhāvikatva. But it seems that Bhāvikatva is really a quality of prime necessity which all great and good poetry should, from beginning to end, possess. The poet is like the Ṛṣi who brings through the power of his vision the past and future into the present.

अविद्यावीजविघ्वंसादयमार्षेण चक्षुषा ।

कालो भूतभविष्यन्तौ वर्तमानमविविशात् ॥

Anargharāghava, II. 34.

As one reads the poem, it should begin to live before his eyes : that is, it should appear before the mind’s eye of the reader that the story is happening in his very presence. It is this ‘pratyakṣāyamānatva’ which the Ārṣa-Sahrdayas who listened to the inaugural recitation of Vālmīki’s epic said that the Ādi-kāvya possessed :

चिरनिवृत्तमप्येतत् प्रत्यक्षमिव दर्शितम् ।

I. 4. 17.

Such a ‘reality’ called forth by ‘imagination’ seems to be called by some word derived from bhāva : bhāva itself or bhāvanā or bhāvika or bhāvita, or udbhāvana. In this connection it should be pointed out here that the twelfth aṅga of the Lāsya is called bhāva and bhāvita and that it is defined as an ‘imaginary vision’, in which, having seen her lover in a dream, the beloved supposes him to be present with her and begins to give expression to consequent emotions :

उक्तप्रत्युक्तभावं(वे)च लास्याङ्गानि विदुर्बुधाः ।

Ch. XX, śl. 139. Kāśī Edn.

HISTORY OF BHĀVIKA

119

दृष्ट्वा स्वमे प्रियं यत् मदनानलतापिता ।

करोति विधानं भावान् तद्वै भावितमुख्यते ॥ sl. 152. ibid

Abhinava, who does not accept more than ten Lāsyāṅgas, refers

to others who proposed two more Lāsyāṅgas and here, he gives

the Bhāvita as Bhāvika.

अन्ये चित्रपदं भाविकं चेत्यझद्वयमाहु:, पठन्ति च etc.

p. 510, vol. II, Abhi. Bhā. Madras MS.

In the Bhā. Pra., Sāradātanaya also gives it as Bhāvika.

To return to Bhāmaha,—the means to achieve this Bhāvi-

katva are mentioned by Bhāmaha in the second verse. They

are three: citrodāttādbhutārthatvaṃ, kathāyāḥ svabhi (or vī)

nītatā, and sādbāñhulatatā. Of these three, it seems the

second should be taken first. There does not seem to be any

reference to drama or Abhinaya here, in the expression ' Kathā-

yāḥ Svabhiniṭatā.' There is a reading 'svaviniṭtatā' which

the Jayamaṅgalā supports. It simply means that the story

should progress very smoothly and with gripping interest,

there being no hitch, no vagueness and nothing mystifying.

Then comes the first means which applies to the ideas with

which the story is worked out ; the Arthas should be striking

and exalted enough to capture the imagination. Then comes

the third means, which refers to the verbal expression which

should not be 'involved' or such as to prevent a quick grasp of

the ideas or the story.1

1

In the Sāmānyābhinaya chapter (24th, Kāśī Edn.), Bharata

refers to two kinds of drama and its presentation (Prayoga),—

Ābhyantara and Bāhya. In the definition of the Ābhyantara Nāṭya

prayoga, we find ideas similar to those by which Bhāmaha defines

Bhāvikatva.

सुविभक्तकथाश्रयालापम् अनिष्टुरमनाकुलम् ।

यदीव भवेत्काव्य श्रेयमाभ्यान्तरं तु तत् ॥ Sl. 71.

120

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Bhaṭṭi, as interpreted by the Jayamaṅgalā, considered that primarily poetry must have Prasāda ; hence, when after illustrating grammar he comes to the illustration of poetics, he calls the section Prasanna kāṇḍa. Next to Prasāda are the Alaṅkāras ; then comes Mādhurya guṇa illustrated by a description of dawn ; next appears a canto, the 12th, which is said to illustrate Bhāvikatva. The Jayamaṅgalā here says that Bhāvikatva is an Alaṅkāra mentioned as pertaining to a whole composition and not to a sentence ; and it results from the ideas being ' wonderful ' and so on. It then quotes Bhāmaha's two verses on Bhāvikatva and concludes that in that canto of Mantranirṇaya, deliberation in Rāvaṇa's court, Bhāvikatva must be held to have been illustrated.

भाविकत्वमलङ्कारः प्रबन्धविषय उक्तः । नैकेदेशिकं (प्रबन्धविषय

उक्तो नैकेदेशिकः ।) तस्य चित्राद्योडर्थः: प्रख्यत्तिहेतवः । तथा चोक्तं

(the two verses of Bhāmaha quoted above) इति । तत्सर्वे मन्त्र-

निर्णयप्रबन्धे द्रष्टव्यमिति दर्शयन्नाह ॥

To begin with, this canto has 5 verses addressed to Vibhīṣaṇa by his mother, s's. 2-6. These five verses are said to illustrate Udāttārthatva. In the discussion and counsel that follow, one must look for the other features, कथाया: स्वविनीतता,

शब्दानाकुलता and चित्राद्युतार्थत्व. Says the Jayamaṅgalā : (p. 307, N. S. edn.)

इयतां प्रबन्धेन उदात्तार्थाभिधानादुदात्तार्थत्वमुक्तम् । इत उत्तरं

प्रहस्तरावणविभीषणंमातामहकुम्भकर्णादीनां वचनप्रबन्धेपु चित्राद्युतार्थत्वं

द्रष्टव्यम् । स्वविनीतता सुबोधता शब्दानाकुलता चित्र्येतदुभयं कथायामेष

मन्त्रानिर्णयाख्यायां द्रष्टव्यम् ॥

The Jayamaṅgalā says here only one definite thing : that

the svarinītatā of kathā means ‘subodhatā’, easy understanda-

bility of the story. Beyond this, we are not able to know

what exactly in this canto answer to the conditions Udāt-

tārtha, Citrārtha, Adbhutārtha, Kathāyah svarinītatā, and

S’abdānākulatā ; nor are we able to see how in this particular

canto, things of past and future are made to appear as present

ones. It is ncedless to add that Mallinātha is of less

help here.

Dandin also, like Bhāmaha, calls Bhāvikatva or Bhāvika,

a Prabandha guṇa. He has three verses on it, at the end of

his Alañkāras and in these verses, there are ideas not found in

Bhāmaha.

भाविकं त (कत्‌व) मिति प्राहुः प्रवन्धविषये गुणम्‌ ।

(1) भावः केवलबिम्बाय: काव्यस्य वस्‍थ्यवस्थिति: or

काव्ये वासिद्धि: संस्थित: ॥

(2) परस्परोपकारित्वं सर्वेषां वस्तुपर्वणाम्‌ ।

विशेषणान्‍ व्यर्थानामक्रिया (3) स्थानवर्णना (4) ॥

(5) व्यक्तिरु‌क्तिक्रमवला‌द्‌रुम्भोरस्यापि वस्तुनः ।

भावायत्तमिदं सर्वमिति तद्‌ध्वनिकं विदुः ॥

If we leave the initial agreement in calling it a Prabandha

guṇa, we find that there is nothing of what Bhāmaha said in

Dandin’s description of the Bhāvika. Perhaps, the fifth idèa,

the clear appearance of even a deep lying idea by the force or

the sequence of the expression, contains a faint echo of Bhā-

maha’s idea of past and future being as alive as present,

प्रत्यक्षा इव हृशयन्ते यथार्था भूतभाविनः ।

All the other ideas in Dandin

numbering four turn on the derivation of Bhāvikatva from

Bhāva, so clearly stated in idea number one. The several

122

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

parts or sections of a composition being mutually helpful,

avoidance of the needless details, descriptions only at places

proper for them—all these are ideas of Aucitya, common in later

days but striking in an early writer. All these ideas of Aucitya,

flow out of the idea of the poet (kavibhāva) and Dr. De finds

here a मनाक्‌स स्पर्श (as Ānanda would say) of the æsthetical problem

of poetry being the expression of the poet's mind, with which,

he adds, western poetics is so much concerned and Sanskrit

poetics so little.1 But what Daṇḍin actually meant by Kavi-

abhipraya can only be conjectured ; and the commentators are

of little help. It is however clear that Bhāvikatva was in

vogue among critics in the pre-Bhāmaha days and that when

we come to Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, already guess-work had

started. Daṇḍin's Bhāvika as Kavi-abhipraya, the mutual

helpfulness of parts etc., died with him. No later writer

revived it. For the later writers, the Bhāvika was what Bhā-

maha gave them through Udbhata.

Udbhaṭa made it a definite Alañkāra casting of the ad-

junct, Prabandha guṇa. He defines it towards the close of

the sixth varga, in a single verse :

प्रत्यक्षा इव यत्रार्था हृदयन्ते भूतभाविनः ।

अत्यद्भुतःः स्यात्तद्वाचामनङ्कल्पेन भाविकः ॥ K.A.S.S.

Bhāvikatva has now definitely become bhāvika. Udbhaṭa

felt that in the expression, Citrodāttādbhutārtha, there is much

redundance ; he satisfied himself with a single qualification of

artha, Atyadbhuta. He left off Bhāmaha's second condition,

'kathāyāḥ svabhinītatā.' Perhaps honesty is responsible

for Udbhaṭa's omission of this un-understandable bit.

1

See his Intro. to V.J., p. xx, Skr. Poetics, II, p. 63, f.n., and

Pāṭhak Com. Vol., p. 355.

'S'abdānākulatā' recurs here as 'vācām anākulya.' The main definition of Bhāvika given by Bhāmaha, the present-like appearance of the past and future, is retained by Udbhaṭa.

Pratīhārendurāja occupies an important place in the history of Bhāvika. At his hands the concept reached its widest interpretation. While commenting on Udbhaṭa, he quotes and explains Bhāmaha's two verses on Bhāvikatva; and Daṇḍin's explanation—bhāvaḥ kaveḥ abhiprāyaḥ—is also found absorbed in Pratīhārendurāja's imaginative exposition of Bhāvika. 'Vācām anākulya' in Udbhaṭa and 'S'abdānā-kulatā' in Bhāmaha are interpreted by him as the quick delivery of the meaning, a quality of the words allied to Prasāda and Arthavyakti; Prasāda and Arthavyakti are to be included here in this Bhāvika and not vice versa, as Ruyyaka adds.

तत्र वाचमनाकुलता व्यवस्तसंचनन्धरहितलोकप्रसिद्धशब्दोपनिबन्धनात्

झगित्यर्थप्रतीतिकारिता । Pratīhārendu, p. 79.'

[नाप्ययं शब्द नानाकुलत्वहेतुका्त् झगित्यर्थसमर्पणात् प्रसादाख्यो

गुण: Ruyyaka, A.S.]

Pratīhārendurāja makes Bhāvika the very essence of Rasa-realisation. It has been pointed out by Ānanda (Dhva. Ā., II, xi, p. 82) that Prasāda is pre-eminently necessary for rasa-realisation. The second condition कथ्याया: स्वभिनीतातता is directly related by Pratīhārendurāja to Rasa-realisation by interpreting 'svabhinitatā' as referring to the clear presentation (abhinaya) of the Rasas.

स्वभिनीताततेत्यभिनयादिद्वारेण श्रृङ्गारादरसंचलनितत्वं चतुर्वर्गोंपायस्य

उक्तम् । p. 80.

1 Edn. Banhatti, 1925.

124

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

The other condition of Artha being Citra, Udātta and and Adbhuta is emphasised by Pratīhārendu as a feature of Artha corresponding to the feature of Ś'abda called Ś'abda anākulatā.

यथा चात्र शब्दगतमनाकुलत्वमनन्तरोक्तेन प्रकारेण हेतु:, तथा अर्थगतमपि चित्रोदात्तार्थोपनिबन्धहेतुकमस्यद्रुतत्वं दृश्यम् । p. 80.

Ideas should be exalted, expression transparent and emotion graphically presented. When these are there, the Sahṛdaya's mind realises completely the poet's mind mirrored in his poetry. Thus Pratīhārendurāja touches Daṇḍin's भाव: कवेर्विप्राय: and Bhatta Nāyaka's भावनाव्यापार.

It appears Pratīhārendurāja's idea of Bhāvika has affinities with the concept of Imagination, lying at the basis of not only poetic creation but also of the critic's aesthetic re-creation of poetry in his enjoyment of it. Pratīhārendurāja actually says that Bhāvika refers both to the poet and to the Sahṛdaya between whom a circuit of experience is completed.

—झगित्यर्थप्रतीतिकारिता । तस्यां हि सत्स्यां कवे: संबन्धी यो भाव: आश्रय: श्रृंगारादिरससंवलितचतुर्वर्गो|पायभूतविशिष्टार्थो|लेखी स कविनेव सहृदयै: श्रोत्रृभि: स्वाभिप्रायाभेदेन तत्काव्यप्रतिबिम्बितरूपतया साक्षात्क्रियते । श्रोत्रृणामपि हि तथाविधस्वच्छशब्दानुभवद्रावितान्त:रातमनां सहृदयानां स्वाभिप्रायप्रतिमुद्रा तत्र सक्रामति । अतः कवेयो-डसावभिप्राय: तद्रोचरीकृता भूता भाविनोडपि पदार्थास्तत्र सहृदयै: श्रोत्रृभि: स्वाभिप्रायाभेदेन प्रत्येकं इव दृश्यन्ते । . . . . . . . . तदेवमेवंविधहेतुनिबन्धनं कविश्रोत्रृभावद्वयतासंमी(मि)लनात्मकं भाविकं दृष्ट-व्यम् । अत एव चित्र कविसंबन्धिना भावस्य श्रोत्रृभाविमदाध्यवसितस्य

HISTORY OF BHĀVIKA

125

पुरस्स्फुरदूपस्य विधमानत्वाद् भाविकत्वयपदेशः । भावोडस्मिन्नविद्यत इति भाविकम् । तदाहः---

रसोलासीकवे रात्मा स्वच्छे शब्दार्थदार्पणे ।

माधुर्यौजोयुतेऽप्योढे प्रतिबिन्दु प्रकाशने ॥

संपीतस्वच्छशब्दार्थद्राविताभ्यनंतरस्ततः ।

श्रोता तल्लाम्यतः पुष्टिं चतुर्वर्गे परां ब्रजेत् ॥

.................. ॥ pp. 79-80.

Udbhaṭa's illustration is a verse in which reference is made to a damsel having had (bhūta) collyrium in her eye, and to her future (bhāvi) wearing of ornaments! Pratīhārendu no doubt offers some comments on the illustration but what a far cry from the great concept of aesthetics that Bhāvika is to him and to what is said to be illustrated in this verse !

Mammaṭa' takes his idea of Bhāvika from Udbhaṭa, but in his definition, he omits two ideas : first, the qualification of things by the attribute अत्यद्दुता: and second, the means, वाचाम् अनाकुल्य. Mainmaṭa's illustration is much the same as Ud-bhaṭa's: the lover says that he can see that there was collyrium in the lady's eyes and he can imagine also how she will look when she is adorned with ornaments! It is however not the mention in so many ideas and words of the past and future that is meant by Bhāmaha when he says that Bhāvika is the quality which makes the past and future event so vivid as to appear like happening before our very eyes. But through Udbhaṭa, and Mammaṭa also, a great concept of aesthetics fell to the place of a narrow rhetorical figure of a Vākya.

'Bhāva' alañkāra in Rudraṭa has nothing to do with the Bhāvika of this chapter, which is absent in Rudraṭa.

126

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

When Bhāvika was reduced to this state, trouble arose

and writers had to show that it did not overlap two others,

viz., Svabhāvokti on one side and Rasokti on the other.

Mammaṭa's commentator, Vidyācakravartin, explains why

Mammaṭa omitted from his definition of the Bhāvika the

statement of the means, Śabdānākulya : When things of the

past and future are visualised, there are two possibilities : The

things by themselves may possess a power and beauty where-

by their mere mention may make them look like being actually

present before us ; or this quality of their becoming vivid

enough to appear like things of the present may be wrought

in them through the extraordinary gifts of expression in the

poet, ‘śabdānākulya’ etc. To Bhāmaha and Udbhata, only

the latter cases were Bhāvika ; for to become an Alañkāra, a

poet's powers must have added something.' Mammaṭa how-

ever thinks that both cases are Bhāvika; though it is true

that for an Alañkāra there has to be something wrought

by the poet, we have ‘Svabhāvokti’ where the beauty is

more or less ‘siddha’; even so, a presentation of such

past and future things as possess an innate beauty and power

is also a case of ‘Bhāvikalañkāra’; otherwise, we will have to

commit the flaw of logical gaurava by creating a new name

for this variety. Ruyyaka, in his Alañkārā Sarvasva, first

follows the older writers, but in the end quotes and recon-

ciles Mammaṭa to the older position, by accepting two

varieties of Bhāvika. Vidyācakravartin here takes Viśvanāṭha

to task for not understanding Ruyyaka properly and this has

been set forth by me at some length in a note in the Annals

1

This statement of Bhāmaha's and Udbhaṭa's view of Bhāvika

by Vidyācakravartin does not seem to be wholly correct ; for, by

the adjuncts चित्रोदात्तादिरूपार्थत्व and अत्यद्भुता: (भावतः), both Bhāmaha

and Udbhata mean that the things, by themselves also, must have

something striking and gripping.

of the BORI., vol. XIV, pp. 251-2, 254. It is needless to

quote Vidyākakravartin’s text here. (T.S.S. edn. of the

K. Pra., pt. II, 346-7).

It was seen in Pratīhārendurāja’s exposition of the

Bhāvika how this concept became, at his hands, the very soul

of Rasa-realisation and how, on reading it, our minds went to

Bhatta Nāyaka’s Bhāvanā, and the concept of Imagination.

See Ruyyaka :

---कविगतो भाव आशयः श्रोतरि प्रतिबिम्बत्वेनास्तीति भावो

भावना पुनःपुनश्रेतसि विनिवेशनं, सोऽत्रास्तीति ।

—केवलं वस्तुप्रत्यक्षत्वे प्रतिपत्तुः सामग्रुचपयुज्यते । सा च लोक-

यात्रायां चक्षुरादीनिद्रयस्वभावा । योगिनामतिनिद्रयार्थदर्शनने भावनारूपा ।

काव्यार्थविदां च भावनावभावैव । सा च भावना वस्तुगताऽत्यद्भुतत्वपयुक्ता,

अत्यद्भुतानां वस्तूनामादरप्रत्ययेन हृदि सन्धार्यमाणत्वात् ।

Pp. 221-223. T.S.S. Edn. A.S.

which Bhatta Gopāla reproduces thus in his gloss on the

K. pra.—

भावश्र भावना पुनःपुनश्रेतसि विनिवेशनमादरप्रत्ययेन हृदये

ध्यायेमाणत्वं यत्र योगिनामिव काव्यवीदिनामभियोगः ।

p. 347. T.S.S. Edn. II.

This relates Bhāva or Bhāvanā more definitely to the

reader also, even as Pratīhārendurāja did.

To begin with, Ruyyaka also defined (in the Sūtra)

Bhāvika as simply as Mammata, as the ‘Pratyakṣāyamānatva’

of ‘bhūta’ and ‘bhāvi’, without mention of the means S’abdā-

nākulatā. But, in the Vṛtti, he mentioned the ‘Adbhutatva’

of the ‘Artha’ and the ‘Anākulatā’ of the ‘sabda.’ Ruyyaka

then points out that this Bhāvika cannot be mistaken for or

included in Bhrāntimān, Atisayokti, Pratīyamāna Utprekṣā,

Kāvyalinga, Rasavān and Svabhāvokti. Among these, we

shall concern ourselves only with Ruyyaka's distinction of

Bhāvika from the last two, Rasavadalankāra and Svabhāvokti.'

The gloss on Udbhaṭa published as Tilaka's in the GOS.

points out how the Bhāvika would collide with Svabhāvokti

and Rasavadalankāra.

भूतभाविशब्दस्य परोक्षत्वोपलक्षणे परोक्षाणां पुरःस्फुरद्रूपत्वहेतुत्व-

मिति व्याख्याने स्वभावोक्तिः। सहृदयहृदयप्रवेशक्षमत्वमिति व्याख्यायां

रसवदालङ्कारतापत्ति:। p. 51, GOS. Edn.

Svabhāvokti and Rasavad (i.e., Rasokti as Bhoja would

say) are easily distinguished. They are both direct and gra-

phic presentation, the former of objects and the latter of

emotions. The former creates a Vastu-samvāda in our mind ;

it rouses a mental image. The latter creates a Cittavṛtti-sam-

vāda, an emotional image.

न च हृदयसंवादमात्रेण स्वभावोक्तिरसवदलङ्कारयोरभेदः। वस्तु-

संवादरूपत्वात् स्वभावोक्तेः, चित्तवृत्तिसामधिरूपत्वाच्च रसवदलङ्कारस्य।

A.S. Ruyyaka, N.S. Edn. with Jayaratha's gloss, p. 181.

हृदयसंवादो हि वस्तुचित्तवृत्तिगतत्वेन द्विविधः। तत्र स्वभावोक्तौ

वस्तुसंवादः प्रदर्शितः। Jayaratha's Vimarsinī on the A.S., p. 181.

From Mammata as explained by Vidyācakravarttin, we

understand that the difference between Bhāvika and Sva-

bhāvokti is firstly, in point of time, i.e., things in Bhāvika

1 See the closing section of the previous chapter on Svabhāvokti.

Ruyyaka shows how Bhāvika differs from Prasāda guṇa also.

are either past or future; and secondly, in the restricted

scope of Svabhāvokti, which can describe only an object's own

natural form and action, (Svakriyārūpa varṇanā). But Ruy-

yaka says that Bhāvika differs from both Rasavad and

Svabhāvokti in being an objective realisation in which the

reader sees a thing as a yogin (bhinna sarvajña) sees the

past and future; in Svabhāvokti and Rasokti, the limiting

contextual references get sunk; subject-object duality merges

and not only is there a generalised or universalised experience

(Sādhāraṇīkṛta) with reference to the characters presented in

the poem or drama, but there is also, for the time, a

loss or forgetting of the individuality of the reader or the

spectator.

नाध्ययं परिगृदृपतया स्चमत्काराप्रतिपत्ते रसवदलंकारः। रत्यादि-

चित्तवृत्तीनां तदनुषक्ततया विभावादीनामपि साधारण्येन हृदयसंवादितया

परमाद्वैतज्ञानवत् प्रतीतो तस्य भावात्। इह तु ताटस्थ्येन भूतभाविनां

स्फुटतया भिन्नसर्वज्ञवत् प्रतीते: । . . . . . . . . नापीयं सूक्ष्म-

वस्तुस्वभाववर्णनात् स्वभावोक्तिः। तस्यां लौकिकवस्तुगतसूक्ष्मधर्मवर्णने

साधारण्येन हृदयसंवादसंभवात्। इह लोकत्तराणां वस्तूनां स्फुटतया

तातस्थ्येन च प्रतीते: । p. 224, A.S., T.S.S. Edn.

Ruyyaka adds another difference between Bhāvika and

Svabhāvokti: in the former, only a miraculous (adbhuta and

lokottara: see his illustration मुनिर्जयति etc.) incident figures,

whereas in the latter any ordinary idea. But this difference

he casts off at once by saying that there may be cases of vivid

realisation of even ordinary things of this world, but then it

would be a Bhāvika with an element of Svabhāvokti. Surely

Ruyyaka does not mean that स्फुटत्व alone: in such a case makes

130

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

up the Bhāvika and the Vastu being laukika makes up the Svabhāvokti.1

कचित्तु लौकिकानामपि वस्तूनां स्फुटत्वेन प्रतीतौ भाविकस्वभा-वोक्तयो: समावेश: स्यात् । pp. 224-5 Ruyyaka, A.S., T.S.S. Edn.

So, the main difference by which Ruyyaka would distinguish Bhāvika from Svabhāvokti and Rasavad is that in the two latter cases, the Pratīti is Sādhāraṇa. But this again is a thin prop, to be given up. What kind of realisation in poetry can there be without Sādhāraṇīkaraṇa ? This universalisation has to come about, even in the case of Bhāvika. Ruyyaka no doubt knows this but he adds, that when this Sādhāraṇīkaraṇa floods the heart of the reader, the Bhāvika becomes Rasavad.

स्फुटप्रतीतिप्रधुरत्तरकालं तु साधारणीप्रतीतौ स्फुटप्रतीतिप्रस्थानिमित्तकोत्तरकालिको रसवदलङ्कार: स्यात्2 । p. 224, A.S., T.S.S. Edn.

1 As Samudrabandha mistakes in his gloss, pp. 224-5, T.S.S. Edn.

(a) Māṇikyacandra adopts Ruyyaka's distinction of Bhāvika from Svabhāvokti and Rasavad. See p. 408. Mysore Edn. of the K. Pra.

(b) Hemacandra says that Bhāvika is either Svabhāvokti or some feature pertaining purely to drama; that if it is pointed out to be present in Muktakas, it is not found to be delectable ! p. 293, K. A. Vyā.

(c) Since Bhāvika is said to present pictures separated by time, the Candrāloka adds a kin-alañkāra called Bhāvikacchavi for presentation of things separated by space.

देशान्त्मविप्रकृष्टस्य दर्शनं भाविकच्छवि: ।

त्वं वसन् हृदये तस्या: साक्षात्पुष्पेभुरूपदृश्यसे ॥ V. 114.

(d) For the connection Bhāvika bears to the clear presentation and realisation of rasa, see the following verse of Srī Harṣa in his Naiṣadhīya carita :

श्रुतिमधुपदर्मवेदगध्रीविभावितभाविक-

स्फुटरस्समग्रा|भ्यक्ता वन्तालिकिङ्गोगिरे गिर: ॥ XIX,.1.

RĪTI

The history of the concept of Rīti has three stages : first, when it was a living geographical mode of literary criticism ; second, when it lost the geographical association and came to be stereotyped and standardised with reference to subject ; and third, its re-interpretation by Kuntaka, the only Sanskrit Ālaṅkārika, who with his fine literary instinct and originality as evidenced on many other lines also, related the Rīti to the character of the poet and displaced the old Rītis by new ones.

Like national characteristics, there are also provincial characteristics in manners. These are studied by Bharata in the concept of Pravṛtti as part of the complete understanding of the world in its infinite variety, of which Nāṭya is an Anukāra.1 The concept of Pravṛtti in manners is Rīti in speech, in literature. Rīti is literary manner.2 We first hear of it in Bāṇa. In the introductory verses at the beginning of his Harṣacarita, Bāṇa remarks that certain parts of the country produce literature marked by certain characteristics.

श्लेषप्रायमुदीच्येषु प्रतीच्येष्वर्थमात्रकम् ।

उत्प्रेक्षा दक्षिणात्येषु गौडेष्वक्षररटम्बर: ॥

1 See my paper on Lokadharmi, JOR., Madras, VIII, pp. 63-64.

2 Rājas'ekhara works out this relation between Pravṛtti and Riti in his mythological manner in his Kāvya Puruṣa's marriage with Sāhityavidyā. K. M. Gaek. Edn., pp. 8-9.

132

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

There is no absurdity in such a geographical study; it is natural. With the Orient and India in particular, the western writers associate opulence, extravagance, colour and exaggeration. These strike them as the eastern manner in life and literature. So also, Bāṇa, speaking of the different parts of this country, remarks that the northerners write nothing but double entendre, the westerners, the bare idea; the southerners roll in imaginative conceits while the Gauḍas (easterners) make a display of wordy tumult.1 But immediately

1 Bāṇa says in this verse that it is the westerners who write the bare idea with the least flourish. The bare idea, Arthamātra, has its opposite in Pallava. Bald idea is the flaw called Apuṣṭa and similarly, too much Pallava is a flaw at the other extreme. Beautiful Pallava, says Ratnes'vara in his commentary on the Sarasvathikaṇṭhābharana (S. K. Ā.) II. p.157, is the essence of poetry. He quotes here two anonymous verses, according to which it is not the westerners (as said by Bāṇa) but the Northerners, Udicyas, as contrasted with the Dākṣiṇātyas or Vaidarbhas, that give the bare idea.

“ पञ्चप्रतिष्ठैके हि सरस्वती सह्हदयानावरर्ज्यति ।

नाक्यप्रतीतमात्रार्थमुपात्तेषु पदेषु यः ।

उपस्कारः पदैरन्यैः पञ्चवं तं प्रचक्षते ॥

अपञ्चवं तु यद्वाक्यं कविम्यस्तत्न रोचते ।

प्रयुज्यते तथाभूतमुचीच्ये कविगर्हितम् ॥”

The Vaidarbhas or Dākṣiṇātyas enrich their expressions. Excess of Pallava would however merit criticism at Bhāmaha’s hands in the words विरुद्धपदस्वार्थं बहुपूरणमाकुलम् and Mahimā would condemn it as Avakara. Ratnes'vara refers only to the beautiful Pallava which keeps within limits as in the Vaidarbhas' expression. Ratnes'vara considers the Vaidarbhas as experts fit to sit in judgment on this subject. दाक्षिणात्या वैदर्भीमाहुः । पारावरीणासते हि विश्रृङ्खल-

स्वरूपमवधारयितुं क्षमा इति । p. 28. S. K. Ā. Vyā.

Pallava which has prolix words and little idea that S'riharsa describes as the poison of speech. Fewest words for the greatest effect is, in S'riharṣa's view, the climax of style.

गरौ गिरः पञ्चवत्-अर्थलाघवे, मितं च व सारं च वचो हि वाग्मिता ।

Naiṣadha, IX, 8.

Bāṇa thinks that the best writer combines all these four qualities in the best manner.

नवोर्थों जातिरग्राम्या श्लेषोदकृष्ट: स्फुटो रस: ।

विकटोक्तिविन्यासवैचित्र्यं कल्पनैकत्र दृढभम् ॥

The bare idea is stale but a novel turn given to the idea makes it striking : Navorrthah. The natural description of things as they are, Jāti, can be effective, if the discription is not bald and ordinary, Grāmya. The S'leṣa of the Udicyaṣ is welcome but it should be ‘Akliṣṭa’, not forced. The Akṣaradambara of the Gauḍaṣ has its own beauty but, all this has any beauty only if Rasa is transparent in the piece, sphuṭo rasah. It is very difficult to combine these virtues; but when one achieves it, he is a great writer indeed. In these two verses, Bāṇa has spoken of four different styles, each definite and distinct, with its own emphasis on one particular feature, but has voted for casting away an over-emphasis on each of these four characteristics and for moderately and appropriately combining them into one good style which looks like the Niṣyanda of the four.

When we first have some record of the habits of literary criticism, we find two names, Vaidarbhī and Gauḍī, characterising two styles of composition. The north and the west of the verse of Bāṇa are lost. √Two main distinguishable styles had stayed, the other two having lost their individuality. The Dākṣinātyaṣ of Bāṇa are the representatives of the Vai-darbhī and his Gauḍaṣ represent the Gauḍī style. We have it as a tradition in Sanskrit literature that the Vidarbha country is the home of grace and beauty. Bharata speaks of the beauty, Saukumārya, of the southerners in his Dākṣinātya.

134

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA SĀSTRA

Pravṛtti.1 Though most of the provinces in the south are included by Bharata under Dākṣiṇātya, the chief place of the Kaisikī vṛtti and the Dākṣiṇātya pravṛtti is Vidarbha. The conception of the Dākṣiṇātya composition as abounding in Utprekṣās found in Bāṇa had changed and the Vaidarbhas had developed a graceful style. The Gauḍas who were playing with sonorous sound in Bāṇa's time developed their style on the same lines, with their love for Akṣaradampara embracing high-wrought ornate figures also. Thus in course of time, circles of literary critics, Kāvya Goṣṭhīs, discussed poems and writings in terms of the two Rītis, the Vaidarbhī and the Gauḍī. There was prevalent a dislike for the latter, since it abounded in excesses of sound effects and figure effects. In this time appear Bhā-

maha's views on the two Rītis, disapproving of the method of criticism based on the two Rītis which called the Vaidarbha good and the Gauḍīya, bad. It must be accepted that the Vaidarbha had many graceful features, was simple and sweet, with restraint in adornment, while the Gauḍīya which began as a style distinguished by ornament, overdid it and deteriorated. Bhāmaha said : one need not condemn the Gauḍī, nor praise the Vaidarbhī. They are two styles of writing, each characterised by certain distinguishing features. Provided the writings in either style have well developed thought expressed in fine turns, not vulgar or insipid, and uninvolved, both are acceptable. Without these general features of good poetry, it will not be acceptable even if it is Vaidarbhī. If

1 तत्र दाक्षिणात्या भवेद् वहुगीतनृत्यवादा कैशिकीप्राया चतुरमधुरललिताञ्जाभिनया Bharata, N. S'. p. 147. K. M. Edn.

Kuntaka refers to the natural sweetness of southern music.

न च दाक्षिणात्यगीतविषयसुक्तस्तादिध्वनिरामणीयकत्वत् तस्य स्वाभाविकत्वं वक्खुं पार्यते ।

p. 46. De's Edn. V. J.

Cf. also the Vaidarbha-vivāha-nepathya referred to by Kālidāsa at the end of the Mālavikāgnimitra.

these good features are present, it is acceptable, no matter if it is Gauḍī. That is, Bhāmaha wants to end indiscreet literary criticism led as if by the nose by these two names, Vaidarbha and Gauḍīya. Both styles have features which can be over-done ; consequently both have their vicious counterparts. Thus the sweetness, simplicity and the unadornedness of the Vaidarbhī can easily deteriorate into cloying liquids and nasals, and bare idea of insipid ordinariness. This is what Bhāmaha says and it is but a sane view :

अपुष्टार्थमवकोक्ति प्रसन्नमृजु कोमलम् ।

मित्रं गेयमिवेदं (वेदर्भे) तु केवलं श्रुतिपेशलम् ।

अलङ्कारवद्ग्राम्याम्यम् अर्थे न्याय्यमनाकुलम् ।

गौडीयमपि साधीयः, वेदर्भीमति (मति) नान्यथा ॥ I. 34-35.

The Vaidarbha need not adorn itself very much ; but a minimum of Vakratā is needed to avoid Grāmyatā. When one has to praise a thing, it is neither enough nor beautiful to simply say, without adopting telling turns of expressions, ‘very much’ etc. Says Bhāmaha :

न नितान्तादिमात्रेण जायते चारुता गिराम्¹ ।

वक्राभिधेयशब्दोक्तिरिष्टा वाचामलङ्कृति: ॥ I. 36.

Thus, accepting the current habit of distinguishing writing into two styles, Bhāmaha would argue that both are acceptable, if they do not overdo their distinguishing features and possess ‘the more general and necessary virtues of all good composition. He points out the possibility of a good handling of the

¹ न नितान्तादिमात्रेण is not understood by D. T. Tatacharya Siromani, in his Sanskrit gloss on Bhāmaha called Udyānavṛtti. See p. 17. किमिदं नितान्तादिमात्रेण । तत्र बुधयामहे ! पाठान्तरेण तु भाव्यम् ! Then he tries to give some explanation.

136

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Gauḍī and1 similarly the possibility of a bad Vaidarbhī. He

would not stress these two catchwords very much but would

emphasise more the other features of greater importance which

all good composition|should have, viz., अलद्दारवदवचन्, अप्रामितत्वम्,

अध्येयत्वम, न्यायत्वम and औचित्यवम्. From this, we can now pass

to consider the final position of Bhāmaha. As one who

emphasises the above given features of all good poetry,

Bhāmaha does |not propose to accept unthinkingly the

differentiation of writing into Vaidarbha and Gauḍa at all.

His is a double protest. First, it is against the partiality for

the Vaidarbhī and the aversion for the Gauḍī. He says : a lay

and blind world repeats what one has said, praises the

Vaidarbhī and condemns the Gauḍī, even when the Gauḍī is

good and has good idea, सदर्थमपि. Thus pleading for

the possibility of a good Gauḍī with the auxiliary argument of

the possibility of a bad Vaidarbhī, Bhāmaha says that, per-

sonally, he would not attach much importance to the two

names Vaidarbhī and Gauḍī. As one who cares for the greater

virtues of good poetry in general, he says that he accepts such

composition as possesses those good qualities. He says that

he cannot distinguish two styles and that such a thing is non-

existent. But his opponents point out that, as for instance,

the Kāvya (lost) called the Aśmaka-vamśa is Vaidarbhī. His

reply is, “ All right, call it whatever you please ; one gives

names as he pleases and that does not matter much. There is

no special kind of poetry called Vaidarbhī. All poetic writing

is accepted because it is adorned by Vakrokti.

युक्तं वकस्वभावोक्त्यां सर्वमेव तदिष्यते ॥

वैदर्भम अन्यदस्तीति मन्यन्ते सुधियोऽपरे ।

तदेव न किं नामाः सदर्थमपि नापरम् ॥

RĪTI

137

गौडीयमिदमेतत्तु वैदर्भमिति किं पृथकू ।

गतानुगतिकन्याय्यात् नानार्येयममेधसाम् ॥

ननु चाश्मकवंशादि वैदर्भमिति कथ्यते ।

कामं तथास्तु प्रायेण संजेेच्छातो विधीयते ॥

I. 30-33.

From these verses of Bhāmaha on the two styles, we can gather that in his time, some writers had held the Vaidarbhī as the better style and the Gauḍī as the worse. Of the Vai-darbhī also we glean that अनतिपोष, अनतिविस्तृक्ति, प्रसाद, आज़ीव, कोमलत्व and श्रुतिपेशलत्व were considered by those writers as the distinguishing features. Vide sl. 34. If these ideas are stuck to too much, Vaidarbhī deteriorates: If the Artha is entirely Apuṣṭa, Avakra and Prasanna, it is insipid as ordinary talk. If it is very much addicted to the habit of giving a sense of sweetness to the ear alone, it is only like some song, heard and forgotten.

कर्णे गतं श्रुप्यति कर्ण एव सङ्गीतं सैकतवारिरीत्या ॥

Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita in his Śivalilārṇava, Canto I. 17.

गायन्ति वीणा अपि वेणवोडपि जानन्ति बालाः पशवोडपि चेदम् ॥

Ibid., Canto I. 14.

In a similar manner we can also glean from Bhāmaha's remarks what features were attributed by writers of his time to the Gauḍī, by writers who condemned it. These features can be gathered from verse 35 and they are Atyalankāra, Ākulatva etc. The Gauḍī they condemned had too much Akṣaradambara and was Ākula, at the sacrifice of idea, Anar-thya. This current of criticism against the Gauḍī continued to flow, despite Bhāmaha's efforts to stop it. The good Gauḍī envisaged by Bhāmaha was however not demonstrated, in all

138

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṂKĀRA ŚĀSTRA

probability, by the representatives of the Gauḍī and so the Gauḍī came to mean a bad style, with excess of Ś'abda and Artha Alamkāra, poor in idea, hyperbolic and involved in expression. It is this Gauḍī that is the antithesis in the first pariccheda of the Kāvyādarśa of Daṇḍin. By this time, the names had not yet become non-geographical; for Daṇḍin often refers only to the people of the east and the south, while referring to the two styles and not, like later writers, to the stereotyped modes of style without any geographical significance.

It is often said that Daṇḍin represents a school called the 'Guṇa school.' In Bhāmaha, at the beginning of chapter II, we find three Guṇas, Prasāda, Mādhurya and Ojās, the former two going together as features of an Asamāsa-saṅghatanā and the third, standing against both Prasāda and Mādhurya, as the Guṇa of Dīrgha-samāsa-saṅghatanā. While speaking of the two Mārgas, Bhāmaha mentions Komalatva, Ś'ruti pesalatva, and Prasannatva regarding the Vaidarbhī; and while commending the good Gauḍī, he says that it must be Anākula, which means that there must not be very long compounds. Besides this implied and traceable connection between the Guṇas and the two Mārgas, there is no definite mention, in Bhāmaha, of Guṇas as the constituting elements of a Mārga. Daṇḍin expounds in the first chapter the Vaidarbha Mārga which was considered the best style. It was so considered because of the presence in it of ten Guṇas which constitute its life. Daṇḍin generally says that the reverses of these ten Guṇas are seen in the Gauḍī which means bad poetry. A critical examination of these ten Guṇas has been made elsewhere by the present writer.' Suffice it here to point out that some

' See my thesis Bhoja's Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa, Vol. I, Part 2, Ch. on History of Guṇas, pp. 282-293.

RĪTI

139

Gunas are given by Daṇḍin himself as excellences of both Mārgas.1

Daṇḍin mentions the ten Gunas as the life not of poetry as such, but of the style called Vaidarbhī. If, on the basis of Daṇḍin’s formulation of Gunas, one says that he belongs to the Guna school, one can as well say that Daṇḍin belongs to the Rīti school. Really Daṇḍin belongs to the Alamkāra school, much more than Bhāmaha. For, to Daṇḍin, Gunas, Rasas, Sandhyanga, Vṛttyanga, Lakṣaṇa,—all are Alamkāra. Apart from the word poetry, there is only one word for Daṇḍin, viz., Alamkāra. The full development of Daṇḍin, as well as of Bhāmaha, is seen in Bhoja and Kuntaka.2

In poetic expression there is always a finally analysable scheme of two definite styles, the simple and the grandiose, the plain and the elevated, the unadorned and the figurative. In the former, natural description of emotion, men and things is given with minimum artificial decoration. Svabhāvokti and Rasokti, to borrow Bhoja’s classification, predominate in it. Colour, ornament,—Vakrokti dominates the latter. These two correspond to Daṇḍin’s two styles; only the Gauḍī is Vakrokti run riot. Kuntaka’s Sukumāra Mārga, which emphasises Vakrokti less, belongs to the former class. Kuntaka’s Vicitra mārga marks an emphasis on the Vaicitrya that Vakrokti imparts. Aristotle also gives only two styles, the good and the bad, the good being so by any sort of virtue, i.e., good not only because of virtues of simplicity, elegance etc., but by virtues of vigour etc., also. His bad

1 Dr. S. K. De wrongly says in his Skr. Poetics II, p. 100 : “ The ten Gunas are non-existent in the Gauḍa.”

2 See my Bhoja’s Śṛngāra Prakāśa, Vol. I. Part 1, p. 123; Part 2, p. 417.

140

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

style is the frigid style, resembling exactly Daṇḍin's Gauḍī, a

style which overshoots its mark. The plain and elegant style

of Demetrius corresponds to the Vaidarbhī of Daṇḍin and the

Sukumāra of Kuntaka. The elevated and the forcible of

Demetrius resembles the Vicitra Mārga of Kuntaka and the

good Gauḍī envisaged by Bhāmaha.

It is said that what we call Rīti is not anything

similar to what is called in English ‘style.’ Dr. S. K. De

says in his Skr. Poetics, II, p. 115 : “It should be observed

that the term Rīti is hardly equivalent to the English word

style, by which it is often rendered, but in which there is

always a distinct subjective valuation.” Again on p. 116 :

“ But, at the same time, the Rīti is not, like the style, the

expression of poetic individuality as is generally understood

by western criticism, but it is merely the outward presentation

of its beauty called forth by a harmonious combination of

more or less fixed ‘literary excellences’.” The word ‘style’

in English is not easily felt to be equivalent to the Sanskrit

Rīti mainly on two grounds : (i) It is said that while the

English Style in all-comprehensive, the Sanskrit Rīti com-

prises only a fixed set of Guṇas. (ii) Rītis as expounded by

Sanskrit are only two or three or four or six, and are related

to certain kinds of subjects or themes whereas the English

Style is related to the author's character. It is proposed to

make plain in the course of this study of Rīti that it is neither

impossible nor incorrect to render Rīti by the English word

Style, that Rīti comprehends not only Guṇas, but Alañkāras

and Rasas also, that Rītis are not so few as two or six but

really as infinite as poets and that at least one or two Ālaṅkā-

rikas and poets have related Rīti to the poet. It shall also be

shown that there are always two conceptions of Rīti, a higher

and a larger one and a lower and a narrower one, a subjective

one and an objective one, in relation to the poet and in relation to theme; and that this is true of the English Style also, as can be seen from its bistory in western literary criticism from Aristotle downwards. Actually, certain western writers find it not only possible but quite sensible and useful too, not only to classify style into a certain number of styles but also to relate these classified and standardized styles to subject or theme.

As observed above, though Bhāmaha does not definitely give in so many words the relation of Guṇas and Rīti, we can clearly see that his verses imply the theory of Rīti as based on the Guṇas. For he speaks of Komalatva, Prasannatva and S'rutipesaḷatva regarding the Vaidarbhī. But Bhāmaha does not stop here. He speaks further of Arthapoṣa, Vakrokti, Arthiyatva, Nyāyyatva and Anākulatva as features of a style of acceptable poetry. Certainly these are comprehensive features and stand for the very complete manner of writing. When we analyse Daṇḍin, we see that not only Guṇas but Alañkāras also go to distinguish the Rītis. He says that the Gauḍa mārga is characterised by Anuprāsa which is a S'abdālaṁkāra. The flaw of S'aithilya, the reverse' of the S'leṣa of the Vaidarbhī, is a result of Anuprāsa.

अनुप्रासधिया गौडैस्तदृष्टं बन्धगौरवात् । I. 44.

Again, speaking of the reverse of the Guṇa called Samatā, in Gauḍa mārga, Daṇḍin says :

इत्यनालोच्य वैषम्यमर्थालङ्कारडम्बरम् । अवेक्ष्यमाणं वत्रुषे पौरस्त्या काव्यपद्धति: ॥ I. 50.

Mādhurya involves S'rutyanuprāsa.

1 In his article on the Gaudi Riti in Theory and Practise in I.H.Q., III, 1927, Mr. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya renders 'Viparyaya' as misconception about or misapplication of the essentials of style.

142

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

तद्रूा हि पदासत्ति: सानुप्रासा रसावहा । I. 52.

Anuprāsa in its Ulbaṇa varieties is specialised in by the Gauḍas.

इतीहं नाहतं गौडैरनुप्रासस्तु तद्विय: । I. 54

As a matter of fact, Daṇḍin treats of the S'abdālaṅkāras only here. He treats of the Anuprāsa here and keeps over the Yamaka for the third chapter. The only difference is that the Anuprāsas of the Vaidarbhas are mild while those of the Gauḍas are wild.

इत्यानुप्रासमिच्छन्ति नातिदूरान्तरश्रुतिम् ।

न तु रामामुखाम्भोजसहशश्रन्द्रमा इति ।। I. 58.

इत्यादि बन्धपारुष्यं शैथिल्यं च नियच्छति ।

अतो नैनमनुप्रासं दाक्षिणात्या: प्रयुञ्जते ।। I. 60.

The Guṇa called Udāra is no feature of the collocation like S'leṣa. It relates to thought and the mode of its expression. When a noble and exalted description suggests a noble and exalted quality of the person or object described, it is called Udāra Guṇa. This way of saying, so as to make the thing intended to be said deliver itself by implication or suggestion—

उत्कर्षवान् गुण: कश्चिद्यस्मिन्नननुब्रुवन्ते प्रतीतने ।

is something beyond Guṇa and Alaṅkāra. Nor is the second variety of Udāra—S'lāghyaviśeṣaṇa,—on a par with S'leṣa.

The Guṇa of Kānti is similarly of a superior nature. It refers to that method of expression wherein the author shows restraint and moderation and avoids hyperboles. The Gauḍas, on the other hand, love hyperboles.

RĪTI

143

इदमत्युक्तिरितियुक्तमेतदौडोपलालितम् । I. 92.

Similarly Samādhi Guṇa brings in its train Samāsokti Alamkāra. Thus, an examination of Daṇḍin shows that the Mārgas are characterised not merely by a set of fixed features which pertain to collocation alone. The Guṇas mean much more than what they seem to. The Guṇas themselves must be clearly understood. Rīti cannot be demeaned by simply saying that it is called forth by a set of more or less fixed literary excellences.

Vāmana began grandly by declaring Rīti as the soul of poetry. He however defined Rīti as Padaracanā, but qualified it with the word Viśiṣṭa. Vāmana is the first writer to give a classification of Guṇas into those of Ś'abda and those of Artha. The mere excellences of Bandha are Ś'abda guṇas; Rīti there is at its lower level. The Artha-guṇas lift up Rīti to the higher position. The Artha-guṇas are comprehensive and reach up to Rasa. The Arthaguṇa Ojas, Prauḍhi of various kinds, Mādhurya which is Uktivaicitrya, Ś'leṣa which is Ghaṭanā of various kinds, Kāntī which is brilliancy of Rasas—these comprehend poetic expression in all aspects. Vāmana himself emphasises the Arthaguṇas :

तस्यां अर्थगुणसंपदास्वाच्छा । सर्पीयमर्थगुणसंपद् वैदर्भीगत्युच्यते ॥

I. 2. 20, 22.

Thus these so-called Guṇas comprehend Bandhaguṇas, Alamkāras and Rasas. Demetrius, while describing each style, gave each certain Bandhaguṇas, certain kinds of Alamkāras and certain emotional features also.

Vāmana defined his Guṇas in such a way as to enable us to take them as characteristics of the best style of poetry. Guṇas

144

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

which would pertain only to another Mārga were not brought

in by him. So, he could define the Vaidarbhī as the best

style by reason of the fullness of all these Guṇas in it, Guṇa

sākalya. So it is that he says that Pāka or maturity of

expression in Kāvya is the clear and full presence, Sphuṭatva

and Sākalya, of these Guṇas.

This view Vāmana could hold by changing the meaning

of some Guṇas. To the two Rītis, Vaidarbhī and Gauḍī,

Vāmana first added a third, the Pāñcālī, another intriguing

geographical name. The Gauḍī in Vāmana is not the bad

style in Daṇḍin. It is a good style in which all the Guṇas

of the Vaidarbhī are present; only it sheds some sweetness

and delicateness and attains vigour and forcefulness. The

Mādhurya and Saukumārya of the Vaidarbhī are replaced by

Samāsabāhulya and Ulbaṇapadas, with a greater degree of

Ojas and Kāṇti. The Pāñcālī is the Vaidarbhī devoid of

Ojas and Kāṇti.1 Of these three, Vāmana asks poets to

practise and achieve the Vaidarbhī style of poetry.

तासां पूर्वो ग्राह्या, गुणसाकल्यात्, न पुनरितरे स्तोकगुणत्वात् ।

I. 2, 14-18.

From the three Rītis in Vāmana, we pass to the four in

Rudraṭa. Rudraṭa mentions the Vaidarbhī and the Pāñcālī

with a certain kinship which is found even in Vāmana.

Rudraṭa however adds a fourth style to go along with the

Gauḍīya. This new fourth Rīti is the Lāṭīya, another

geographical name. The four are thus given in two sets and

are, for the first time definitely dissociated from any poets of

1 It is noteworthy how the Alaṅkāraḍambara of the Gauḍas

mentioned by Bāṇa has not changed at all. समस्ततात्युद्भटपदां . . .

गौडीयामपि गयन्ति ।—Vāmana. For the contradiction here on the

concept of Ojas and a full examination of Vāmana's Guṇas, see

my S'ṛṅgāra Prakāsa, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 293-299.

any parts of the country which their names refer to. Rudrata

वैदर्भीपाञ्चाल्यौ प्रेयसि करुणे भयानकाद्रुतयोः ।

लाटीयागौडीयै रौद्रे कुर्यात्चथौचित्यम् ॥

While tracing the history of Rīti, we can clearly see how

no writer ever missed the idea that the Vaidarbhī stood for

a certain sweetness while the Gauḍī was characterised by

force and vigour. When the geographical significance of the

Vaidarbhas alone favouring sweetness and its allied Guṇas and

the Gauḍas alone practising Akṣaraḍambara, Ojas etc., was

lost, and all the Rītis were practised by all poets of all places,

the sweetness of the one and the vigour of the other were

thought of in connection with the theme by the same poet

who commanded both ways of writing. Viṣaya-aucitya began

to regulate the nature of Rīti in the several parts of a poem.

The Rasas and the Arthas pertaining thereto have their own

quality of sweetness, vigour etc. These were studied by

Bharata, and by others following him, in the concept of Vṛtti.

The Vṛtti was applied from Drama to poetry.1 Kaisikī is the

Vṛtti of Sṛṅgāra and Ārabhaṭī of Raudra, Vīra, Bhayānaka

and Bībhatsa Rasas. To this Vṛtti, the Rīti came to be

related. The sweetness and delicateness associated with the

Vaidarbhī made it possible to link it to the Kasikī Vṛtti and

the Sṛṅgāra Rasa. Sṛṅgāra, Kasikī Vṛtti and the Vaidarbhī Rīti

went together always. The Gauḍī easily linked itself to Ārabhaṭī

Vṛttī and Rasas like Raudra. The Pāñcālī and the Lāṭīya occu-

pied middling positions, the former leaning more to the Vaidar-

bhī and the latter more to the Gauḍī. Thus the emotional

situation came to determine the mode of expression. Hence

1 See below chapter on the history of Vṛtti in Kāvya.

146

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Bhoja treats of Rītis and Vrttis under Anubhāva. The Vrtti differs from Rīti as more intimately connected with Rasa and its ideas. To the Rasa, Rīti was related on the basis of the verbal expression, the S'abdsañghatanā. In this stage, the Guṇas, Mādhurya etc., which were still the constituents of Rīti, become mere Sañghatanādharmas. We find the Locana saying while stating the Pūrva-pakṣa :

"तच्छब्देनात्र माधुर्यादयो गुणाः । तेषां च समुचिततत्त्वयर्पणे यदन्योन्यमेलनक्षमत्वेन पानक इव गुडमरिचादिरसानां सद्य्यातरूपतागमनं दीप्त-ललित-मध्य-वर्णनीयविषयं गौडीय-वैदर्भ-पाञ्चालदेशहेवाकप्राचुर्यवदशा तदेव त्रिविधं रीतिरिलुक्तम् ।" P. 6.

As Ānandavardhana says, expression appropriate to Rasa is Vrtti ; the expression of Artha is the Vrtti of Kais'ikī etc. ; the expression of S'abda is the Vrtti of Upanāgarikā etc. These S'abda Vrttis Upanāgarikā etc. are the Rītis.

रसानुगुणत्वेन व्यवहर्तव्योऽर्थशब्दयोः । औचित्यवान्यस्ता एव वृत्तयो द्विविधास्स्यताः ॥ III. 33.

"तत्र रसानुगुणः औचित्यवान् वाच्याश्रयो व्यवहाः, ता एव कैशिक्याद्या वृत्तयः । वाचकाश्रयाश्च उपनागरिकाद्या: ।" ibid., vrtti.

शब्दतत्त्वाश्रया: काश्चित् अर्थतत्त्वयुजोडपराः । वृत्तयोडपि प्रकाशन्ते ज्ञातेडस्मिन्काव्यलक्षणे ॥ I.I. 53.

Mammata says under Anuprāsa jātis :

माधुर्यव्यञ्जकैर्वर्णैः उपनागरिकेष्यते । ओजःप्रकाशकस्तु परुषा,-कोमला परैः ॥ IX. 3. K. Pra.

RĪTI

147

एतास्तिस्रो वृत्तयः (उपनागरिका, परुषा, कोमला च) वामनादीनां

मते वैदर्भीगौडীয়ापाञ्चाल्याख्याः रीतय उच्यन्ते । ibid., vṛtti.

S'iṅgabhūpāla defines Rīti as Pada-vinyāsa-bhaṅgī, and has three

Rītis Komalā, Kathinā and Miśrā,—other names of Vaidarbhī

Gauḍī and Pāñcālī. A late work called S'ṛiṅgārasāra (Madras

MS.) follows S'iṅgaphūpāla completely, defines Rīti as Pada-

vinyāsabhaṅgī, accepts three varieties of it, Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī

and Pāñcālī, which it calls Komalā, Kathinā and Miśrā.

Rājas'ekhara's main chapter, the third, on Rīti, called

Rītiniṛṇaya, is lost. Still we gather some of his ideas on

Rīti in his description of the legendary Kāvyapuruṣa's Avatāra

in the beginning of his Kāvya mīmāṁsā, as also from his dramas.

In his Kāvyamīmāṁsā, Rājas'ekhara speaks of three Rītis in

the description of which he introduces a new distinguishing

feature, viz., the use of Yogavṛtti in abundance, the same

to a less extent, and the use of Upacāra. These are the

features Rājas'ekhara attributes to the three':

Gauḍī Pāñcālī Vaidarbhī

समास ईषद्रसमास असमास

अनुप्रास ईषदनुप्रास स्थानानुप्रास

योगवृत्तिसंपरित उपचार योगवृत्ति

These three Rītis, Rājas'ekhara relates to the Deśas whose

names they bear. He considers the Vaidarbhī as the best form

of poetic style. For he says that when the spouse of Sāhitya-

vidyā spoke to the Kāvyapuruṣa in the Gauḍa style, he was ab-

solutely indifferent ; when she talked in the Pāñcālī style, he was

1

Vide my article on Rīti and Guṇa in the Agni Purāṇa in

I.H.Q. X, iv, 767-779.

148

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

captivated only to a small extent, Īṣadvasamvadīkrta ; but

when both reached the Dakṣinades'a and she spoke in the

Vaidarbhī, he became ‘Atyartham vas'amvada '. Rājas'ekhara

pays his tribute to Vaidarbhī poetry by making the Kāvya-

purusa and Sāhityavidyā celebrate their nuptials in the capital

of the Vidarbhas, Vatsagulma.

तत्रास्ति मनोजन्मनो देवस्य कीडावासो विदर्भेषु वत्सगुल्मं नाम नगरम् । तत्र सारस्वतस्तामौमेयों गन्धर्ववत्परिरिणिनाय ।

P. 10.

In the mañgalas'loka to his Karpūramañjarī, Rājas'ekhara

speaks of three Rītis, Vacchomī, Māgadhi and Pāñcālī. This

Vacchomī is the Prākrt form ' of Vātsagulmī, a name for

Vaidarbhī given after the capital of the Vidarbhas, Vatsa-

gulma. Why the Gaudī has been substituted here by the

Māgadhī is not known.

In his Bālarāmāyana, Rājas'ekhara speaks of the Vai-

darbhī twice. In Act III, he says that the quality of Mādhurya

is supreme in the Vaidarbhī and in Act X, that the Vaidarbhī

is characterised by Mādhurya and Prasāda and that Rasa is

dominant in it.

(a) वाग्वैदर्भी मधुरिमगुणं सन्नदते श्रोत्रलेखम् ।

III. 14.

(b) कथमयं कृतककैशिकाधिपतिः—

वाग्देवता वसति यत्र रसप्रसूतिः

लीलापदं भगवतो मदनस्य यच्च ।

1

Instead of thus deriving Vacchomi meaning Vaidarbhī from

Vātsagulmi, Vāsudeva, author of the commentary on the Karpūra-

mañjarī says :

छूछच्छदच्छोमशब्दौ ‘दाढ़दयो बहुलम्’ इति विदग्धवेदर्भीशब्दयोस्साधू ।

P. 3. K. M. Edn.

RĪTI

149

प्रेडम्बुद्धिद्रघवनिताच्छितराजमार्गे

तत्कुण्ठिनं नगरमेष विभुरविर्भति ॥ III. 50.

(c) यक्ष्षेमं त्रिदिवाय वर्म्मे, निगमस्याझं च यक्ष्षसमं,

स्वादिष्ठं च यद्रेक्षवादपि रसात, चक्षुष्य यद्राड्मयम् ।

तद्यस्मिन्नधुरं प्रसादि रसवत् कान्तं1 च काव्यामृतं

सोडयं सुध्रु पुरो विदर्भविषय: सारस्वतीजन्मभू: ॥ X. 74.

Dhanapāla (first half of the 11th cent.) says in the Tilaka-

māñjarī

वैदर्भीमिव रीतोनां . अधिकमुद्रासमानाम् ।

K. M. edn. p. 130.

S'rīharsa says in his Naisadha :

धन्याडसि वैदर्भि गुणैरुदारै: । III. 116.

and again :

गुणानामास्थानं नृपतिलकनारीति विदितां

रसस्पृश्तामन्त: तव च तव वृत्ते च कवितु: ।

भवित्री वैदर्भीमधिकमधिककण्ठं रचयितुं

परीतमभक्रोडाचरणशरणाशरणामन्वहमयम् ॥ XIV, 91.

Nīlakanṭhadīkṣita waxes eloquent upon Vaidarbhī and its

country in his Nālacarita nāṭaka, Act III :

सरस्वती—सन्त्वज्ञा: सन्तु बुधा: सन्तु पुमांस: कियद्वा सन्तु ।

स स रसिक: कविरघुना जने यो यो जने विदर्भेषु ॥

सावित्री—प्रागेव खलु ते विदर्भा इत्येव हृदयं प्रकृष्टमुत्कण्ठते । किं पुन:

अनुमताया इव भगवतापि । यत्र सा वैदर्भी रीति: ।

1 It is not known if by this word Kānta, Rājas'ekhara means

the guṇa Kānti in Daṇḍin or uses it only in a general manner.

150

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

आदिस्स्वादुषु या, परा कवयतां काष्ठा यदारोहणं

या ते नि:श्वसितं, नवापि च रसा यत्र स्वदन्ते तेराम् ।

पाञ्चालीकिते परम्परापरिचितो वाद: कवीनं परं

वैदग्धी यदि सैव वाचि किमित: स्वर्गेऽपरोडपि वा ॥

To return to Rājaśekhara, he has the following additional

remarks about the literary habits of the poets of different

places :

तत्र दयितसुकृतयो विदर्भा: । वल्भसमासकृतयो गौडा: । प्रिय-

तद्धिता दाक्षिणात्या: । कृत्पयोगरुचय उद्रीच्या: । अभीष्टतिनवृत्तयस्स-

वैडपि सन्त: ।

Kāvyamīmāṃsā, p. 22.

The basis of cach of these statements is not exactly known.

We know only, from Daṇḍin, that the Gauḍas loved Samāsa

and that the remark about the Dākṣiṇātyas' love for Taddhita

is borrowed from Patañjali. Further, we do not exactly know

what Rājaśekhara means by mentioning separately Vaidarbhas

and Dākṣiṇātyas. Perhaps, the latter are people further south

or those in the south other than the Vaidarbhas.

In a verse on poet Bāṇa and poetess S'īlābhaṭṭārikā,

Rājaśekhara gives a new definitioı of the Pāñcālī, the

basis for which is also not known. He says in it that the

Pāñcālī is the style in which S'abda and Artha are evenly

matched.

शब्दार्थयोस्समो गुण्फ: पाञ्चाली रीतिरिप्यते ।

शीलाभट्टारिकावाचि बाणोक्तिषु च सा यदि ॥

In Act X of the Bālarāmāyaṇa, Rājas'ekhara ascribes a

peculiar style to Mithilā. Thus he speaks of a Maithilī style :

(i) यत्रार्थोऽतिशयोडपि सूत्रितजगन्मर्यादया मोदते

(ii) सन्निबद्धसमासिमासिलवदप्रस्तारिविस्तारित: ।

RĪTI

151

(iii) उक्तियोगपरंपरापरिचिता काव्येषु चक्षुष्मत्तां

सा रभ्या नवचंपकांङ्गि भवतु त्वन्नेत्रयोः प्रीतये ॥ śl. 95.

The Maithilī is here said to be characterised by three qualities :

(i) अर्थातिशयोपपत्ति जगत्प्रसिद्धानतिक्रमणं i.e., avoiding Atyuktis

or flat hyperboles. This is Daṇḍin's and Bhoja's

Kāンティ of the Vaidarbhī: कान्तं सर्वजगत्कान्तं लौकि-

काथानतिक्रमात् ।

(ii) This seems to be sparse use of compounds.

(iii) Yogaparamparā' which is given in his K. M.

as characterising the Gauḍī.

The country of Mithilā is nowhere mentioned in connection

with the Rītis, except perhaps by one writer, Śrīpada, quoted

by Keśava in Alañkārasekhara, who says that the Maithilī

has, like the Vaidarbhī, few compounds.

तदेतत्पल्हवल्लभित श्रीपादः—

गौडी समाभूयसत्वात वैदर्भी च तदल्पतः ।

अनयोस्संकरो यस्तु मागधी सा(ना ?)तिविस्तरा ॥

गौडीयै: प्रथमा, मध्यमा वैदर्भै: मैथिलैस्तथा ।

अन्यैस्तु वरमा रीति: स्वभावादेव सिध्यति ॥ p. 6. K. M. 50.

1 Vide Appendix on Riti in the Agnipurāṇa. The use of the

feature Yogavṛtti, Upacāra etc., in distinguishing styles is found

in Rājas'ekhara, Bhoja, Agnipurāṇa and Bahurūpamis'ra. The last

says in his commentary on the Das'arūpaka (Mad. MS.) : “ एतासां

चतसृणां च रीतिनां (1) समासतरतम्यात् (2) उपचरतरतम्यात् (3) वन्धसौकुमार्यादि-

तारतम्यात् (4) अनुप्रासभेदात् (5) योगादिभेदाच्च परस्परभेद इत्यनुसन्धातव्यमिति । ”

The Sāhitya mimāṃsā (TSS. 114) refers to the distinction of the

Ritis on the basis of these four features, but rejecting these,

accepts only the feature of Samāsa, the first, as the basis of the

distinction, a view which follows Rudraṭa (p. 87). The work notes

also that Bhāmaha has no fancy ‘or the Rītis.

152

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṆKĀRA SĀSTRA

From this remark of S'rīpāda, we understood that the Maithilī

is the Māgadhī,1 the Māgadhī which, along with the Pāñcālī

and the Vaidarbhī (Vacchomī), is mentioned by Rājas'ekhara

in his maṅgalas'loka to the Karpūramañjarī. Bhoja's

Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa gives an absurd definition of Māgadhī

as a Khaṇḍarīti, formed when the Rīti begun is left off!

पूर्वरीते: अनिर्वाह: खण्डरीतिस्तु मागधी ।

This Māghadhī may or may not have been mentioned in the lost Rīti chapter of the

Kāvyamīmāṃsā. But in the available portion, Rājas'ekhara

accepts only three Rītis and they are the Vaidarbhī, Gauḍīyā

and Pāñcālī. He says again on p. 31, of his K. M. :

तन्मानुषमिति ब्यपदिशान्ति । तच्च त्रिधा रीतित्रयमेदेन । तदाहु:—

वैदर्भी गौडीया पाञ्चाली चेति रीतयस्तिस्त्र: ।

आसु च साक्षात्रिवसति सरस्वती तेन लक्ष्यन्ते ॥

Bhoja added two more Rītis to Rudraṭa's four, the Āvanti-

kā and the Māgadhī. The latter, as found in Rājas'ekhara,

S'rīpāda and Bhoja, has been noticed already. It is only the

Āvantī that is absolutely new. The classification and descrip-

tion of these in Bhoja (S. K. Ā.) are very mechanical, arbitrary

and unreal. It seems to be idle to examine Bhoja's Lāṭīyā,

Māgadhī and Āvantī. Why this complacent creation of

geographical names was in fashion amongst these writers

cannot be guessed.2

1 It may be suggested that the mention of Māgadhī is due to

the author being a Buddhist ; Buddha spoke in Māgadhī bhāṣā.

2 The following is a summary of the views of other minor

writers on Riti. The older Vāgbhaṭa accepts only the Vaidarbhī

and the Gauḍi, one without any compounds and the other with

compounds (K. M. Edn. p. 61). The younger Vāgbhaṭa recognises

the three Rītis, Vaidarbhī, Gauḍīyā and Pāñcālī and defines them

as dominated respectively by the three Guṇas, Mādhurya, Ojas and

Prasāda (p. 31). Siṅgabhūpāla (R. A. S.) accepts the Vai., the Gau.,

RĪTI

153

The treatment of style on the basis of theme is not absent

from western criticism. Aristotle says that style should vary and

thus be in accordance with emotion. “ But the style expressive

of feeling suppose the case be one of assault in the style of a

man in passion ;—” “ A style of exultation for praise ; a style

and the Pāñ. He borrows from Daṇḍin for defining the Vaidarbhī ;

the two differences here are that he makes the ‘Rasa’ in Daṇḍin’s

मध्ये रसवृत्तौ, the 9 Rasas and takes the first case of Udāra as

Dhvanī. He calls the Vaidarbhī, Komalā ; Gauḍī, Kaṭhinā ; and

the Pāñcālī, Mis'rā. Leaving the Mis'rā, he contrasts the other

two; Komalā×Kaṭhinā ; Asamāsa×Dirghasamāsa ; Prasāda×

Asphuṭabandha ; Aniṣṭhurākṣara×Niṣṭhurākṣara ; Pṛthakpadatva×

Granthilatva. Under Mis'ra Ritis, he recognises a Riti for every

province, Āndhrā, Lāṭī, Saurāṣṭrī etc. (p. 69). The Camatkāra-

candrikā of Vis'ves'vara (Mad. MS.), who wrote in Siṅga’s court,

casts away the old names, defines Riti as Padaghanaṭanā and gives

four kinds of it, the only feature of differentiation accepted being

Samāsa-Asamāsa, Madhyasamāsa, Atidirghasamāsa and Mis'ra

(p. 61. Mad. MS.). This position corresponds to Rudraṭa’s which

distinguishes Ritis on Samāsa only, gives Vaidarbhī as the Riti of

the collocation free from compounds and gives three Ritis, Pāñcālī,

Lāṭīyā and Gauḍīyā for the collocations with Laghu, Madhya and

Āyata Samāsas. (II, 3-6). Vidyānātha considers Riti as ‘आत्मोत्कर्ष-

वहस्वभाव’ of the Kāvya. See also Sāhityakaumudī of Arkasūri, Mad.

MS. R. 2391, p. 11, स्वभाववैचित्र रीतिभिः। Tippabhūpāla, at the end of his

commentary on Vāmana, considers Riti as the life-breath of poetry :

असवो रीतयः p. 193. V. V. Edn. The only later writer, who still called

Riti the Ātman of poetry following Vāmana, even when Rasa and

Dhvanī were ruling for long, is Amṛtānandayogin who says :

रीतिरात्माद्रव ch. 5. Alaṅkāra Samgraha. This author treats of Rasa

and Dhvanī also. Keilhorn’s Central Provinces’ Catalogue, p. 104,

mentions a work called “ Riti vṛtti lakṣaṇa ” by Viṭṭhales'vara or

Viṭṭhaladikṣita, which would be the only post-Ānanda work of its

kind, if it is a complete work by itself and is devoted exclusively

to a consideration of Riti along with the allied Vṛtti. Even then

this tract must have dealt with Riti and Vṛtti only as accepted in

the scheme of Rasa and Dhvanī.

Simhadevagaṇī, commentator on the Vāgbhaṭālaṅkāra, speaks,

in three verses at the end of his commentary, of Lāṭī (Hāsya),

Pāñcālī (Karuna and Bhayānaka), Māgadhi (Śānta), Gauḍī (Vīra

and Raudra), Vachomī (Bibhatsa and Adbhuta) and Vaidarbhī

154

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

with submission if in pity. " But compound words and

plurality of epithets and foreign idioms are appropriate chiefly

to one who speaks under the excitement of some passion—."

This style of a man in passion and a situation of assault, in

which Aristotle mentions compound words as proper is an

Ojas-dominated Rīti, like Daṇḍin's Gauḍī, Samāsabhūyiṣṭha.

Aristotle says elsewhere that " of various kinds of words, the

compounds are best adapted to dithyrambs," which are hymns

to Bacchus, the wine-god, enthusiastic, wild and boisterous.

Samāsa gives the necessary Ojas to such a style.

Speaking of the style called ‘ the Elevated ’, Demetrius

says that there are certain subjects with the quality of elevation

to which that style is thence suited. Such are subjects like

scenes of battle. Surely these cannot be treated in the styles

called ‘ the Plain ’ and ‘ the Elegant ’. They must be rendered

in the styles called ‘ the Elevated ’ and ‘ the Forcible ’. De-

metrius speaks of the Varṇadhavani of Ānanda in this con-

nection, of how S'rutiduṣṭa, S'a, Ṣa, Ra etc., is promotive of

Raudra rasa. Demetrius remarks that though violence (S'ruti-

duṣṭa) is a fault of composition, it is a necessary feature of the

(S'rṅgāra). We do not know how Vacchomi is different from Vai-

darbhī and how Vacchomi is suited to Bibhatsa and Adbhuta. In the

next verse he gives, following Rudraṭa, the Pāñcālī as having two

or three words in a compound, Lāṭī five or seven and Gauḍī as

many words as possible in a compound. The last verse is very

puzzling :-प्रथमपदा वत्सोमी त्रिषमपदा च मागधी भवति । उभयोरपि वैदर्भी

मुहुर्मुहुः: भाषणं कुरते ॥ Hamsamiṭṭhu's Hamsa vilāsa (Geak edn. Ixxxi)

speaks of the Lāṭī (Hāsya), Pāñcālī (Karuna and Bhayānaka),

Māgadī (S'ānta), Gauḍī (Vira and Bhayānaka), Vātsoma des'o

bhavā (Bibhatsa and Adbhuta) and Vaidarbhī (S'rṅgāra). (ch. 46,

p. 269). The expression Vatsoma-des'odbhavā is quite correct and

the editor need not have added a query here; it means the Vacch-

omī which Rājasekhara's Karpūramañjarī mentions; but the Hamsa

vilāsa is wrong when it speaks of a Vaidarbhī in addition, for the

Vacchomī is the same as the Vaidarbhī; and it is also wrong to

assign to the Vacchomi the Rasas Bibhatsa and Adbhuta.

RĪTI

155

Forcible style, since “words hard to pronounce are forcible as

uneven roads are forcible.” Even as the Sanskrit Ālamkārikas

speak of the Vaidarbhī for Sṛṅgāra rasa, Demetrius gives the

Elegant as the style for elegant and graceful subjects like

Sṛṅgāra. He says : “The materials of grace are the gardens

of nymphs etc., etc.” One of the two deciding factors in ‘the

Grand style’, M. Murry says, is the theme, the other factor

being vocabulary. In connection with the theme, “the nature

of the plot or muthos”, he observes that the Grand style is

adopted if superhuman or majestic figures are involved. “If

the characters of the plot are superhuman and majestic, it

seems more or less necessary that their manner of speech should

differ from that of ordinary dramatic poetry by being more

dignified—.” (p. 140, Problem of Style.) “The poet height-

ens the speech of his superhuman characters in order that

they may appear truly superhuman.” (p. 141). This is clearly

a case of theme being a Niyāmaka of style, a case of stand-

ardised style, “a technical poetic device for a particular end ”

as Murry says of the Grand style. Thus, the linking of style

to theme is not absent from western criticism.

It is remarkable that there should be many points of

similarity between western writers on the subject of style and

Sanskrit Ālornkārikas. M. Murry says in his Problem of Style :

“In the course of the approach, I examined two qualities of

style which are not infrequently put forward as essential,

namely, the musical suggestion of the rhythm and the visual

suggestion of the imagery, and I tried to show that these were

subordinate. On the positive side, I tried to show that the

essential quality of style was precision : that this precision was

not intellectual, not a precision of definition, but of emotional

suggestion. . . .” p. 95. The musical qualities of rhythm

etc., in the word-structure come under Śabdaguna and

S'abdālamkāra and the visual suggestion of imagery is Arthaguṇa and Arthālamkāra. These two, of the realm of Vācya vācaka, are but the means, the vehicle, i.e., subordinate as Murry says. The emotional suggestion of Murry is Rasadhvani and precision thereof is served by Rasaucitya. The second Mādhurya of Daṇḍin, viz., Anuprāsa—वर्णावृत्तिरनुप्रासः पादेशु च पदेषु च । I, 55. या कयाचिच्छृता यत्र ॥ etc. corresponds to the fourth point mentioned by R. L. Stevenson in his essay on the Technical Elements of Style, viz., ‘contents of the phrase.’ He makes a detailed study and analysis and tabulates the consonantal sound effects of many passages. He gives this as a quality of a master of style. Daṇḍin says that when this S'rutyanuprāsa is left and Ulbaṇānuprāsa is resorted to by the Gaudas, harshness, Bandhānaruṣya and another flaw, S'aithilya, result. The concatenation becomes hardly pronounceable—Kṛcchrodaya.

शिथिलं मालतीमाला लोलालिकलिला यथT ॥ अनुप्रासधिया गौडैस्तदित्थं बन्धगौरवात् ॥ वैदर्भीमोलतीदाम लड्घितं भमरैरिरिति । I, 43-44. इत्यादिबन्धपारुष्यं शैथिल्यं च नियच्छति । अतो नैनमनुप्रासे दाक्षिणाल्या: प्रयुज्यते ॥ ibid., 60. दीर्घमित्यपरेवृत्ता कृच्छ्रोद्यमपि बध्यते । न्यक्षण क्षेपित: पक्ष: क्षत्रियाणा क्षणादिति ॥ ibid., 72.

Stevenson thus concludes his section on ‘contents of the phrase’ : “ To understand how constant is this pre-occupation of good writers, even where its results are least obstrusive, it is only necessary to turn to the bad. There indeed you will find cacaphony supreme, the rattle of inçongruous consonants

only relieved by jaw-breaking hiatus, and whole phrases not to

be articulated by the powers of man." R. L. Stevenson speaks

in this essay of his, of Samatā, Vaiṣamya, Prasāda and Caville,

i.e., the Anarthakapadas or Aprayojāka padas of Vāmana which

hinder Prasāda (अर्थस्य वैमल्यं प्रयोजकमात्रपदपरिप्रहे प्रसादः III, iii, 3,)

and Mahiman's Awakara. Ideas found in Pater's exposition of

style also have correspondences with ideas on Guṇa, Alamkāra

and Alamkāraucitya found in Sanskrit works. Schopenhauer

has an essay on Authorship and Style, where, while dealing with

the latter subject, he gives certain concrete good features of a

good style of writing, judged to be good by reason of the pre-

sence of those features. According to him thoughts must get

their clearest, finest and most powerful expression ; thus, three

qualities are emphasised by him, clarity and beauty, the sum

total of these two, the power. In clarity is comprehended

chiefly the virtue of simplicity which means the expression of

thoughts "as purely, clearly, definitely and concisely as ever

possible." This is secured by the use of words which are precise

and which mean neither more nor less, which neither mean

the thing vaguely nor mean something different. Grammatical

precision and enough words are necessary. Clarity and gram-

mar must not be sacrificed for the sake of brevity. Says

Schopenhauer : "On the other hand one should never sacrifice

clearness, to say nothing of grammar, for the sake of being

brief. . . . And this is precisely what false brevity

nowadays in vogue is trying to do, for writers not only leave

out words that are to the purpose, but even grammatical and

logical essentials." Compare Dandin's Guṇa, Arthavyakti,

which he defines as Aneyārthatva. It is a grammatical and

logical necessity. In its absence, in the absence of words

grammatically and logically essential, we have the Doṣa called

Neyārthatva.

158

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

अर्थव्यक्तिरनेयत्वमरर्थस्य हरिणोद्भृता।

भूः सुरक्षणनागासृङ्लोहितादुदधेरिति ॥

नेदंशं बहुमन्यन्ते मार्गयो रु भयोरपि ।

न हि पतङ्गिसंभा श्रेण्यन्वयाविलङ्घिनी ॥ K. Ā. I, 73-75.

Not saying what must be said, out of a mistaken sense of brevity, is a kind of ‘Vācyāvacana’ according to Mahimabhaṭṭa.

Similarly, simplicity and precision are lost by adding things and words which are unnecessary. This is Mahiman’s Avā-cyavacana.

इत्यत्र समासान्तर्गतेन वदनशब्देन एकेनैव वदने वाच्ये यद् बहुमिः शब्दैः तस्य वचनं, सोऽवाच्यवचनं दोषः । p. TSS. cdn.

These words are surplusage and are due to proverity of thought or an ambition to write a grand style. These merely fill so much of space still vacant in a verse, Pādapūraṇa. Schopenhauer says : “ If words are piled up beyond this point they make the thought that is being communicated more and more obscure. To hit that point is the problem of style and a matter of discernment ; for every superfluous word prevents its purpose being carried out.” This is exactly what Vāmana means by his Arthaguṇa Prasāda which is the use of words exactly sufficient for conveying the idea.

अर्थवैमल्य प्रसादः । अर्थस्य वैमल्यं प्रयोजकमात्रपदपरिग्रहे प्रसादः । यथा—‘ सवर्णा कन्यका रूपयौवनारम्भशालिनी ।’ विपर्ययस्तु ‘ उपास्तां हस्तो मे विमलमणिकाञ्चीपदमिदम्’ । काञ्चीपदमित्यनेनैव नितंबस्य लक्षितत्वात विशेषणस्य अप्रयोजकत्वमिति । III, ii, 3.

Other Sanskrit writers also have dealt with Aprayojaka epithets and words which do not nourish the idea but are

mere verbiage affected for attaining a grandiose style and

adopted to cover one's poverty of idea and imagination. For,

these words, Mahiman calls अप्रतिभोद्भव and अवकक्‍कর. To Mahi-

man, these out-of-place words are the literary Apasabdas.

" अस्मान् प्रति पन्थाः अविषये प्रयुज्यमानः शब्दः अपशब्द एव " p. 121. TSS.

edn. Schopenhauer condemns indefiniteness, vague words and

enveloping trivial ideas in the most outlandish, artificial and

rarest phrases. ' अत्यल्पत्वन्रमिति गौडीयैरन्नातिरुच्‍हमपीष्यते ' says Dandin ;

that Prasāda is the use of well-known words which easily give

their sense ; that as against this, certain writers think that they

must look learned and, in the words of Schopenhauer, ' resent

the idea of their work looking too simple and resort to lexico-

graphical rarities. Schopenhauer speaks of two styles, one

good and the other bad, the former being characterised mainly

by simplicity, clarity and precision, and the latter by prolixity,

vagueness and word-pomp. He seems to describe only Dandin's

Vaidarbhī and Gaudī. Of those who favour the latter,

Schopenhauer says that they 'delight in bombast', that their

writing is generally 'in a grand puffed up (Dipta of Dandin),

unreal, hyperbolic (Dandin's Atyukti, the reverse of the

Saukumārya Guna) and acrobatic style.' (Prahelikāprāya

says Bhāmaha). Dandin condemns not only Ulbana Anuprāsa

(S'abdalankāra) and Yamaka which is Duṣkara and ' Naikanta

madhura', but also Arthālamkāra damabara. He prefers deli-

cateness, fineness and natural grace which give poetry a power

which no rhetorical ornament can ever impart to it.

इत्थनूर्जित एवार्थः नालङ्‍कारोडपि तादृशः ।

सुकुमारातयैवेतद् आरोहति सतां मनः ॥

Compare Schopenhauer: " An author should guard against using

all unnecessary rhetorical adornment, all useless amplification,

160

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

and in general, just as in architecture, he should guard

against an excess of decoration, all superfluity of expression,

in other words, he should aim at chastity of style. Everything

redundant has a harmful effect. The law of simplicity and

naivete applies to all fine art, for it is compatible with what is

most sublime."

It shall be considered now whether the linking of Rīti to

the poet and his character and the idea of the infinity of Rīti

is or is not present in Sanskrit Alamkāra literature. Aristotle

described only one good style and its qualities and contrasted

it with a bad style called the Frigid which overdid ornamenta-

tion. He refuted also others who spoke of different styles

such as the Agreeable. He argued that there was no end when

one began attributing to styles all sorts of ethical qualities like

restraint etc. An emphasis on the relation of style to the

author makes it impossible to speak of style in general or

define its features. Only a few concrete qualities related to

the actual S'abdas, the Sanghatanā, Padas and Varnas, and to

the theme can be considered while defining or classifying style.

Thus, previous to Aristotle, some had spoken of the Agreeable

style. After Aristotle, some were speaking of three styles,

Grave, Medium and Attenuate, to suit the threefold purpose

of oratory, moving, pleasing and pleading. Just before Deme-

trius wrote, some held styles to be two, the Plain and the

Elevated. Demetrius added two more, the Elegant and the

Forcible. Plainness stood against elevation. A style is

specially decorated for effect or is plain. From another point

of view, styles can be classified into two, the Elegant (or

graceful) and the Forcible. It is not one principle of classifi-

cation that gives us these four styles. The Plain may be

elegant or forcible; the elevation given to a style may be

elegant or forcible. But naturally, plainness and elegance go

together and so also elevation and force. The Plain and the Elegant of Demetrius are represented by Vaidarbhī in Sanskrit. The Elevated and the.Forcible correspond to the good Gauḍī found envisaged in Bhāmaha, the Frigid and the Affected styles in Demetrius being the bad Gauḍī in Daṇḍin. The two correspond to Sukumāra and the Vititra Mārgas in Kuntaka. Saukumārya and Ojas—Plainness and Elegance, Elevation and Force—these finally give us two Rītis. Bhaṭṭa Nṛsimha, a commentator on Bhoja’s Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa (Madras MS.) says that of the Guṇas of Daṇḍin, two are important, Saukumārya and Ojas, as being the Asādhāraṇa guṇas of the two Mārgas. “तेषु (गुणेपु) अन्य सुकुमार्यम् ओजश्च द्वयोरप्यसाधारणः गुणः । इतरे तु प्रयोज्यः साधारणः:” I p. 11. Mad. MS. This final analysis of style into two is neither impossible nor absurd. While treating of the Formal Element in Literature in Ch. IV of his work ‘ Some Principles of Literary Criticism ’, Winchester has the following : “ But while individuality is not to be classified, it may be said that there are, in general, two opposite tendencies in personal expression : on the one hand to clearness and precision ; on the other to largeness and profusion. The difference between the two may be seen by comparing such poetry as that of Mathew Arnold with that of Tennyson or such prose as that of Newman with that of Jeremy Taylor. Minds of one class insist on sharply divided ideas, on clearness of image, on temperance, and precision of epithet. Their style we characterise as chaste or classic. The other class have a great volume of thought, but less well-defined ; more fervour and less temperance of feeling, more abundant and vivid imagery, more wealth of colour, but less sharpness of definition. Their thoughts seem to move through a haze of emotion and often through a lush growth of imagery. They tend to be ornate and profuse in manner, eager in temper; they often produce larger and deeper effects, but they lack restraint and suavity. It is a contrast not peculiar to literature, but running through all

162

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

forms of art. . . . The one makes upon you the impression of greater delicacy, temperance, charm : the other, the

impression of greater mass, complexity, power. We are not

called upon to pronounce either manner absolutely better than

the other; . . . ." The last sentence here echoes Bhāmaha's

attitude towards the distinction of style into Vaidarbhī and

Gauḍī and the claim of superiority for the former. From this

passage, it is also seen that despite the infinite variety of

writers' personality, it is yet possible and sensible too to find two

broad divisions, one favouring virtues of subdued beauty and

the other, exhuberance ; that a subjective and personal basing

of style does not preclude the possibility of a classification or

definition of style. In this passage of Winchester again, it

seems as if Kālidāsa's style is described and contrasted with

that of Bhavabhūti and Bāṇa ; it looks as if good Vaidarbhī and

a good handling of the Gauḍī are considered here ; we are

clearly reminded of Kuntaka's two Mārgas, the Sukumāra and

the Vicitra, the one dominated by beauty that is mainly natural,

Sahajasobhā, and the other by ornamentation, Āhāryasobhā,

the one in Svabhāva-ukti and Rasa-ukti, and the other in

Vakrokti, the one displaying greater S'akti and the other, greater

Vyutpatti. While the former style is a rare gift, it is very

difficult to be successful in the latter; for the path of orna-

mentation and elevation has many pitfalls, and frigidity, arti-

ficiality and ornateness are easily committed. Says Kuntaka :

सोडतिदुस्साह्ररो येन विदग्धकवयो गता: ।

खड्गधारापथेनैव सुभटानां मनोरथा: ॥

1 V. J., I. 43.

'Strangely enough, Padmagupta calls the Vaidarbhī the

'sword-edge-path,' निखिलशदारापथ—

तत्त्वस्निग्धास्ते कवय: पुराणा: श्रीभरतृमेठप्रमुखा जयन्ति ।

निखिलशदारासदर्शन येषां वन्दीममार्गण गिर: प्रवृत्ता: ॥ Navasāhasāñkacarita, I. 5.

Vide Vṛtti also p. 58. Hence it is that critics do not favour it. It is the deterioration of Vicitramārga that is Daṇḍin's Gauḍī. It is because of this difficulty that Demetrius's Elevated and Forceful styles become, in the hands of lesser artists, the Frigid and the Affected styles. Hence it is that the critics always prefer the former. Says Winchester : “But it would seem that, in literature at least, the classic manner is the culmination of art. Precision, in the wide sense, must be the highest virtue of expression ; and it is this precision, combined with perfect ease, that constitutes the classic manner.” “Individual tastes may justly differ ; but the ultimate verdict of approval will be given to that style in which there is no overcolouring of phrase, no straining of sentiment ; which knows how to be beautiful without being lavish, how to be exact without being bald ; in which you never find a thicket of vague epithet.” It is of this style, called by him Sukumāra, that Kuntaka says :

सुकुमाराभिधेयसोऽयं येन सत्कवयो गताः । मार्गेणोत्सुक्लकुसुमकाननेनेव घट्टपदा: ॥ V. J., I. 29.

Kuntaka is the greatest exponent of the Rīti. That it comprehends all aspects of expression has been well realised by him. He casts off the old names which have geographical associations, dead for a long time, and forges new nomenclature on the basis of a fundamental classification of the manners of expression, on the basis of the more prevailing tendencies among masters in Sanskrit literature. He also shows how each Mārga or Rīti or style is characterised not by certain Bandhaguṇas only, but by a certain attitude in using Alaṅkāras and delineating Rasas also. Above all, he is the only Sanskrit writer who realised very strongly the final basis

164

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA SĀSTRA

of style in the character of the poet and consequently related

Rīti to the writer.

Kuntaka first refers to the geographical Rītis, Vaidarbhī,

Gauḍī and Pāñcālī. He says that old writers give these three

Rītis and call them Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. This

point of view Kuntaka objects to, for styles of poetry depend-

ent for their origin on poetic genius and craftsmanship, upon

S'akti and Vyutpatti in poets, cannot be spoken of like certain

kinds of 'Des'ācāra' like marriage, permissible or obtaining

in certain parts of the land.

न च विशिष्टरीतियुक्तत्वेन काव्यकरुणं मतुलेयभगिनीविवाहवद्

देशधर्मेतया व्यवस्थापयितुं शक्यम् । देशधर्मो हि वृद्धव्यवहारपरम्परामात्र-

शरणः शास्त्रानुशासनां नातिवर्तते । तथाविधकाव्यकरणं पुनः शक्यादि-

कारणकलापसाकल्यमपेक्ष्य(क्ष)माणं न शक्यते यथाकथञ्चिदनुष्ठातुम् । न

च दाक्षिणात्यगीतविषयसुस्वरतादिर्ध्वनिरामण्यीयकवत्तया स्वाभाविकत्वं वक्तुं

पार्यते । तस्मिन्सति तथाविधकाव्यकरुणं सर्वस्य स्यात् । किंतु शक्तौ

विद्यमानायामपि व्युत्पत्त्यादिः आहार्यकरनसम्पन्न् प्रतिनियतदेशविषयतया

न व्यवतिष्ठते, नियमनिबन्धनाभावात्, तत्र अदर्शनादनयत्र च दर्शनात् ।

P. 46

Then Kuntaka criticises the view that holds these three

Rītis as Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. If the Gauḍī and

the Pāñcālī are not good, why treat of them in the S'āstra-?

न च रीतिनां उत्तमाधममध्यमत्वभेदेन त्रिविध्यमवस्थापयितुं

न्याय्यम् । यस्मात् सहृदयाह्लादकारिकाव्यलक्षणप्रस्तावे वैदर्भीसहशसौन्दर्या-

सम्भवात् मध्यमाधमयोरुपदेशवैयर्थ्यमायाति । परिहार्यत्वेनाप्युपदेशः न

युक्ततामालम्बते, तैरैव अनभ्युपगमात् । न च अगतिकगतिन्यायेन यथा-

शक्ति दौर्बल्यादवशं काव्य करणीयतां अर्हति(?)अर्हति । P. 46.

RĪTI

165

If however the names Vaidarbhī etc., are meant only as names and do not mean any geographical connection with poetry, Kuntaka has no objection.

तदेवं निर्वचनसमास्यामात्रकरणकारणत्वे देशविशेषाश्रयणस्य वयं न विवादामहे । 1

Kuntaka then gives his idea of Rīti that it is based on the character of the poet, Kavisvabhāva. He accepts that this Kavisvabhāva is infinite, but generally speaking, he says that there can be indicated three main types.

यद्यपि कविस्वभावभेदनिबन्धनत्वाद् अनन्तभेदभिन्नत्वमनिवार्यं तथापि परिसङ्ख्यातुम् अशक्यत्वात् सामान्यान्ै तैविध्यमेवोपपद्यते । P. 47.

The three styles thus indicated by him are the graceful, the striking and the mixed, Sukumāra, Vicitra and Madhyama. The Sukumāra is the style of certain poets of a similar temperament and it is suited to certain situations. Similarly the Vicitra. The third combines the features of both the styles. All the three are beautiful and have their own charm. It is absurd to suppose that one is good, the other bad or the third passable.

तथा च रमणीयकाव्यपरिग्रहप्रस्तावे स्वभावसुकुमारस्तावेदको राशि:, तद्वयतिरिक्तस्य अरमणीयस्य अनुपादेयत्वात् । तद्वयतिरेकी रामणीयकविशिष्टो विचित्र इत्युच्यते । तदेतयोर्योरपि रमणीयत्वाद् एतदीयच्छाया-

1 This paragraph is concluded by Kuntaka in the words : तदलमनेन निःसारवस्तुपरिग्रहणव्यसनेन. On the basis of this, Dr. S. K. De says on p. 386 of his Skr. Poe. Vol. II that Kuntaka was an advocate of the Alañkāra school and meant to make light of the Riti. For a correct statement of the Kuntaka's view on Riti, however, see the same writer's Introduction to his Edn. of the Vakrokti Jivita. pp. xxxii-xxxiii.

166

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA SĀSTRA

द्वितयोपजीविनोऽस्य रमणीयत्वमेव न्यायोपपन्नं पर्यवस्यति। तस्मादेतेषाम्

अस्वलितस्वपरिस्पन्दमहिम्रा तद्विद्वाहादकारित्वपरिसमाप्ते: न कस्यचिद्रूयन-

नता। P. 47.

Raleigh, in his book on Style, speaks of the 'soul' in

style. He quotes Pater who says " As a quality of style, soul

is a fact." What is this soul ? Raleigh interprets it as 'spirit'.

He says in this connection : 'Ardent persuasion and deep

feeling enkindle words, so that the weakest take glory.' This

is the quality of sincerity he speaks of earlier. Analysed, this

resolves into an emphasis on Rasa and the writer's attention

to its supreme expression. There is another sincerity which

is artistic perfection and which sometimes modifies the sincer-

ity of emotion. In the former case, the poet is true to Rasa

and Bhāva, and only to them. In the latter case, he thinks of

how best to present that feeling in a setting of words. This

anxiety for artistic perfection calls forth style, figures etc.

Those who are impelled by the latter, the artistic sincerity, are

followers of the Vicitra Mārga. Those that are absorbed in

the Rasa and Bhāva and present them in their own glory are

followers of the Sukumāra Mārga. Ideas and words for these

sprout out of an ever fresh imagination ; there is always an

enough ornament which is effortless; the natural beauty of

things has been preferred there for artificial adornment ; at

every step establishing an emotional appeal, it is of unpre-

meditated grace.

अम्लानप्रतिमोद्योतद्रव्यानवशब्दार्थवन्धुरः।

अयत्नविहितस्नल्पमनोहारिविभूषणः॥

भावस्वभावप्राप्तग्यान्यकृत्रिमहार्यकौशलः।

रसादिपरमार्थेऽर्थे मनस्स्वादसुन्दरः॥

अविभावितस्स्थानरामणीयकरकः

विधिवैदग्ध्यनिष्पत्तनिर्माणातिशयोपमः

यत्किञ्चनापि वैचित्र्यं तत्त्वरे प्रतिभोद्धवम्

सौकुमार्यपरिस्पन्दसुन्दरस्वान्त यत्न विराजते

सुकुमाराभिस्सोडयं येन सत्कवयो गता:

मागंणोत्फुल्लकुसुमकाननेनेव पट्टपदा:

The main feature of this style is that whatever beauty it possesses is all natural, Sahaja ; poetic genius and imagination and not pure craftsmanship and scholarship form the basis of this style.

The things of the world and Rasa and Bhāva are given in all the beauty of their very nature and this first-instance-expression is not refashioned in the workshop of figure.

That such a definition of style is all-comprehensive need not be pointed out.

But Kuntaka also speaks of certain Gunas as characterising his Mārgas.

Of the Sukumāra Mārga he says, Mādhurya is the first Guna.

It is defined as the un-compounded use of words and a certain grace of the Sabda and Artha—पदानामसमस्तत्वं and शब्दार्थेरमणीयतया विन्यासवैचित्र्यम्.

The insistence on Mādhurya as the use of Asamastapadas1 is for securing clarity of the idea.

The words of emphasis, heightenings and lowerings, in a sentence can have their point only if the words remain separate ; their emphasis is lost when they are huddled into a compound.

Samāsa always hampers understanding.

Says Mahimabhaṭṭa :

विनोत्कर्षोपकर्षाभ्यां स्वदन्तेऽर्थो न जातुचित्

तदर्थमेव कवयोडलङ्कारान्पर्युपासते

1 Cf. Vāmana, III. i. 20. पृथक्पदत्वं माधुर्यम्

. समासदैश्र्य्यनिवृत्ति-परं चैतत

p. 79. V. V. Press Edn.

168

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṆKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

तौ विधेयानुवाच्यत्वविवक्षैकनिबन्धनौ।

सा समासेऽस्तमायातील्यसकृत्प्रतिपादितम् ॥

अत एव च वैदभरीतिरेकैव शस्यते ।

यतस्तत्प्रतिपाद्यत्वेन तैजोऽपणधाने ॥

सम्बन्धमात्रमर्थानां समासो भावबोधयेत् ।

नोत्कर्षमपकर्ष वा—V. V., p. 53.

The next Guṇa of the Sukumāra Mārga is Prasāda, the quality by virtue of which the idea is given to us without any difficulty. This Prasāda refers to both Rasa and the idea or Artha which forms its vehicle. The idea may be expressed with Vakratā to give point to it but such turn or deviation adopted should not obscure the idea or take it into the dark.' Here also the use of the uncompounded words and words of which meanings are well known, पदानाम असमस्तत्वम् and प्रसिद्धाभिधानत्वम्², are the primary means. The third Guṇa is Lāvaṇya, which refers more to the S'abdas and the Varṇas, which should have an indescribable beauty floating over them. Any kind of S'abdālaṅkāra adopted for this purpose should have been done with ease and done with moderation. Ere the words as messengers of ideas deliver their meanings to the mind, their Lāvaṇya affects the sensibilities of the responsive reader. Similar in nature and borrowed from the same field is the fourth Guṇa given by Kuntaka, Ābhijātya. A certain softness of texture and delicateness of words making the mind feel them form this quality of Ābhijātya, a quality pre-eminently realisable only by the Sahṛdaya and hardly describable in so many words.

¹ V. J., I. 31.

² Cf. Daṇḍin. प्रसादवत्प्रसिद्धार्थम् and Bhāmaha, II. 1. माधुर्यमभिवाञ्छन्तः प्रसादं च सुमेधसः । समासव्रन्ति भूर्यर्थे न पदानी प्रयुञ्जते ॥

The Vicitra Mārga of Kuntaka is a style dominated by Vakratā. It is a flashy style, gleaming all over with gold dust. It is intricately worked and wrought with design and gem. Alamkārā leads to Alamkārā ; ere one effect is off our mind, another is on.

अलङ्कारस्य कवयो यत्रालङ्करणान्तरम् ।

असन्तुष्टा निबध्नन्ति हारादर्मणिबन्धवत् ॥

V. J., I. 35.

A style which reminds us of Vālmīki’s description of Rāvaṇa’s Puṣpaka—‘न तत्र किञ्चिन् कृतं प्रयत्नः’ and ‘ततस्तत्स्तुल्यविशेषदर्शनम्’, every bit worked with care and craft and at every step equally striking with some speciality.1 The description of this Mārga also, as made by Kuntaka, is all-comprehensive, referring to every aspect of expression. (V. J., 1, 34-43, pp. 56-66).

Though Kuntaka has indicated two major varieties of style, he is fully aware that style is not classifiable. He says that Mārga or style is infinite in variety and subtle in difference ; for it is based on the poet’s nature.

कविस्वभावमेदेनिबन्धनत्वेन काव्यप्रस्थानमेद: समझसतान गाहते ।

सुकुमारस्वभावस्य कवे: तथाविधैव सहजा शक्ति: समुद्धवति, शक्तिशक्ति-म

तोरभेदात् । तथा च तथाविधसौकुमार्यरमणीयां व्युत्पत्तिमावधाति ।

ताभ्यां च सुकुमारवर्मनाभ्यासतत्पर: क्रियते । तथैव चैतस्माद विचित्र:

स्वभावो यस्य कवे: तस्य काचिद विचित्रैव तदनुरूपा शक्तिस्समुल्लसति ।

V. J., p. 46.

1 Adopting a Sanskritic comparison, we can say that the Sukumāra Mārga is like the beautiful Kulāṅganā, and the Vicitra Mārga like the brilliant Gaṇikā.

170

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀŚTRA

यद्यपि कविस्वभावभेदनिबन्धनतवादनन्तभेदभिन्नत्वमनिवार्ये, तथापि पैरिसंख्यातुमशक्यत्वात् सामान्येन त्रैविध्यमेवोपपद्यते । Ibid., p. 47.

आस्तां तावत् काव्यकरणं, विषयान्तरेऽपि सर्वस्य कस्यचिद् अनादिवासनाभ्यासाधिवासितचेतसः स्वभावानुसारिणावेव व्युत्पत्त्यभ्यासौ प्रवर्तेते । तौ च स्वभावाभिव्यक्त्यनेनैव सफल्यं भजतः । V. J., p. 47.

अत्र गुणोदाहरणानि परिमितत्वात् प्रदर्शितानि, प्रतिपदं पुनः छायाविचित्र्य सहृदयस्वस्थमनुसर्तव्यम् । अनुमरणादिकप्रदर्शन पुनःक्रियते ।

यथा मातृगुस्समायुराजमञ्जीरप्रभृतीनां सौकुमार्यवैचित्र्यसंवलितपरिस्पन्दद्‌स्पन्दिनी काव्यानि संभवन्ति । तत्र मध्यममार्गसंवलितं स्वरूपं विचारणीयम् । एवं सहजसौकुमार्यसुभगानि कालिदाससर्वसेनादीनां काव्यानि हृश्यन्ते । तत्र सुकुमारमार्गस्वरूपं चिन्तनीयम् । तथैव न विचित्रवक्रोक्तिवैभृतं वर्णनपरिते प्रायुर्येण भट्टबाणस्य विभाव्यते भवभूतिराजशेखरविरचितेषु बन्धसौन्दर्यसुभगेषु मुक्तकेषु (?) परिदृश्यते । तस्मात्सहृदयैस्सर्वत्र सर्वमनुसर्तव्यम् । एवं मार्गत्रितयलक्षणं दिङ्मात्रमेव प्रदर्शितम् । न पुनस्त्राकलन सत्कविकौशलमकारणां केनचिदपि स्वरूपमभिधातुं पार्यते । V.J., p. 71.

Similar is the view of Daṇḍin also. He describes two Mārgas that can clearly be distinguished, for, he says, Rītis are infinite and their differences very subtle. So subtle is the character of one's writing from that of another that it is as difficult to point out their differences as to describe in so many words the difference between various kinds of sweetness, of sugarcane, milk etc. Daṇḍin says :

अस्त्यनेको गिरां मार्गः सूक्ष्मभेदः परस्परम् ।

तत्र वैदर्भगौडियौ वर्ण्येते प्रष्फुटान्तरौ ॥ I. 40.

इति मार्गद्वयं मिन्नं तत्त्वरूपनिरूपणात् ।

तत्रेदस्तु न शक्यन्ते वक्तुं प्रतिप्रतिष्ठिता: ।

इक्षुक्षीरगुडादीनां माधुर्यस्यांतरं महत् ।

तथापि न तदाख्यातुं सरस्वत्यापि शक्यते ॥ I. 101-2.

S'āradātanaya says on Rīti in his Bhāvaprakāśa :

प्रतिवचनं प्रतिपुरुषं तद्वान्तरजातितः प्रतिप्रिति ।

आनन्यात् संक्षिप्य प्रोक्ता कविमिश्रतुर्यैरेव ॥

Ch. I, pp. 11-12, lines 21-24

172

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṆKĀRA ŚĀSTRA

त एवाक्षरविन्यासास्ता एव पदपद्धत्कयः ।

पुंसि पुंसि विशेषेण कापि कापि सरस्वती ॥

Ibid., p. 12, lines 1-2.

रीडृ गताविति धातोस्सा व्युत्पत्त्या रीतिरुच्यते । S. K. Ā., II. 17.

Rīti is the characteristic way of a writer. The other words used as synonyms are Gati, Mārga, Panthāḥ and Prasthāna.

In Tamil and especially while our Rasikas appreciate our musicians, we hear of the particular Panthā, Vali or Naḍai of each artist. All these words mean style. A poet of mark has a style. To posses a distinct style is to be a poet of mark.

सत्यर्थे सत्सु शब्देषु सति चाक्षरडम्बरे ।

शोभते यं विना नोक्तिः स पन्था इति घुष्यते ॥ I. 10.

अन्धास्ते कवयो येषां पन्थाः कृणः परैर्भवेत् ।

परेपां तु यदाकान्तः पन्थास्ते कविकुञ्जरा: ॥ I. 17.

—Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita, Gaṅgāvataraṇa Kāvya.

APPENDIX

Rīti in the Agni Purāṇa

The Alaṅkāra section in the Agni Purāṇa is a hopelessly

loose heaping of all sorts of ideas taken from this and that writer

and does not deserve to be treated seriously as representing

any systematic tradition. Dr. De supposes in his Sanskrit

Poetics that it represents a systematic tradition which stands

separate from that of the orthodox Kasmirian writers and

which is followed by Bhoja. It is not a Purāṇa compiler of

such a nature that hints at new paths in special S'āstras and

surely the compiler who borrows from Tantravārttika, Bhartṛ-

mitra, Bharata, Daṇḍin and Ānanda, may well borrow from

Bhoja, who takes credit for the new Rasa theory propounded

by him in his S'riṅgāraprakāśa. The truth therefore is that

the Alaṅkāra section in the Agni Purāṇa is definitely later

than Bhoja, from whom it borrowed not only the Ahaṅkāra-

Abhimāna idea of Rasa expounded in his S'riṅgāraprakāśa and

already referred to in his Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa, V. 1, but

also some S'abdālaṅkāras and other ideas.

The Alaṅkāra section of the Purāṇa is spread over eleven

chapters, (chs. 337 to 347). The first chapter deals with

Kāvya and of it, the Purāṇa says that Rasa is the life. S'l.

337/33 places Rasa above Vāgvaidagdhya which can be said

to be identical with the concept of Vakrokti as applying

generally to poetic expression as such and as a whole. The

next chapter deals with drama. The third is completely

devoted to Rasa and from this third chapter up to Śloka 17

of the sixth chapter, the subject dealt with is Rasa. For,

the fourth which speaks of Rītis and Vṛttis, deals with

Buddhyāram bha-Anubhāvas; the fifth which is called नृत्यादौ

अङ्गकर्म निरूपणम् deals with Śarīrāram bha Anubhāvas, such as

the Alañkāras of the Ālambanas in the shape of damsels, the

glances etc. ; and the first part of the sixth again deals with

Rasa. The rest of the sixth, and the seventh treat of Śabdā-

laṅkāra and are followed by the eighth speaking of Arthā-

laṅkāra. Chapter 345 describes Ubhayālaṅkāra, chapter 346,

Guṇas and the last chapter (347), Doṣas.

Vṛtti is Ceṣṭā and Pravṛtti is Veṣa or Āhārya. Rīti is

Vacana or speech.¹ Says Rājaśekhara, and following him

Bhoja also in his Śr. Pra. :

तत्र वेषविन्यासक्रमः प्रवृत्तिः, विलासविन्यासक्रमः वृत्तिः, वचन-

विन्यासक्रमः रीतिः । (K. M., p. 9)

Vṛtti is dramatic action as such and one of its varieties

is Bhāratī which however, being speech, is the Vācikābhinaya

which is examined from the point of view of various Rītis.

Āhārya is invariably Nepathya, dress and make-up. No

doubt, it forms a part of Vṛtti, even as Rīti forms a part of

Vṛtti. We find the graceful dress included in the definition of

the Kaiśikīvṛtti—या शृङ्गणनेपथ्य etc. In graceful action, graceful

dress also is comprehended. Therefore Vṛtti and Pravṛtti are

intimately related, as Shakespeare also says, ‘ apparel oft pro-

claims the man.’ As the Viṣnudharmottara says, Pravṛttis are

वृत्तीनामाश्रया:² । Āhārya which is dress, is Pravṛtti—Veṣavinyāsa.

¹ See my article on Vṛttis in JOR., Madras, vol. VI, part 4 ;

vol. VII, parts 1 and 2.

² Vide JOR., Madras, vol. VII, part. I, pp. 49-51.

RĪTI

175

These three, Rīti, Vṛtti and Pravṛtti (speech, action and dress) are all Anubhāvas, and are classed as बुद्ध्यारम्भानुभावा: by Bhoja in chapter XVII of his S'ṛṅgāra Prakāsa.1 S'iṅgabhūpāla also follows Bhoja and says in his RAS., I, p. 64 :

बुद्ध्यारम्भास्तथा प्रक्तो: रीतिवृत्तिप्रवृत्तय: ।

Following Bhoja's Sṛ. Pra. the Purāṇa also considers the three, Rīti, Vṛtti and Pravṛtti as Buddhyārambhānubhāva :

बोधाय एष व्यापार: ? सु(स) बुद्ध्यारम्भ इष्यते ।

तस्य भेदा: त्रय:, ते च रीतिवृत्तिप्रवृत्तय: ॥ (339/53, 54.)

The Buddhyārambhas; Rīti, Vṛtti and Pravṛtti, form the subject-matter of the next chapter (ch. 340). In ch. 339, s'ls. 44-45 begins the treatment of Anubhāvas :

मनो-वाग्-बुद्धि-वपुषां स्मृतीच्छाद्रेष्यनत: ।

आरम्भ एवं विधुषाम् अनुभव इति स्मृत: ॥2

S'ls. 46-50 describe मन आरम्भानुभावा:, s'ls. 51-53 (first half), द्वादश वागारम्भा:, s'ls. 53 (second half), 54 and ch. 340 describe बुद्ध्यारम्भा: and ch. 341, as is said in its first verse, describes कायारम्भा: । These are all Anubhāvas and are called Abhinayas. From the point of view of the four kinds of Abhinaya, these are re-distributed and the study of Anubhāvas closes with s'l. 2 of ch. 342, after which some general aspects of Rasa are taken up. Vāgārambha is Vācika ; Mana-ārambha is Sāttvika (Sattva=manas ; अनुपहतं हि मनः सत्समुच्यते says Bhoja in his Sṛ. Pra., ch. XI) ; S'arīrāram bha is Āṅgika

1 pp. 208-236, vol. III, Mad. MS.; vide also S'āradātanaya who follows Bhoja. Bhā. Pra., pp. 11-12.

2 See Bhoja. SKA., V, Sl. 40, p. 477.

176

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

and Pravṛtti which is one of the three Buddhyārambhas is Āhārya.1 What about the other two Buddhyārambhas, Rīti and Vṛtti ? Vṛtti pertains to all action. Its first variety called Bhāratī and the Buddhyāram bha called Rīti are Vāci-kābhinaya and are to be taken along with the Vāgārambhas, Ālāpa etc. According to the traditional meanings, Ārabhaṭī will be Āṅgikābhinaya, Sāttvatī Vṛtti will be Sāttvikābhinaya and Kais'ikī Vṛtti will be all Abhinaya that is graceful. But to adopt the more correct meanings of these concepts, as explained in my paper on the Vṛttis in the JOR., Sāttvatī will go with Sāttvikābhinaya and Ārabhaṭī and Kais'ikī will go with all Abhinayas, forceful and graceful respectively.

Chapter 340 of the Purāṇa is called Rītinirūpaṇa. Correctly speaking, it must be called बुद्ध्यारम्भनिरूपणम् or रीतिवृत्ति-प्रवृत्तिनिरूपणम्; for, in the foregoing chapter, मनआरम्भ and वागारम्भ have been dealt with and its succeeding chapter (ch. 341) treats of शरीरारम्भ. As it is, it treats of not only Rītis but of Vṛttis also. 'This is the smallest chapter in the whole section and of its eleven verses, the first four are concerned with Rītis. Then begins a treatment of Vṛttis. S'l. 5 enumerates the four Vṛttis ; s'l. 6 defines Bhāratī and up to the first

1 स्तम्भादिस्मातिविको वागारम्भो वाचिक आाझिक: ।

शरीरारम्भ श्वाहार्यो बुद्ध्यारम्भप्रवृत्तितः ॥ 342/2

This verse does not mean that Rīti, Vṛtti and Pravṛtti, which are the three Buddhyārambhas, are Āhārya. How can speech and action be two varieties of dress ? One cannot contend that the Purāṇa has a new theory to expound viz., dress means speech and action also. The last part of the verse really means that Pravṛtti, which is one of the Buddhyārambhas, is the Āhāryābhinaya (बुद्ध्यारम्भेषु तृतीय, या तृतीया प्रवृत्तिरिति, सा आाहार्याभिनय: ।). Even such a clumsy text as the Agni Purāṇa cannot mistake Āhārya as any thing but dress. See also IHQ, X, no. 4, 1934, pp. 767-779, where I have reconstructed and interpreted many of the passages in this section of the Purāṇa.

half of śl. 10, we have the varieties of Bhāratī (भारतीभेदा:) described. Then there are two lines, one giving a short definition of Ārabhaṭī and the other abruptly stopping in the midst of the enumeration of the varieties of Ārabhaṭī. There still remains to be treated the fourth variety of Ārabhaṭī, the whole of the Kaiśikī and the Sāttvatī Vṛttis and the whole subject of Pravṛttis. Therefore I think that the text of the chapter as printed in the Ānandāśrama Series, is incomplete.

The whole of the Alañkāra Sāstra is included in the Vācikābhinaya section of the Nāṭya Sāstra which is one fourth of drama, being the Bhāratī Vṛtti. This Bhāratī Vṛtti is studied and analysed into Lakṣaṇas, Guṇas and Alamkāras. Closely akin to these is a composite study of the Bhāratī Vṛtti in terms of Rītis or Mārgas, which was attempted at a later time. Still another study of the Bhāratī Vṛtti is what Bharata gives us in chapter XXIV as the twelve ‘Mārgas’1 of the Vācikābhinaya. The expression in the shape of Ālāpa, Vilāpa etc. can itself be examined from the point of view of Lakṣaṇas and Alañkāras and of the Rītis of Daṇḍin. There is little difference between the text of a drama and a Kāvya. The Vācikābhinaya portion is often treated as Kāvya. All

1 एते मार्गास्तु निर्देश्ठ: यथाभावरसन्निवता: ।

काव्यवस्तुनि निर्देश्ठ: द्वादशाभिनयात्मक: ॥

आलापक्श प्रलापक्श

एते मार्गो हि विदेया वाक्याभिनयोजिका: ॥

N. S’. XXIV. 49-57.

Here, if one wants verbal identity in the shape of the word Mārga, one can have it, but much value is not attached to this fact that Vilāpa etc. are also called Mārgas. Anyway such occurrence of the word Mārga in Bharata is to be noted by one interested in the history of the word Mārga, as it is applied as a synonym of Rīti.

12

178

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Kāvya is drama of the Bhāratī Vṛtti. That वागारम्भ and the realm of गिरां मार्ग: are identical and that the Rītis as pointed out in a study of a drama's Vācikäbhinaya are identical with the Rītis pointed out in a Kāvya will be plain on a persual of S'iṅgabhūpāla's treatment of Rītis in his R.A.S.

The question of what things constitute the differentia of the various Rītis, I have tackled in the main chapter on Rīti above and in the chapter on the 'History of Guṇas' in my work on Bhoja's S'ṛṅgāraprakās'a. Also, in the third instalment of my paper on Vṛttis in the J.O.R., VII. 2, I have pointed out some facts which are relevant to this discussion.

An analysis of Daṇḍin's Guṇas shows the existence in them of such things as Alañkāra, Samāsa and metaphorical usage. According to Rudraṭa the Rītis are Samāsa Jātis. Vaidarbhī is the collocation with no compound while the compounded collocation, according to the number of words compounded, produces the Pāñcālī, the Lāṭīyā or the Gauḍī.

Another line of thought shows us the development of Rītis as Anuprāsa Jātis, varieties of Vṛttyanuprāsa. These appear in Bhāmaha, are clearly formulated in Udbhata's K.A.S.S., and are called merely Vṛttis by Ānanda. By the time we reach Mammaṭa, the three Vṛttyanuprāsa Jātis become identical with the three Rītis, viz., Vaidarbhī, Pāñcālī and Gauḍī.

This line of enquiry lights up the early history of Rīti and in Daṇḍin's treatment of it we find all these ideas. For, what is Daṇḍin's Samādhi Guṇa, if it is not metaphorical usage ? What defines the Rītis ? Again, what is the first S'ābda variety of Daṇḍin's Mādhurya except the sweetness born of Anuprāsa, on the basis of which S'abdālaṅkāra, three Vṛttis are born and which eventually get identified with the three Rītis ? (Daṇḍin, I, 51-58.)

As a matter of fact, the subject of Anuprāsa is

dealt with by Dandin only in chapter I as comprehended in

his Mādhurya Guna of one variety pertaining to S'abda (for,

of the other Mādhurya of Agrāmyatā, we have the two sub-

divisions of S'ābda and Ārtha) and not in the chapter on

S'abdālańkāra, a fact which has misled Mr. K. S. Ramaswamy

Sastri' to say that Anuprāsa S'abdālańkāra is absent from

Dandin. Even Yamaka is touched here by Dandin but is

left out for special treatment in the S'abdālańkāra section.

And what is this S'abda Mādhurya of Dandin, viz. Anuprāsa,

except S'abdālańkāra? When we come to Vāmana, we have

even Rasa coming in as constituting the Guna of Kānti of

Artha, in the study of Rīti. Therefore it cannot be said

simply and naively that some absolute entity called Guna,

which is quite different from Alañkara etc. defines Rīti in

Dandin and that other writers and their definitions of Rītis in

other words and other ways differ wholly from Dandin's.

The Agni Purāna borrows its definitions of the Rītis

from Bhoja, (chapter XVII, on Anubhāvas, in the S'r. Pra.),

where Bhoja himself borrows from Rājas'ekhara. Later than

these, Bahurūpa Misra, in his commentary on the Dasarūpaka,

(Mad. MS.) reproduces these definitions of the Rītis with the

mention of Bhoja's name. The Kāvya Mīmāmsā says :

1. यत्—समासवद्, अनुप्रासवद्, योगवृत्तिपरम्परागर्भे जगाद्

सा गौडीया रीति: । (p. 8.)

2. यत्—ईषदसमासम्, ईषदनुप्रासम्, उपचारगर्भे च जगाद्

सा पांचाली रीति: । (p. 9.)

3. यत्—स्थानानुप्रासवद्, असमासं, योगवृत्तिगर्भे च जगाद्

सा वैदर्भी रीति: । (p. 9.)

1 See his Sanskrit Introduction to his edition of Udbhaṭa's

K.A.S.S. with Tilaka's commentary in the Gaels. series (p. 19).

180

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

To these three, Bhoja adds the fourth Lāṭīyā which the

Purāṇa takes. In the above definitions of the three Rītis,

three factors count—Samāsa, Anuprāsa and Yaugika or

Aupacārikaprayoga. Of these, Samāsa (of Rudraṭa's Rītis)

is the Guṇa of Ojas ; Anuprāsa (of the Vṛttis which are finally

identified with the three Rītis) is one of the two kinds of

शब्दमाधुर्य of Daṇḍin ; and Upacāra mentioned by Rājas'ekhara

is Daṇḍin's Samādhi, metaphorical expression, personification

etc. There is however no trace of Yoga Vṛtti as a part of the

lakṣaṇa of Rīti in Daṇḍin. Daṇḍin has also said that Vaidarbhī

has a kind of Anuprāsa, has something like स्थानानुप्रास, for it

is a discriminate employer of such varieties as श्रुत्यनुप्रास, and

that it is Gauḍī which loves Anuprāsa as such and Samāsa as

such. The Vaidarbhī of Daṇḍin also has little or no com-

pound. This Bhoja follows in the Anubhāva-chapter in his

S'r. Pra. (chapter XVII) and the Agni Purāṇa borrows from

him when it says that

1. Pāñcālī is उपचारयुता, मृद्वी and हस्वविग्रहा,

2. Gauḍīyā is दीर्घविग्रहा and अनवस्थितसन्दर्भा,

3. Vaidarbhī is उपचारैर्न बहुभिः युता or उपचारविवर्जिता.

नातिकोमलसन्दर्भा and मुक्तविग्रहा, and

4. Lāṭīyā is अनतिभूयुपचारता, स्फुटसन्दर्भा and नातिविग्रहा

(S'ls. 2-4.)1

1 In the definition of the Lāṭīyā, the following line is

printed wrongly : परित्यक्काडभिभूयोडपि हपचारैरुदाहता ।

It must be thus corrected : परित्यक्कातिभूयोमिभूपचारैरुदाहता ।

and it means that the Lāṭīyā does not have too much of meta-

phorical expression.

RĪTI

181

Bhoja's definitions are as follows :

1. यद् अनतिदीर्घसमासम्, अनतिस्फुटवन्धम्, उपचारवृत्तिमत्,

पादानुप्रासपायं, योगरूढिमद् वचः सा पाञ्चाली।

2. यद् अतिदीर्घसमासम्, परिस्फुटवन्धं, नात्युपचारवृत्तिमत्, पादानु-

प्रासयोगि, योगरूढिपरम्परागर्भे वचः, सा गौडीया।

3. यद् असमस्तम्, अतिसुकुमारवन्धम्, अनुपचारवृत्तिमत्, स्था-

नुप्रासयोगि, योगवृत्तिमद् वचः, सा वैदर्भी।

4. यद् ईषत्समस्तम्, अनतिसुकुमारवन्धं, नात्युपचारवद्, लाटी-

यानुप्रासयोगि, रूढिमद् वचः, सा लाटीया।

Sr, Pra. Mad. MS., chapter XVII, vol. III, pp. 212-6.

The word Vigraha in the Agni Purāṇa stands for Samāsa ;

for, it is for a Samasta word that we give Vigraha.

Thus the characteristics which are given in the definitions

of Rītis in Rājasekhara, Bhoja and the Agni Purāṇa are not

wholly unrelated to Guṇas and these Guṇas themselves are

not certain absolute entities standing apart. The Upacāra is

Dandin's Samādhi and the feature of Vigraha or Samāsa

comes under Dandin's Ojas. Therefore it cannot be held that

"the Rītis in the Purāṇa have not been distinguished from

one another by the presence or absence of certain poetic

excellences (Guṇas)."1

1

See also my Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa, vol. I, pt. I, pp. 198-9.

THE HISTORY OF VRTTI IN KĀVYA

A Survey of the concept of Vṛtti in the realm of Nāṭya where it originated was made by me in an article entitled the

Vṛttis in the J. O. R, Madras, vols. VI and VII. But like many other concepts. the Vṛtti passed into Kāvya also, experiencing

many vicissitudes which form the subject of this chapter. If the concept is studied in relation to Kāvya, i.e., Śravya Kāvya,

in Alaṅkāra Śāstra, this is what we must logically expect :

The whole field of Śravya Kāvya is Bhāratī Vṛtti. Descrip-tions of love, evening, moonlight, seasons etc., must be Kaisikī

and of war etc., Ārabhaṭī. Sāttvatī, if we accept it as the name of action, is as absent from Kāvya as Bhāratī is present.

Bhāratī or the text of the whole Kāvya will be modified, according to the situation, by Kaisikī and Ārabhaṭī, producing

two main varicties of Bhāratī going by the names Vaidarbhī Rīti and Gaudīyā Rīti. The concept of Guna must here be,

related to these. The two and the only two Guṇas necessary here for classification are Mādhurya and Ojas, characterising

the two extremes of Sṛṅgāra and Raudra. The Mādhurya Guṇa, the Kaisikī Vṛtti and the Vaidarbhī Rīti will go to-gether on the one hand as distinguishing certain Rasas, Iti-vṛttas and verbal expressions, and similarly the Ojas·Guṇa,

the Ārabhaṭī Vṛtti and the Gaudī Rīti will go together as characteristics of a different set of poetic conditions. Guṇa

will be the nature of the Rasa ; Vṛtti, the nature of Vastu or ideas or Itivṛtta ; and Rīti, the nature of the expression of

THE HISTORY OF VṚTTI IN KĀVYA

183

the first and the second in suitable words. This, in brief,

must be the simple and strictly logical position of Vṛtti in

Kāvya. But, in actual history, its career is not found to be so

simple.

In poetics we have many concepts having the name Vṛtti.

The only one Vṛtti with which we have nothing to do here is

the शब्दवृत्ति, the significatory capacities of words. The other

concepts called Vṛtti are three, viz., (1) varieties of alliteration,

अनुप्रासजाति (2) varieties of compounded collocation, समासजाति,

and (3) the old Vṛttis, Kausikī etc. of Nāṭya.

Bhāmaha, in K. A. II. Sʼls. 5-8, speaks of three kinds of

Anuprāsa. He first gives Anuprāsa as the repetition of the

same or similar sound—सहरुपवणविन्यास and illustrates it by an

alliteration with the sounds ‘न’ repeated. (Sʼl. 5.) In Sʼl. 6,

he gives another variety of Anuprāsa as being held by others.

It is called ग्राम्यानुप्रास and is illustrated by the liquid allitera-

tions of ‘ल’. In Sʼl. 8, Bhāmaha says that still some others

speak of another variety of Anuprāsa called लाटीयानुप्रास which

is illustrated by a repetition of syllables. Thus it is clear that

Bhāmaha mentions at least three kinds of Anuprāsa, the first

nameless, the second ग्राम्यानुप्रास and the third लाटानुप्रास. When

this is so, we are not able to understand how, to point out the

addition made by Udbhata, both his commentators say that

Bhāmaha recognised only two kinds of Anuprāsa.

भामहो हि ग्राम्योपनागरिकावृत्तिभेदेन दृश्यकारमेवानुप्रासं व्य-

ख्यातवान्। Pratīhārendurāja.

भामहो हि द्विविधं रूपकं चानुप्रासं च अवादीत्। Tilaka.

Udbhaṭa gives three kinds of Anuprāsa (I-1 and 3-20), viz.,

छेकानुप्रास, अनुप्रास, i.e., वृत्यानुप्रास and लाटानुप्रास. Of these the

184

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

last is the same as mentioned by Bhāmaha ; the first is new and

as regards the second, it is partially available in Bhāmaha.

The second is given as having three varieties in the K. A. S. S.,

the varieties being called Vṛttis by Udbhaṭa, from which

this second Anuprāsa is named later as Vṛttyanuprāsa. He

names the varieties or Vṛttis as Paruṣā, Upanāgarikā and

Grāmyā. The last is the same as the Grāmyānuprāsa in

Bhāmaha and is illustrated by a similar verse of ‘ष-allitera-

tion’. The Upanāgarikā is illustrated by an alliteration with

the soft and nasal sound combinations like न्त. This is perhaps

the same as the first ‘न्त’ variety cf Bhāmaha. The Paruṣā

is newly mentioned by Udbhaṭa as a case of Anuprāsa with

S'a, ṣa, repha, ṭa etc., i.e., harsh sounds. Now, the appropriate

manipulation of alliterating sounds helps Rasa certainly. The

repetition of harsh sounds and the Paruṣā Vṛtti produced by

their Anuprāsa, help Vīra, Raudra and Bībhatsa Rasas. The

Upanāgarikā, using conjunct consonants with nasals and the

Grāmyā also to some extent, help Sṛṅgāra. Therefore

Pratīhārendurāja explains Vṛtti as the use of such sounds as

suit and suggest Rasa.

अतस्तावद् वृत्तयो रसाभिव्यक्त्यनुगुणवर्णव्यहारात्मिका:, प्रथम-

मविभेदानन्त । तद्वद् एक्ष:, परुषोपनागरिग्राम्यत्वभेदात् ।

The first Vṛtti is so called because of its harshness, the

second because of its being refined like the city-bred dam-

sel and the third, because it is all soft like an unsophisticated

country-bred damsel. The third Vṛtti, Grāmyā, is also called

Komalā, signifying the other extreme of the first, viz., Puruṣā.

Ānandavardhana is very well acquainted with these Vṛttis

of Udbhaṭa. He considers them to be the result of the Guṇas,

Mādhurya etc. in the collocation. (1, pp. 5-6.) In Uddyota

THE HISTORY OF VṚTTI IN KĀVYA

185

three he again mentions the Vṛttis, Upanāgarikā etc. as being

such use of words as will promote the realisation of Rasa.

He takes the Vṛtti in a double sense, in the sense of the Vṛttis

of Nāṭya, Kaisikī etc. which are to be considered in Kāvya

also and in the sense of Upanāgarikā etc.

The former he

describes as ideas suitable or appropriate to Rasa and the latter

as words suitable to Rasa (Vide Dhva. Ā. III, p. 182).

रसाचनुगुणस्वेन व्यवहारोऽर्थशब्दयोः ।

औचित्यवान् यस्ता एव वृत्तयो द्विविधाः स्थिताः ॥ III. 33.

व्यवहारो हि वृत्तिरित्युच्यते । तत्र रसानुगुण औचित्यवान् वाच्य-

श्रयो व्यवहारस्ता ज्ञता: कैशिक्याद्या वृत्तयः । वाचकाश्रयाश्रयाः उपनागरि-

काद्याः । वृत्तयो हि रसादितात्पर्ये सन्निवेशिताः कामपि नाटचस्य

काव्यस्य च छायामावहन्ति ।

Later also Anandavardhana makes the same distinction

and mentions the two Vṛttis together.

शब्दतत्त्वाश्रया: काश्चिदर्थतत्त्वयुजोडपरा: ।

वृत्योडपि प्रकारान्ते ज्ञातेडस्मिन् काव्यलक्षणे ॥ III. 48.

अस्मिन् व्यवच्छव्यवच्छेदभावविवेचनमये काव्यलक्षणे ज्ञाते सति, या:

काश्चित् प्रसिद्धा: उपनागरिकाद्याः: शब्दतत्त्वाश्रया वृत्तयो याश्र्यार्थतत्त्व-

संवलद्रा: कैशिक्यादय: ताः सम्यक् प्रतिपत्तिपदवीमवतार्न्ति ।

Thus Ānandavardhana states more clearly that in Kāvyas

there are two Vṛttis, the Kaisikī etc. being the same as in

Nāṭya and the Upanāgarikā etc. which latter, from being

varieties of Anuprāsa in Udbhata, became रसानुगुणवर्णच्यवहार

and thence in Ānandavardhana became more generally रसादु-

गुणसंदर्भव्यवहार.

Abhinavagupta also takes Vṛttis as not different essentially from Guṇas. He mentions them as they are given by Udbhata, i.c., as Anuprāsa varieties :

नैव वृत्तिरिति तद्(गुण)व्यतिरिक्तत्वं सिद्धम्। तथा हि अनुप्रासानामेव दीप्तमधुरमध्यमवर्णनौपयोजितया परत्वललितत्वमध्यमत्व-स्वरूपविवेचनाय वर्गत्रयसंपादनार्थे तिस्रोऽनुप्रासजातयो वृत्तय इत्युक्ताः। वर्तन्तेऽनुप्रासभेदा आस्वादित +++ परुषानुप्रासः, परुषा दीप्ता। मधु-णानुप्रासः उपनागरिकां, नागरिकया विदग्धया उपमितेति कृत्वा। मध्यमं कोमलं पुरुषमित्यर्थः। अत एव वैदग्ध्यविहीनस्वभावसुकुमारापरुष-ग्राम्यवनितासाहस्र्यादियं वृत्तित्रयग्राम्येति च तृतीयः कोमलानुप्रास इति वृत्त-योगानुप्रासजातय एव। Locana, pp. 5-6, N.S. edn.

He calls the Paruṣā, Dīptā ; the Upanāgarikā, Maśṛṇā or Lalitā and the Grāmyā, Madhyamā and Komalā. Leaving aside the metaphors in the names, one can see that the Paruṣā suits Vīra, Raudra and Bībhatsa Rasas and can go with the Ārabhaṭī Vṛtti ; the Upanāgarikā and Komalā suit Śṛṅgāra and Hāsya and can go with the Kaiśikī Vṛtti. Abhinavagupta says in a later context :

नागरिकया ह्यपरमतः (ह्युपमिता) अनुप्रासस्व्रुतिः श्रृङ्गारादौ विश्रा-म्यति। परुषेति दीप्तु रौद्रादिपु। कोमलेऽति हास्यादौ। तथा—‘वृतयः काव्यमात्रृका:’ इति यदुक्तं मुनिना तत्र रसौचित्य एव चेष्टाविशेषो वृत्तिः। p. 232, III. Locana, N. S. Edn.

Thus Abhinavagupta considers both the Vṛttis as Rasa-ucita-vyavahāra, the one, Kaiśikī etc., of Artha or ideas and the other, Upanāgarikā etc., of Śabda, of words or letters. Therefore in Kāvya we will not have a classification of शब्दवृत्ति

and अर्थवृत्ति among Kaisikyādivṛttis themselves. Bhāratī will

not be a शब्दवृत्ति. It also becomes an Artha Vyavahāra or

Artha Vṛtti. All the four are Artha Vṛttis and as distin-

guished from them, the Śabda Vṛttis are the three, Upanā-

garikā etc.

If Śabda and Artha are thus distributed between Upanāga-

rikā etc. on the one hand and Kaisikī etc. on the other,

what shall Rīti stand for? Ānandavardhana does separately

mention Rīti along with the Vṛttis Upanāgarikā etc. in both

the contexts noted above, in Uddyotas one and three. In

Uddyota one, he, as interpreted by Abhinavagupta (Vide pp.

5-6), holds Rītis also as dependent on Guṇas like the Vṛttis,

Upanāgarikā etc. But strictly speaking there is no room for

Rīti in either Ānandavardhana's scheme or Abhinavagupta's.

For, Rīti can be रसांचितशब्दद्रव्यवाहार—such use of words as are

appropriate to Rasa but that place has been given to the Vṛttis,

Upanāgarikā etc. which have come to. mean not exactly

varieties of Anuprāsa but use of words suitable to Rasa.

Therefore it is no wonder that we soon see in Mammaṭa

the equation of the three Rītis, Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī and Pāñcālī

with the three Vṛttis Upanāgarikā, Paruṣā and Komalā.

Mammaṭa says that Anuprāsa is firstly of two kinds, Cheka

and Vṛtti Anuprāsa and that the latter is the arrangement of

letters suitable to Rasa.

वृत्तिनियतवर्णगतो रसविपयो व्यापारः । K. Pra. IX.

This Vṛtti is of three kinds, Upanāgarikā which is the

use of letters suggestive of Mādhurya, Paruṣā which is the dis-

position of letters suggestive of Ojas, and Komalā which is the

use of other letters. Finally Mammaṭa says that it is these

three Vṛttis that are respectively called the Vaidarbhī Rīti,

the Gauḍīyā Rīti and the Pāñcālī Rīti according to some.

188

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

माधुर्यवैदग्ध्यकैर्वर्ण्यै रुपनागरिकेष्यते ।

ओजःप्रकाशकैस्तेस్తు पुरुषा।—कोमला परैः ॥

केषाश्चिदेतै वैदर्भीप्रसुखा रीतयो मताः । IX. 3-4.

एतासत्कथा वृत्तयो वामनोक्तानो मतं वद्भिर गौडैयो पांचाल्यलंकृत्या

रीतय उच्चयन्ते । K. Pra. IX.'

एतेन रीतयो वृत्तयात्मकाः इत्यर्थः । Māṇikyacandra.

Hemacandra quotes and completely follows Mammaṭa.

K. A. p. 204. He however does not treat of these three Vṛttis,

which are the same as the three Rītis, in the S'abdālaṅkāra

section, but, with a slight improvement treats of them in

the Guṇa section. Therefore he does not consider these three

Vṛttis as Anuprāsa Jātis but merely as three kinds of Varṇa

Saṅghaṭanā.

Jagannātha goes even a step further. After elaborately

examining the letters suggestive of or suitable to the various

Rasas, he describes the Racanā suggestive of Mādhurya. Here

he actually makes Vṛtti another name for Rīti and speaks of

'Vaidarbhī Vṛtti'.

अपिर्विदग्धाविष्यैः सामान्यैरपि न दृश्यणे रहिता ।

माधुर्यभासमधुरसुन्दरपदवर्णविन्यासा ॥

व्युत्पत्तिमुदीरन्ती निर्मातुर्या प्रसादयुता ।

तां बुधा वैदर्भी वदन्ति वृत्तिं गृहीतपरिपाकाम् ॥

अस्याश्र रीतेर्निर्माणै कविना नितरामवहितेन भाव्यम् ।

R. G. p. 73.

1 See above ch. on Riti, pp. 146-7.

THE HISTORY OF VṚTTI IN KĀVYA

189

In the history of this Vṛtti in Poetics, Bhoja occupies a noteworthy place. For he says that some have given this Vṛtti as of twelve kinds though mainly they are of three kinds, distinguished by three Guṇas, viz., सौकुमार्यम्, मध्यमत्वम्. Bhoja does not call these by the old names Upanāgarikā etc. He applies those names to varieties of Śrutyanuprāsa, (Vide p. 196. S. K. Ā. II). He gives new varieties of this Vṛtti-Anuprāsa of old.

काव्यवृत्त्यापी स सन्दर्भों वृत्तिरित्यमिधीयते ।

सौकुमार्यमथ प्रौढिर्मध्यमतवं च तद्‌द्रुणः ॥

गम्भीरौजस्विनी प्रौढा मधुरा निष्ठुरा सृथुः ।

कठोरा कोमला मिश्रा परुषा ललितामिता ॥

इति द्वादशधा भिन्ना कविभिः परिपठ्यते ।

कारणं पुनरुप्तेस्तु एवंस्त 'विजानते ॥

S. K. Ā. II. S’ls. 84-86.

We see here that, though Bhoja does not use here the names Upanāgarikā, Nāgarikā and Grāmyā, he uses still the names Lalitā, Paruṣā and Komalā and to these three adds nine more. After illustrating these he refutes them all. He opines that such Vṛttis are unnecessary since they are not separate from either the Guṇas or the Vṛttis, Kais’ikī etc.

इति द्वादशधा वृत्तिः कैश्चिद्‌या कथितेहे सा ।

न गुणेभ्यो न वृत्तिभ्यः पृथक्त्वेनावभासते ॥

S. K. Ā. II. 87.

समतासौकुमार्यादिगुणेषु भारतीप्रमृत्तिेषु वृत्तिषु यथायथमन्तर्भावोड्‌गन्तव्यः । Ratanes'vara.

190

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Having cast away this Vṛtti (i.e., the old Anuprāsa Jātis increased into twelve), Bhoja holds another set of twelve Anuprāsa Jātis as being called Vṛtti or Vṛttyanuprāsa. They are named on a geographical basis. They are not heard of elsewhere and have little reality or propriety as regards their names. The names of these twelve Vṛttis are कर्णाटी, कोन्तल्ली, कौद्दी, कौङ्कणी, बाणवासिका, द्राविडी, मागथुरी, माल्सी, मागधी, ताम्रलिस्सिका, औण्ड्री and पौण्ड्री.

We don't know why Bhoja satisfied himself with twelve provinces, while, ancient India is traditionally described as having comprised fifty-six provinces. Fortunately these Vṛttis disappear in later literature. Even the old Vṛttis Upanagarikā etc. pass into obscurity and Hemacandra is perhaps the last to mention them. Later writers completely forget the names Upanagarika etc. as Vṛttis standing for such use of words as are suggestive of Rasa.

They keep the concept of the four ancient Vṛttis derived from Nāṭya, Kaisikī etc. and hold them, as Ānandavardhana did, as the name of the development or delineation of such ideas, Artha, as are in consonance with Rasa. They are held as रसाचित-अर्थसन्दर्भ.

Side by side with them are held the Rītis for रसाचितशब्दसन्दर्भ. Certain writers are satisfied with four Vṛttis and four Rītis, while others increase their number. Bhoja has raised the number of both to six and has held both as two S'abdālaṅkāras.

He adds मध्यमकाशिकी and मध्यमारभटी to the four old Vṛttis of Artha Sandarbha and Āvantikā and Māgadhi to the four Rītis, Vaidarbhī, Gauḍi, Pāñcālī and Lāṭīyā. (Vide S. K. Ā. II, pp. 133-139.) Among the six Vṛttis, it happens as we expect that Bhāratī and Sāttvatī have not got the meaning they have in Nāṭya.

They are respectively put between the softness and sweetness of the Kaisikī and the force and blaze of the Ārabhaṭī. Bhāratī is Komalā and Praudhā and Sāttvatī is the same with more Praudhi. In

THE HISTORY OF VṚTTI IN KĀVYA

191

Vidyānātha we find that Bhāratī leans to Kais'ikī as रेषान्मृद्रथे and Sāttvatī to the Ārabhaṭī as रेषत्प्रोद्रथे.1 Vidyānātha also assigns these four to the Rasas thus: S'ṛṅgāra and Karuṇa —Kais'ikī; Raudra and Bībhatsa—Ārabhaṭī; Hāsya, S'ānta and Adbhuta—Bhāratī and Vīra and Bhavānaka—Sāttvatī. Vidyānātha accepts Bhoja's two additional Vṛttis also and considers them as the Vṛttis of all Rasas. (Vide pp. 43-45. Prat. Yaś. Bhūṣ. Bālamanoramā edn.).

The Kais'ikī Vṛtti goes with the Vaidarbhī Rīti; the Ārabhaṭī with the Gauḍī; the former pair is characterised by sweetness and delicacy while the latter, by force and energy. Murāri thus couples the Kais'ikī Vṛtti and the Vaidarbhī Rīti:

विभ्रती केशिक्रीं वृत्तिं सौरभोद्रारिणीं गिरः । दूराध्वानोनडपि कवयः यस्य रीतिमुपासते ॥

A. R. VII, 101.

Coming to the last concept of Vṛtti in poetics, viz., Vṛtti as meaning varieties of compounded collocation—this appears in Bāṇa and Rudraṭa. Bāṇa mentions the Padavṛtti in which the Padas are uncompounded, Asamasta. अस्मस्तपदवृत्तिमिव अदन्त्राम् । p. 250, the Kādambarī, N. S. edn. Rudraṭa says—

नाम्रां वृत्तिरद्धा भवति समासासमासमेदेन ।

वृत्तेः समासवत्यास्तत्र म्यू गीतयस्तिम्नः ॥

etc. K. A. II, 3-6.

Collocation of words are of two kinds or Vṛttis, uncompounded and compounded, असमासा वृत्तिः : and समासवती वृत्ति:. The former is of only one kind and is called the Vaidarbhī Rīti.

वृत्तेरसमासाया वैदर्भी रीतिरेकैव । II. 6.

1 Such change in their import could not be avoided; for these two cannot come into Kārya with as much ease and propriety as Kais'iki and Arabhati.

The समासवती वृत्तिः or the collocation with compounds is of three kinds. If the compounds are as long as possible, then it is called the Gauḍīyā Rīti. If there are compounds only of two or three words, the resulting Rīti is Pāñcālī which comes nearest to the Vaidarbhī. When the compounds are of five or seven words, the Rīti resulting from them is Lāṭīyā. We hear of the study of compounded or uncompounded collocation as suggestive of Rasa under various circumstances, under the name Samghatanā in the third Uddyota of Dhv. Ā. But there we do not hear of the varieties compounded or uncompounded collocationas being called Vṛtti or as directly producing the four Rītis. Above, in the preceding section, we saw how a concept of Vṛtti, developing from Anuprāsa, soon called itself Rīti. Here we are given a relation of the Rītis to the fact of a collocation having compound words or uncompounded words. This fact lights up the history of the Rīti before Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha. As we find it in Daṇḍin, we see that Anuprāsa, Samāsa, Mādhurya, Pāruṣya, Komalya or some Guṇas corresponding to these two last Guṇas enter into the differentia of the Rītis.

Rudraṭa knew also the Vṛttis which are Anuprāsa Jātis. He gives, not three, but five kinds of them.

मधुरा प्रौढा परुषा ललिता भद्रेति वृत्तयः पद्य ।

वर्णानां नानात्वाद् अस्येति यथार्थेनामफला: ॥ II. 19.

Namisādhu, while commenting on this, mentions one Hari as having held these Vṛttis to be eight in number.

तथा व्यस्त्रे हारिण उत्काः——

महुरं फरुसं कोमलमोजस्सि निट्ठुरं च ललियं च ।

गंभीरीं समिझणं च अद्दभाणिती उण्णियच्चो ॥

THE HISTORY OF VṚTTI IN KĀVYA

193

The three Vṛttis added by Hari are ओजस्विनी, निष्ठुरा and गम्भीरा and perhaps from Rudraṭa and Hari it is that Bhoja makes a set of twelve Vṛttis which we noted above. Who this Hari is, is not known. He does not seem to be an Ālaṅkārika. This verse is from a Prākṛt poem of Hari in the introductory portion of which, as many other writers do, Hari speaks of some topics of Alaṅkāra. These Vṛttis, Rudraṭa says, as Ānandavardhana also later says, are to be used, not with a vengeance but with discrimination, taken and often cast away with an eye on the Āucitya of Rasa.

एताः प्रयत्नादिगम्य सम्यगौचित्यमालोच्य तथार्थसंस्थम् ।

मिश्राः कवीनद्र्घनाल्पदीर्घाः कार्यो मुहुश्चैव गृहीतमुक्ताः ॥

Rudraṭa, K. A. II. 32.

Thus the four Vṛttis of Nāṭya live in Kāvya as रसোচितार्थ-संन्दर्भे and as such stand in close relation to the Guṇas. They are on a par with Rītis which are रसোচितशब्दसन्दर्भे or in an earlier stage, with what has been characterised as Śabda Vṛtti, Upanāgarikā etc. Of the four Vṛttis, the Kaisikī and Ārabhaṭī have had the least or no change at all in Kāvya. As can be expected, Bhāratī and Sāttvatī, when they came into Kāvya had to cast off their old meanings of Speech and Action of subtle Bhāvas of the mind. Even the Śabda Vṛtti, Bhāratī, became an Artha Vṛtti leaning towards the Kaisikī as having less Saukumārya. Sāttvatī, as having less Prauḍhi, was made to mean a weak variety of Ārabhaṭī.

13

THE HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

One of the noteworthy points in the Sanskrit systems of literary criticism is that, in an inquiry into a comprehensive philosophy of the literary art, they do not separate poetry and drama, nor prose and verse. Bharata, in his Nāṭya S'āstra, has defined Drama as Imitation of the three worlds or representation of the actions of men of various nature :

त्रैलोक्यानुरूति: or धीरोदात्ताद्यवस्थानुकृति: (N. S'. I, 107, 113, 120 etc. Vide also Dasarūpaka I, 7). Consequently Bharata has perfected a system of ideas of ' Loka Dharmī', which term means 'the ways of the world ' or to put it short 'Nature', and stands to denote the realistic elements in Bharata's Stage.1 In the concept of Prakṛti, Bharata studies the various kinds of men, minds, and natures found in the worlds. In the concept of Pravṛtti he has studied the provincial, racial, and national characteristics in dressing and other activities. He has elaborately dealt with Āhārya-abhinaya, dress and make-up, which, he says, must be appropriate to the Rasa and Bhāva.

एतद्विद्रभूषणं नार्यो आकेशादानखादपि । यथाभावरसावस्थं विज्ञायैवं प्रयोजयेत् ॥ N. S'. XXIII, 42.

1 See my article on Loka Dharmin (Realism) and Nāṭya Dharmi (Conventions and Idealism) of Bharata's Stage in the IOR. Madras, Vol. VII.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

195

He has devoted separate sections to a consideration of the most proper way of correct speaking in the drama according to the emotions (XIX, पात्यगुणा:), of the Svaras suitable for each mood and of the musical tunes, Jātyamsakas, appropriate to the varying Rasa and Bhāva (XXIX, 1-4). These remarks apply to the artists of the stage and theatre, the actors, the conductor and others. Regarding the work of the poet-dramatist, Bharata has analysed the text of the drama and has pointed out how the verbal qualities of sweetness, harshness etc., and the flights of fancies expressed in the form of figures of speech have to be appropriate to that Bhāva or Rasa which is portrayed (XVII, 108-123). Thus at the end of the treatment of each topic, Bharata has an important section called ‘Rasa-prayoga’, where he points out what suits what.

So much so that Bharata observes that, in judging drama, the ground of reference for success of the art is the world. He emphasises that one has to know the infinite variety of human nature—Prakṛti and Sīla, on which is Nāṭya or drama based.

नानाशीलाः प्रकृतयः शीले नाटचं प्रतिष्ठितम् !

The ‘Pramāṇa’ of Nāṭya is finally only the world. A theorist can give a few indications and the rest can be learnt only from the world.

लोकसिद्धं भवेत् सिद्धं नाटचं लोकस्वभावजम् ।

तस्मात्तत्रप्रयोगे तु प्रमाणं लोक इष्यते ॥

यानि शास्त्राणि ये धर्मा: यानि शिल्पानि या: क्रिया: ।

लोकधर्मान्‌प्रवृत्तांस्तान् नाटचं प्रकाशितम् ॥

196

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

न हि शक्यं हि लोकस्य स्थावरस्य चरस्य च ।

शाश्वेण निर्णयं कर्तुं भावचेष्टाविधिं प्रति ॥

नानाशीलाः प्रकृतयः शीले नाट्यं प्रतिष्ठितम् ।

तस्माल्लोकः प्रमाणं हि कर्तव्यो नाट्ययोक्तृभिः ॥

N. S'., XXVI, 113-119.

नोक्तानि च मया यानि लोकम्राण्य्यानि तान्यपि ।

N. S'., XXIV, 214.

(end of the chapter on dress and make-up). Nature or the three worlds or Prakṛti or Sīla—all these can finally be referred to by the single word Rasa which is the ‘Soul’ of poetry. Drama is the representation of moods, Bhāva-anu-kīrtana, as Bharata puts it. Out of these moods flow everything—the actions, the character, the dress, the nature of one’s speech etc. Thus to this factor, which is at the root of all these things, viz., Rasa, have these things again to be referred for finding out whether in representing them, there is propriety or appropriateness. Things cannot be estimated by themselves separately and labelled as good or bad, appealing or otherwise. That is, Guṇatva and Doṣatva do not inherently pertain to anything eternally but anything, according to the situation where it occurs, is either suitable or not; and in this suitability or otherwise lies Guṇatva or Doṣatva. What Bharata says of ornaments and decoration in the make-up of the characters is true of all other parts of the art of representation by the poet and the production of the drama on the stage by the actors. Bharata lays down that if a thing does not agree or is not proper in a certain place with reference to Rasa, it is the greatest literary flaw. Improper placing, like placing a necklace at the foot and an anklet round the neck, can only produce laughter.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

197

अदेशजो हि वेशस्तु न शोभां जनयिष्यति ।

मेखलोरसि बन्धे न हस्यायैवोपजायते ॥ N. S’., XXIII, 69.

It is a serious breach of propriety for a writer to describe

a forlorn lady suffering from separation from her lord (i.e., one

in Pravāsa Vipralabha) as having her body fully decked with

jewels. In the realm of artistic expression the same rule

holds good. A poet commits the greatest crime against Rasa

if he introduces a cartload of ornaments of a verbal character

in places where Rasa has to be effectively portrayed and where

the absence of any figure is itself the perfection of art. The

proper placing of things in such a manner as to suit Rasa and

the avoiding of tïngs not suitable form the essence of artistic

expression. This is propriety, Aucitya. An anklet adds no

beauty as an ornament but an anklet as an ornament for the

ankle is helpful to beautify one. We can thus see how this

doctrine of appropriateness, propriety and adaptation—all com-

prehended in the one word Aucitya, is directly derivable from

Bharata. Just put by the side of the verse of Bharata above-

quoted, the verse illustrative of the theory of Aucitya given

by Kṣemendra in his Aucityavicāracarcā, in which work the

doctrine of Aucitya had the complete elaboration into a system

of criticism, and see :

अदेशजो हि वेशस्तु न शोभां जनयिष्यति ।

मेखलोरसि बन्धे च हास्यायैवोपजायते ॥ Bharata, XXIII, 69.

कण्ठे मेखलया, नितम्बफलके तारेण हारेण वा

पाणौ नूपुरबन्धनेन, चरणे केयूरपाशेन वा ।

शौर्येण प्रणते, रिपौ करुणया, नायान्ति के हास्यताम्

औचित्येन विना रुचिं प्रतनुते नालंकृतिनों गुणा: ॥

Kṣemendra’s Au. V.C.

198

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Thus the first work in the history of Sanskrit Poetics contains

implicitly as much of this theory of Aucitya of the Sanskrit

Alañkāra S'āstra, as of the other theory of poetry, Rasa, ex-

plicitly, even though emphasis on both these—Aucitya and

Rasa—was again systematically laid only as late as the ninth,

tenth and eleventh centuries.

Aucitya is harmony and in one aspect it is proportion

between the whole and the parts, between chief and the

subsidiary, between the Añgin and the Añgas. This perfec-

tion is all the morals and beauty in art. At the final stage of

its formulation as a theory explaining the secret of poetic appeal,

Aucitya is stated to be the 'Jīvita', life-breath, of poetry.

This Aucitya, which is proportion and harmony on one side

and appropriateness and adaptation on the other, cannot be

understood by itself but presupposes that to which all other

things are harmonious and appropriate. Surely there has to

be harmony and appropriateness in every part and between one

part and another; but everything as a whole has to be pro-

nounced proper and appropriate or otherwise by a reference to

what constitutes the 'Soul'—Ātman of poetry viz., Rasa.

Thus Bharata speaks of the Rasa-prayoga of Pravṛtti, Vṛtti,

Guṇa, Alaṅkāra, Āhāryābhinaya, Pāṭhyaguṇa, Svarā and

Jātyamsa. In later terminology, this Rasaprayoga is Rasa-

aucitya. But Aucitya is only implicitly contained in Bharata.

It was only rather late that Poetics got itself again wedded

and identified with Bharata's Dramaturgy and took its stand

scientifically on the two pedestals of Rasa and Aucitya, which

it had forgotten for a time, as we shall now see in the following

account of the history of the concept of Aucitya after Bharata.

The next glimpse we have of Aucitya is in Māgha, who,

in his poem, has made some side-remarks which

Māgha

shoot their rays into the darkness of the early

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

199

history of Poetics. In canto ii of Māgha's Śisupālavadha, we

have a verse on the policy best suited for the king, which,

through comparison, drags in the topic of Guṇas in Kāvyas

or dramas.

तेजो धमौ वा नैकान्तं कोलशस्य महीपते: |

नैकमोज: प्रसादो वा रसभावविद: कवेः ||

S'. V. II, 83.

The king has to achieve his purpose with an eye on ex-

pediency. Time and circumstance are the pre-eminently

deciding factors of his policy. There is no inherent good in

either power or forbearance and peace by themselves but all

goodness of a policy consists in its effectiveness, in using that

which is suited to the time. Prowess is waste and will even

run the cause where it is needlessly flaunted. Forbearance

cannot help the king when he has to succeed by putting up a

thick fight. Thus, adaptation is the only policy good for the

king. The case is similar to that of a poet with whom the

main concern is Rasa and Bhāva and an understanding of

their subtle nature. In portraying his characters and their

actions and in describing them, it will not do if the poet sticks

to one quality throughout, say Prasāda or Ojas. When the

Vīra, Adbhuta and Raudra Rasas appear, he has to adopt the

Guṇa Ojas to suit the vigour, energy and blaze (Dīpti) of

those Rasas and when the key of emotion is lowered and

quiet emotinal effects have to be produced, the requisite quality

for the poet is Prasāda. Thus, not Guṇas by themselves,

but that Guṇa which is proper and appropriate—Ucita—is

helpful to Rasa. This is Guṇa-aucitya. Aucitya is here

Adaptation. Māgha, as a poet, had this clear insight into

Bharata's ideas of Rasa and Guṇas appropriate to each Rasa.

Bhoja considers such appropriateness in expression between

the emotion and the stylistic quality as a Prabandha-guṇa,

200

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

i.e., one of the good features of good poetry. He calls it

‘रसानुरूपसन्दर्भमेतवम्’. He means the same thing as what Māgha

says in the above-given verse, which also Bhoja quotes.

रसानुरूपसन्दर्भमित्यनेन रतिप्रकर्षे कोमलः, उत्साहप्रकर्षे प्रौढः,

क्रोधप्रकर्षे कठोरः, शोकप्रकर्षे मृदुः, विस्मयप्रकर्षे तु स्फुटशब्दसन्दर्भो

विरचनीय इति उपदिशन् ‘नैकमोजः प्रसादो वा रसभावविदः कवे:'

(Māgha, S'. V. II, 83.) इति ख्यापयति । S'ṛṅgāra Prakāśa,

Madras MS. Vol. II, p. 432.

In the above-given verse of Māgha we have an early ‘S'iro-

daya' of the doctrine of Guṇas as the Dharmas of Rasa, the

Soul of Kāvya, which is one of the special contributions of

Ānandavardhana. In later terminology, Māgha is here speaking

of वर्णसंघटना-औचित्य, appropriateness of letters and collocation,

or simply गुणौचित्य.

It is again in respect of Guṇas that we have a faint

glimpse of the idea of Aucitya implied in certain

Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin parts of the treatises of Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin.

Māgha says that Guṇas must change and be appropriate to

the Rasa and the Bhāva of the situation. Ojas or Prasāda

wrongly placed is a literary flaw, directly hindering Rasa.

Thus the breach of Aucitya gives rise to flaws. In one way,

the greatest Guṇa or excellence of poetry is only Aucitya

and it comprehends all other Guṇas; and the greatest Doṣa

or flaw comprehending other flaws is Anaucitya.¹ Thus when

¹ (a) Sarves'vara, in his Sāhityasāra, (p. 20, Madras MS.) gives

seven Vākyārtha doṣas, and among these Aucitya bhaṅga is con-

sidered as the first.

(b) Cf. also Municandra's commentary on Dharmabindu

(Āgamodaya Samiti series, p. 11 a) :

औचित्यमेकत्र गुणानां राशिरेकतः ।

विषायतगुणग्राम: औचित्यपरिवर्जित: ॥

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

201

the Rīti is not suited to the Rasa, we can say that there is

Rīti-anaucitya and a Doṣa called Arītimat. But the Gauḍī Rīti

which may not suit Sṛṅgāra cannot be condemned altogether as

eternally unsuited to all poetry. The Gauḍī Rīti can effectively

suggest Vīra, Adbhuta, and Raudra Rasas and in the cases of

these three, the Vaidarbhī suited to Sṛṅgāra may be ‘anucita’.

There may be harsh sounds and heavy, long and swollen utter-

ances in a highly worked-up emotion of the kind of Raudra ; the

harsh sounds which suggest the Rasa in this case must be

avoided by the poet in Sṛṅgāra Rasa which is suggested by

sweet assonances and delicate sound effects. Therefore it is

that the Doṣas, given as such in separate sections by Bhāma-

ha and Daṇḍin, are, to use a word which came into currency

only after Ānandavardhana, Anitya. That is, in certain cir-

cumstances Doṣas cease to be so; there are no fixed Guṇas or

Doṣas; what is Guṇa in one case is Doṣa in another and

vice versa.

In chapter I, Bhāmaha deals with certain Doṣas in the

last section beginning with śl. 37. After defining and illus-

trating them he says that these flaws cease to be so sometimes

and really give beauty to expression.

सन्निवेशविशेषात् दुरुक्तमपि शोभते ।

नीलं पलाशमबद्धमन्तराले स्रजामिव ॥

किश्चिद्दोषायसौन्दर्याद् धत्ते शोभामसाध्विपे ।

कान्ताविलोचनन्यासतं मलीमसमिवाञ्जनम् ॥

अनयान्यदपि जेयं दिशा युक्तमसाध्वपि ।

यथोद्देशं साधीयश्च प्रयोजयेत् ॥

202

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

The principle behind these observations is Aucitya, adap-

tation. Again, in chapter IV, Bhāmaha speaks of such flaws

in poetry as Lokavirodha. The flaw of Lokavirodha, which

is going against nature, is nothing but the non-observance of

the Aucitya of Prakrti etc. Here, he also points out that re-

dundance, Punarukti, which is generally a flaw in expression,

turns out to be an effective way of expression in fear, sorrow,

jealousy, joy and wonder.

भयशोकाभयसूयासु हर्षविस्मययोरपि ।

यथाह गच्छ गच्छेति पुनरुक्तं न तत् विदुः ॥ IV, 14.

There is also the saying ‘प्रिये नास्ति पुनरुक्तम् ।’

It is in the same section on Doṣas that the principle of

Aucitya is implied in Daṇḍin’s work also. Daṇḍin treats of

Doṣas in the fourth chapter of his work. Each and every

Doṣa is given with a qualification that in certain circum-

stances it ceases to be Doṣa and turns out to be a Guṇa.

Thus Apārtha, the first flaw, is generally a Doṣa but it is the

most proper means of successfully portraying a madman’s

raving, a child’s sweet prattle or the speech of a sick man.

समुदायार्थरूपं यत् तदपार्थमितीयते ।

उन्मत्ततमतालानामुक्तेरनयत्र दुष्यति ॥ IV. 5.

इदं वस्तुस्वचित्तानामभिधानमनिन्दितम् । IV. 7.

Speaking of the flaw of Viruddārtha or Vyartha, Daṇḍin

says that there is such a state of mind also in which even

contradictory speech is the natural mode of expression and

hence, in those places, the flaw becomes an excellence.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 203.

अस्ति काचिदवस्था सा साभिषङ्गस्य चेतसः ।

यस्यां भवेदभिमता विरुद्धार्थोपि भारती ॥ IV. 10.

Punarukta, as has been pointed out by Bhāmaha also, is no flaw but is an effective way of expressing compassion or any stress of emotion which needs repetition. Samsāya or the use of doubtful or ambiguous words may generally be a flaw but when such words are wilfully used, as is often needed in the world, they are perfect Guṇas. Thus Daṇḍin shows exceptions—Vyabhicāra—to all the Doṣas. He is fully aware, that in the realm of poetry, a certain thing is not Doṣa by its very nature but that it is so because of circumstance, a change of which makes it a Guṇa. He thus finally concludes :

विरोधसङ्कुलोऽप्येष कदाचित्कविकौशलात् ।

उत्कर्षम दोषगणनां गुणवीर्थी विगाहते ॥ IV. 5-7.

Bhoja developed the same idea by constituting under the head ‘Guṇa’ a peculiar class of Guṇas called the Vais’eṣika Guṇas. These are the flaws above noticed which Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin considered as excellences sometimes. (Vide the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa, chapter I. S’ls. 89-156, pp. 78-119).1 Bhoja calls them also Dosaguṇas. As a matter of fact, all Guṇas and Doṣas are ‘Vais’eṣika’. ‘It all depends’, says the discerning critic in literature as one says in this complex world. The fact of Doṣas becoming Guṇas recorded by Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin means, if it means or implies anything, the doctrine of Aucitya as the only ruling principle holding good in the realm of poetry for ever. It is because of this that, in Poetics, Doṣas are called Anitya. It is only a clearer

1 I have spoken of these at length in the chapter on the History of Guṇas in my book on the Sṛṅgāra Prakāśa.

204

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṆKĀRA SĀSTRA

statement of what Daṇḍin has said in the Doṣa-section that

we have in Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, who say :

श्रुतिदुष्टादयो दोषा अनित्या ये च सूचिताः ।

ध्वन्यात्मन्येव शृङ्गारे ते हेया इत्युदीरिता: ॥

Dhva. Ā. II, 12.

नापि गुणेश्यो व्यतिरिक्तं दोषत्वम् । वीभत्सहास्यरौद्रादौ त्वेषां

(श्रुतिदुष्टादीनां) अस्माभिरुपगमात्, शृङ्गारादौ च वर्जनाद् अनित्यत्वं

समर्थितमेवेति भाव:॥ Locana.

The principle by virtue of which ‘harsh sounds’—Śruti-

duṣṭa—which form a Doṣa to be avoided in Sṛṅgāra become

themselves a Guṇa highly suggestive of Raudra etc., is Adapta-

tion or Aucitya. (Vide also Dhva. Ā. III, 3-4).

In the first half of the 8th century, King Yaśovarman

Yas'ovarman,

author of the drama Rāmā-

bhyudaya.

of Kanauj, patron of Bhavabhūti, wrote his

drama Rāmābhyudaya, whose prologue has

some interest to the student of the history of

Poetics for a verse in it on certain concepts

connected with theoretical literary criticism. That veritable

mine of quotations, the stupendous Sṛṅgāra Prakāśa of king

Bhoja, quotes that verse. Bhoja considers a number of

Alankāras of Prabandha, i.e., good features of a poem or a

drama as a whole. One of these Prabandhālankāras is given by

him as ‘excellence of build’—सन्निवेश प्राजापत्यम्—which means,

according to him, that the minor ‘descriptions’ in a Mahā-

kāvya must be so set in the framework of the story that they

do not appear irrelevant or overdone. This is Aucitya in

its aspect of proportion, harmony and strict artistic relevancy

of all details from the point of view of Rasa. Bhoja means

that this applies to drama also as his quotation from Yaśo-

varman shows.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 205

तेष्वेव नगराणवर्णनादीनां सत्रिवेशप्राशस्त्यम् अलङ्कार इति ।

तदुक्तं—

औचित्यं वचसां प्रकृत्यनुगतं, सर्वत्र पात्रोचिता

पुष्टिः स्ववशे रसस्य च, कथामार्गे न चातिक्रमः ।

शुद्धिः प्रस्तुतसंविधानविधौ, प्रौदिश्व शब्दार्थयोः

विदग्धिः परिभाव्यतामवहितैः, एतावदेवास्तु नः ॥1

S'r. Pra. Mad. MS. Vol. II, p. 411.

This is the earliest instance so far known of the occurrence of the word Aucitya. Yaśovarman here refers to a number of good features which a good drama should have. First among them are Aucitya of expression, i.e., speech written according to the nature and level or rank of the characters and Aucitya

1 That this is a verse in Yaśovarman's Rāmābhyudaya is known from the Locana on the Dhv. Ā. III, p. 148. Ānanda-vardhana quotes from the second line of the above verse, the bit 'कथामार्गे न चातिक्रमः '. Explaining the phrase यथोदितं which introduces this quotation, Abhinavagupta says : ' यदुक्तामिति रामाभ्युदये यशोवर्र्मणा ।'

There should be a full-stop in the text here and the words स्थितिमिति यथा शस्स्यां in the Locana do not form any quotation, as the N. S. edn. suggests by clubbing them together with यशोवर्र्मणा and by giving them with quotation marks. The correct text should be स्थितिमिति, कथाश्रव्याम् । स्थितिमिति is a Prātikaṇ and refers to the word Sthiti in Ānandavardhana's Vṛtti 'इतिवृत्तवशायातां कथाविदसानुगुणां स्थितिं यक्वा etc. This word Sthiti is interpreted by Abhinavagupta as the course of the story 'कथाश्रव्या'.

That it is a verse from the prologue can easily be known ; for such verses can figure nowhere else. Mark the similarity of this verse to the verse 'यद्वेदाद्ययनं etc.' in the prologue to the Mālatimādhava of Bhavabhūti who wrote in Yaśovarman's court. Also note in the III line the Guṇa mentioned by Yaśovarman 'प्रौदिश्व शब्दार्थयोः ' which Bhavabhūti also mentions. 'यत्प्रौढत्वमुदारता व वचसाम्'. This seems to have developed into the Praudhi forming the Arthaguṇa Ojas in Vāmana, III. ii. 2.

206

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

of Rasa, i.e., delineation of characters in their proper moods

with an eye to developing the Rasa in the proper place.

These to comprise the external and internal Aucitya or Aucitya

of expression and Aucitya of the content, i.e., the Rasa. On

this point Yaśovarman has emphasised only what Bharata

had laid down as regards Prakṛti and Sīla. The second

mentioned Aucitya of Rasa, its appropriateness to the Pātra,

the character and its development in the proper place (पात्रौ-

चित्यं, पुष्टि: स्वावसरे रसस्य) are elaborated into many rules of

Rasaucitya by Rudraṭa and Ānandavardhana as we shall see in

a further section.

It is this all-round Aucitya called by Bhoja an Alaṅkāra

and Sanniveśaprāsaṅstyam that Lollaṭa also emphasises. Lollaṭa

wants every part of the Mahākāvya to be Rasavat. All these

are various ways of putting the idea of the Aucitya of Rasa, the

'Soul' of poetry, without basing oneself on which, none can

talk of Aucitya intelligibly.

In practice, as can be seen from the numerous and large

Lollaṭa Mahākāvya, which are entitled to that name

because of their bulk at least, all notions of pro-

priety had become unknown to poets. The several limbs over-

developed themselves separately, like elephantine leg, and the

Kāvyā as a whole was an outrage on harmony and Aucitya. This

Lollaṭa severely criticised, perhaps in his commentary on the

Nāṭya S'āstra. To this aspect of Aucitya viz., proportion and

strict relevancy of every detail, Lollaṭa drew attention. In

the gap between Daṇḍin and Rudraṭa, two or three stray

verses of Lollaṭa quoted by Rājaśekhara, Hemacandra and

Namisādhu give us a flash in the dark and we see how, stage

by stage, the concept of propriety or Aucitya was developing.

These three verses of Lollaṭa emphasise Rasaucitya, Aucitya

of parts to the chief element called Rasa i.e., the aspect ealled

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 207

proportion. Ornaments hide beauty if they are not structural or organic ; similarly 'descriptions ' have to logically emerge out of the story and the complex course of its Rasa as a necessity. Descriptive cantos should not stand out like out-houses and isolated places for the poet's mind to indulge at length in excess. This is true of the drama as much as of the epic poem. In a drama, the sub-plots, the Patākā and the Prakarī and the Sandhyangas should not be considered by themselves as having any virtue but should be seen to be relevant to Rasa. This Ānavardhana emphasises, as we shall see. As regards the Mahākāvya, Lollaṭa [Āparājiti, i.e., son of Aparājita 1] says according to Rājaśekhara :

अस्तु नाम निस्सीमा अर्थसार्थ: ; किन्तु रसवत एव निबन्धो युक्त:, न तु नीरसस्य' इति आपराजिति:

मज्जनपुष्पावचयनसन्ध्याचन्द्रोदयादिवाक्यमिह ।

सरसमपि नातिबहुलं प्रकृतरसाविवतं रचयेत् ॥

यस्तु सरिन्द्रद्रिसागरपुरतुरगरथादिवर्णने यत्नः ।

कविशक्तिकल्यातिफल: विततधियाम् नो मत्स इह ॥

K. M. I, ix, p. 49.

The second verse in the above quotation, along with its following verse, is quoted by Hemacandra with the mention of the name Lollaṭa. The additional verse quoted by him criticises the poets for setting apart cantos for such feats as Yamaka, Cakrabandha etc., in a Mahākāvya, they being very inappropriate and uttterly unhelpful to the emotional idea of the epic poem.

1 Vide my paper on Writers Quoted in the Abhinavabhāratī, Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part II, p. 169.

208

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

तथा च लोले्ट:

यस्तु सरिदद्रिसागरनगतुरगपुरादिवर्णने यत्नः ।

कविशक्तिव्यातिफलो विततधियं नो मतः प्रकृत्न्वेषु ॥

यमकानुलोम्यतदितरदृश्शृङ्गारादिमेदैरितरसाविरोषध्वन्यः ।

अभिमानमात्रमेतद् गङ्गडुरिकादिप्रवाहो वाऽ ॥ इति ॥

K. A. Ch. V, p. 215.

Namisādhu, on Rudraṭa III. 59, quotes the additional verse quoted by Hemacandra and emphasises with its authority the principle of Aucitya.

Thus proportion and harmony form an aspect of Aucitya which is propriety, adaptation, and other points of appropriateness. From the point of view of the perfect agreement between the parts and the chief element of Rasa, from the point of view of this proportion and harmony, I think, Aucitya can be rendered in English into another word also viz., ‘Sympathy’, which as a word in art-criticism means ‘mutual conformity of parts’.

From Daṇḍin we had to come to Lollaṭa before we could again catch sight of Aucitya as a principle underlying many literary dicta. This means that we have to come almost to the time of Ānandavardhana whom Rudraṭa must have slightly preceded. Up to the time of Rudraṭa the concept was developing unconsciously without a name. The name Aucitya was not given to the idea by any writer of poetic theory, and one more useful word was not thus added to the critical vocabulary of the Sahṛdaya. But the word Aucitya must have slowly dawned in the circles of Sahṛdayas and we first see that word used in theoretical literature only in Rudraṭa's Kāvyālaṅkāra, a work which has not yet left the primitive Alaṅkāra-stage

of criticism but has however embodied into itself a good deal

of the concept of Rasa, which alone, according to it, made

poetry that interesting and charming thing it is—Sarasa.

The word Aucitya occufs often in Ānandavardhana's work

and Rudraṭa is only the first writer to mention it in theoretical

literature. For, earlier, in the first half of the eighth century,

King Yaśovarman of Kanauj uses the word Aucitya with

much theoretical significance, in much the same significance

as the word is used with in later times, in the prologue of

his lost drama, Rāmābhyudaya, as we have noticed above.

Thus the three stages to be noticed in the appearance of the

name Aucitya is its mention by Yaśovarman, treatment of it

to a small extent in Rudraṭa and to a large extent in Ānanda-

vardhana's Dhvanyāloka. Rudraṭa just preceded Ānandavar-

dhana or was an early contemporary of his. He was perhaps

writing in Śaṅkuka's time. Some ideas given in the Dhva. Ā.

are already seen in Rudraṭa's work. Many of the Rasa doṣas

mentioned by Ānandavardhana under Rasaucitya in Uddyota

iii are found in Rudraṭa's K. A. What we must note here at

present is that though Rudraṭa treats of Alaṅkāras so largely

and though his work is yet one of the old period in which

works are called Kāvya-Alaṅkāra, he has realised the impor-

tance of Rasa to suit which Alaṅkāras exist. If Alaṅkāras are

otherwise, they have little meaning. That is what Ānandavar-

dhana develops in a section on Alaṅkārasamikṣā in Uddyota ii.

The idea that Rasa and Rasaucitya control Alaṅkāra is already

seen in Rudraṭa, who, as said above, is the first writer of

Poetics to mention the word Aucitya. After dealing with some

Śabdālaṅkāras like Yamakas which are a siren to the easily

tempted poets, Rudraṭa says, by way of closing the chapter,

that these figures must be introduced after bestowing due

thought on propriety, Aucitya, with reference to the main

210

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

theme. Even the Anuprāsas have to be now cast away and

now taken and must be sparsely used with much advantage.

They must not be thickly overlaid upon the theme through

the whole length of it.

एताः प्रयत्नादिगम्य सम्यग् औचित्यमालिच्य तथार्थसस्थम् ।

मिश्राः कवीनदेःघनाल्पदीर्घाः कार्यो मुहुश्चैव गृहीतमुक्ताः ॥

K. A. II, 32.

This is Aucitya of Alañkāra which Ānandavardhana

elaborates in Uddyota ii of his work. It is this idea in the

last line of Rudraṭa's verse quoted above—‘गृहीतमुक्ताः' that

Ānandavardhana has formulated into the rule—‘कौले च ग्रहण-

त्यागौ'—(II. 19) taking and throwing away according to the

circumstances, as regards the use of figures.

The word Aucitya again occurs at the end of the next

chapter in Rudraṭa's work where again Rudraṭa points out the

danger of Yamaka etc. He says that they must be approached

only by him who knows Aucitya. Namisādhu perfectly under-

stands the full implication of Rudraṭa's strictures on Yamaka

etc., and quotes on this subject of Aucitya the verse of Lollaṭa

which we considered in a previous section. Rudrata says :

इति यमकशेषं सम्यगालोचयद्भिः:

सुकविभिरभियुक्तैः वस्तु च औचित्यविच्छिः ।

K. A. III, p. 36.

तथा च वस्तु विषयभागमालोचयद्भिः । यथा कस्मिन् रसे कर्तव्यं,

क वा न कर्तव्यम् । यमकक्लेशचित्राणि हि सरसे काव्ये क्रियमाणानि

रसखण्डनान् कुर्यु: । विशेषतस्तु शृङ्गारकरुणयोः । कवे: किलैतানি

शक्तिमात्रं पोषयन्ति, न रसवत्ताम् । यदुक्तं ‘यमकादुलोम + गडुरिकादि-

प्रवाहो वा' (Lollaṭa) ॥

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

211

औचित्यं यमकादिविधानास्थानस्थानादिकम्

तदनु चौचित्यविज्ञानानन्तरं विरचनायम् ।

Namisādhu.

Besides the mention of the word Aucitya and the presence

of the idea of Alañkāraucitya in the two places above referred

to, Rudraṭa speaks of the adaptation-aspect of Aucitya also

implicitly like Daṇḍin while dealing with Doṣas, which, in

certain cases, become Guṇas. (Vide chap. vi, Sl. 8).

Under the Doṣa called Grāmya, Rudraṭa speaks of propriety in ad-

dressing persons of differing ranks which Bharata deals with

at length as a part of Prakṛtyaucitya.

Explaining another variety of the Doṣa called Grāmya, viz., the Asabhya in VI.

21-24, Rudraṭa says that there are certain words which are

inappropriate—Anucita—but which in certain special cases

become very appropriate—Ucita.

अनुचितभावं मुख्तति तथाविधं पदं

सदपि ।' He again uses the idea of 'Ucitānucita' in the next

variety of Grāmya.

He then points out like Daṇḍin how

all Doṣas, Punarukta etc., become Guṇas elsewhere.

(VI, 29-39).

Finally, Rudraṭa says that almost all kinds of flaws

become excellences when occasion needs the 'imitation'—

Anukaraṇa—of those flaws.

That is, the poet and the

dramatist have to depict an infinite variety of men and nature

in diverse and complex circumstances.

When a madman has

to be represented, his nonsense has to be 'imitated' and

it is itself 'sense' for the artist here.

This was pointed

out also at the beginning of this paper while showing how

Bharata's N.S'. implies the adaptation aspect of Aucitya.

Says Rudraṭa :

अनुकरणभावमविकलमसमर्थोदि स्वरूपतो गच्छन् ।

न भवति दुष्टमतिकृत् विपरीतविषयत्वं न चापि नाट्ये ॥

V, 47.

212

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

As an instance of all flaws becoming excellences, Namisādhu

says that in describing a bad speaker committing mistakes of

pronunciation, grammar etc., art makes Guṇas of all those

mistakes. Aucityya or adaptation transforms Doṣas into

Gunas. He cites an instance of the funny description of the

illiterate husband of the poetess Vikaṭanitambā who is unable

to pronounce properly.

यथा विकटनितम्बाया: पतिमनुकुर्वाणा सखी आह—

काले माषं सस्ये मासं वदति शकाशं यश्र शकाशम् ।

उष्ट्रे लुम्पति रं वा षं वा तस्मै दत्ता विकटनितम्बा ॥ इत्यादि ।

Following Rudraṭa, Bhoja says in the beginning of his

treatment of those Doṣas which become Guṇas :

पदाद्याश्रितदोषाणां ये चानुकरणादिषु ।

गुणत्वापत्तये नित्यं तेडत्र दोषगुणा: स्मृता: ॥ S. K. Ā. I, 89.

This point is realised by the American critic J. E.

Spingarn who writes as follows as if explaining the prin-

ciple of Aucityya, by which Doṣas become Guṇas as a

result of circumstances like ‘imitation’. Mr. Spingarn says,

in an essay on the Seven Arts and the Seven Confusions,

that in poetry and drama Doṣatva and Guṇatva are

not absolutely fixed abstractly and that they are always

relative. He remarks : ‘It is inconceivable that a modern

thinker should still adhere to the abstract tests of good

expression, when it is obvious that we can only tell whether

it is good or bad when we see it in its natural context. Is

any word artistically bad in itself? Is not “ain't ” an ex-

cellent expression when placed in the mouth of an illiterate

character in a play or story?’ In Rudraṭa's words, Spingarn

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

213

says that a Grāmya word becomes most appropriate in a case

of Anukaraṇa-‘imitation’. Therefore in expression, in the

world of thought, in the realm of action and feeling, and in the

region of ideas, that which is proper in the context, that which

is useful to the Rasa, and that which has mutual harmony

with the other parts, is the best and most beautiful.

In chapter XI, Rudraṭa again speaks of flaws of thought

and emotion, Arthadoṣas and Rasadoṣas, where under

‘Grāmya’, he mentions Anaucitya or inappropriateness in

doings, in port, in dress and in speech with reference to

country, family, caste, culture, wealth, age and position. The

need for the Aucitya in these is emphasised by Bharata.

Rudraṭa says :

ग्राम्यत्वमनौचित्यं व्यवहाराकारेवेषवचनानाम् ।

देशकुलजातिविद्यावित्तवयस्स्थानपात्रेषु ॥ XI, 9.

All these Doṣas are again shown to become Guṇas in S’ls.

18-23. We can illustrate this principle of Aucitya everywhere.

Ordinarily Nyūnopamā or comparing to an inferior object and

Adhikopamā or comparing to a superior object are flaws of

Upamā or the figure of Simile but these two are the very secret

of success when a poet wants to satirise a person. Nyūnopamā

and Adhikopamā are freely employed in comic and satiric

writings where they become very ‘Ucita’.

The idea of Aucitya and that word itself also explicitly

occur often in the Dhvanyāloka, besides being

implied in many places. As a matter of fact,

Ānandavardhana

Kṣemendra, the systematic exponent of Aucitya as the ‘Life’

of poetry, took his inspiration only from Ānandavardhana.

Ānandavardhana has laid down that the ‘Soul’ of poetry is

Rasa or Rasadhvani.

214

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA SĀSTRA

काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थ: तथा चादिकवे: पुरा ।

कौचिद्वन्द्ववियोगोत्थ: शोक: श्लोकत्वमागत: ॥ I, 5.

That Dhvani is the only artistic process by which Rasa, the ‘Ātman’, is portrayed by the poet and is got at by the Sahṛdaya and that everywhere things appeal most by being deftly concealed and suggested by suppression in a fabric of symbology, are the reasons why Ānandavardhana posits Dhvani as the ‘Ātman’ of poetry. That really Rasa or Rasadhvani is the ‘Ātman’, he expressly admits even in the first Uddyota (vide p. 28). The most essential thing in Rasa is Aucitya. That Vastu or ideas and Alaṅkāra or the artistic expression couched in figure and style are only the outer garment of Rasa, that they are subordinate and serviceable only to Rasa, and that they have meaning only as such, is the way in which Ānanda-vardhana speaks of the Aucitya of Vastu and Alaṅkāra to Rasa. Firstly, Alaṅkāra by itself has no virtue. It has to be relevant, helpful to develop Rasa and never an overgrowth hindering or making hideous the poem. The term Alaṅkāra itself has meaning only then.

रसभावादितात्पर्यमाश्रित्य विनिवेशनम् ।

अलङ्कृतिरनर्थानां सर्वासामलङ्कारत्वसाधनम् ॥ III, 6.

The topic of Aucitya of Alaṅkāra giving the rules which alone secure the appropriate employing of Alaṅkāra is dealt with by Ānandavardhana in Ud. II, S’ls. 15-20, pp. 85-93. He first takes up the S’abdālaṅkāras and condemns the Yamakas written at a stretch in such tender situations like Vipralambha. The rationale of Ānandavardhana’s principles is this : whatever the poet writes must be suggestive of Rasa and everything has to be tested good or bad, relevant or irrelevant,

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

215

beautiful or ugly, by applying this strict logic of their capacity

to suggest or hinder Rasa. The main refrain of Ānandavardhana

here is that Alañkara should be structural, organically emerg-

ing as the only way of expressing an emotion and it must

never be a cold and deliberate effort at decoration, necessi-

tating the forgetting of Rasa and the taking of a special

effort.

रसाक्षिप्ततया यस्य बन्धः शक्यक्रियौ भवेत् ।

अपृथग्यत्ननिर्वर्त्यः सोडलङ्कारो ध्वनौ मतः ॥ II, 17.

On p. 88, in Kārikās 19-20, he gives the poet five practical

ways of using Alañkāra to advantage.1 On this section is

based the sectionī on Alañkāraucitya in Kṣemendra’s Au-

cityavicāracarcā.

Similarly Ānandavardhana relates Guna to Rasa of which

Guṇa is the ‘Dharma’ and points out Aucitya of Guṇa. The

quality of Mādhurya is inherent in Sṛṅgāra, Vipralambha and

Karuna, whereas Raudra is attended by the quality of Dīpti,

by a blazing up of the hearts. Accordingly words and col-

location used in the two different cases must be such as to

agree with the mood and the atmosphere of the Guṇa and its

Rasa or such as to suggest the Guṇa and the Rasa. Thus

sweet sound effects, the soft letters with nasal conjunct con-

sonants, suggest and promote the realisation of the more tender

and sweeter emotional moods whereas harsh combinations

which jar in the above instances instil vigour and become very

appropriate to or highly suggestive of the wild Rasa of Raudra.

This proper use of letters is Varṇa-aucitya; Ānandavardhana

will say that there is Varṇadhvani in these instances; and a

third will call it Varṇavakratā. Collocation suggestive of

1See above, chapter on Use and Abuse of Alañkāra.

216

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Rasa or appropriate to Rasa is a case of Dhvani from Saṅ-ghaṭanā or Aucitya of Sainghaṭanā. Both these instances of

Aucitya of Varna and Sainghaṭanā coming under Gunaucitya

are treated of by Ānandavardhana in U'd. III.

यस्त्वलक्ष्यक्रमयज्ज्ञो ध्वनिवर्णपदादिषु ।

वाक्ये संघटनायां च स प्रबन्धेऽपि दीप्यते ॥ III, 2.

Wherever there is suggestiveness of Rasa in the expression, be it the element of sound and letter, separate words, col-

location, portions of the theme (Prakaraṇa) or even the work

as a whole, there we have the Aucitya of those elements to

Rasa which is the main thing. This is the relation between

Dhvani and Aucitya. This is the relation between Dhvani

and Vakratā or Vakrokti, as Abhinavagupta points out in his

commentary on chap. XV of the Nāṭyaśāstra.'

Ānandavardhana says of Varnas :

शब्दौ सरेपसंयोगौ टकारश्रापि भूयसा ।

विरोधिनः स्युः श्रृङ्गारे तेन वणः रसच्युतः ॥

त एव तु निवेश्यन्ते बीभत्सादौ रसे यदा ।

तदा तं दीपयन्त्येव तेन वणःः रसच्युतः ॥ III, 3-4.

Sounds must be appropriate—Ucita—enough to suggest the

Rasa. This is the Aucitya called Appropriateness, the test of

this Aucitya being the harmony between the expressed sounds

and the suggested Rasa, the power of the former, the vehicle

'Vide my article on the Writers quoted in the Abhinava-bhārati, Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III,

p. 221; also my note on Abhinavagupta, Kuntaka and Lakṣana

in the Indian Culture, Vol. III, part. IV, p. 756. Abhinavagupta reconciles here Dhvani, Vakratā and general Vaicitrya. We can

reconcile Aucitya also to these.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

217

and the means, in suggesting the latter, the end. The same

sounds helpful, suggestive or appropriate in one case need

not always be so. They are inappropriate to other cases

where other suggestive means of expression are required.

Similarly what is useless in one case becomes useful in

another and this is the Aucitya called Adaptation.

Then Ānandavardhana speaks of another kind of Gunau-

citya called the Sanghatanaucitya.

गुणानाश्रित्य तिष्ठन्ती माधुर्यादीन व्यनक्ति सा ।

रसांस्तत्रिनिमे हेतुः औचित्यं वक्तृवाच्ययोः ॥ III, 6.

Viṣayaucitya is dealt with in III, 7 and Rasaucitya regarding

Sanghaṭanā in III, 9. This topic of Sanghaṭanā as having its

intelligibility in suggesting the qualities of Mādhurya and

Ojas which in turn bring in their emotions, Vipralambha and

Raudra, and as being finally controlled by the Aucitya of

Rasa, together with three other minor principles of Aucitya

of Vaktā, (the character), Vācya (the subject) and Viṣaya,

(the nature or form of artistic expression like the classifi-

cation into drama, epic poem, campū, prose etc.)—is the

special contribution of Ānandavardhana for which he thus

takes credit :

इति काव्यार्थविवेको योऽयं चेतश्रमत्कृतिविधायी ।

सूरिभिरनुसृतसारैरसमदुपज्ञो न विस्मार्यः ॥ III, p. 144.

Viṣayaucitya is pointed out by Bharata himself. The

dramatic form as such enforces certain conditions and prin-

ciples of Aucitya on the poet. Ānandavardhana says that in

a drama, the supreme concern of the poet shall be only Rasa.

He shall never think of Alañkāra etc. In drama especially,

long compounds should be avoided.

218

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

एवं च दीर्घसमासा संघटना . . . . . . . . . तस्यां नाट्यन्त-मभिनिवेश: शोभते, विशेषतोऽभिनेयार्थे काव्ये . . . . . . . . ।

Dhva. Ā., p. 139.

All things impeding the quick realisation of Rasa must be avoided. According to Bharata, this additional Aucitya must be observed as regards drama in particular : the words used must be simple, well-known and easy to be understood, delicate and sweet to hear. Harsh words and grammarisms like Yaṅglugantas, Cekrīdita etc., in a drama are like anchorites with Kamaṇdalus in a courtesan's room. They are 'Anucita' in drama.

चेक्रीडितादय: शब्दाेस्‍तु काव्यवन्घा भवन्ति ये ।

वेश्या इव न शोभन्ते कमण्डलुधरैर्‌द्रिजै: ॥

मृदुशब्दं सुखार्थं च कविः कुयात् नाटकम् ।

N. S'. XXI, 131-2. (See also XVII, 121-3.)

तस्माद्‌म्भीरार्था: शब्दा ये लोकवेदसंविदो ।

सर्वजनैन ग्राह्या: संयोज्या नाटके विधिवत् ॥

N. S'. XXVII, 46.

The section on Prabandhādhvanī deals with the very substance of a poem or drama and here one has to see that everything observes the principles of Aucitya and justifies itself by suggesting, as best as it can, the Rasa. A story has to be built as the expression of a Rasa. If a story already available is handled, changes suitable to the Rasa must be made wher-ever the old story is not helpful to bring out the Rasa. If there are too many incidents, only those that are most expressive of the emotion must be chosen. This is Prabandhādhvanī and Prabandhaucitya as also Prakaraṇādhvanī

and Prakaraṇaucitya to adopt the two-fold classification of

Kuntaka. Bhoja would call this appropriate change in the

story as Prabandhadoṣahāna and Kuntaka as Prakaraṇavakra-

tā. Appropriateness of which suggestiveness is the touch-

stone is meant by all these writers. Says Ānandavardhana :

विभावभावानुभावसन्धायैरचियतचारुणः ।

विधिः कथाशरीरस्य वृत्तस्योप्रेक्षितस्य वा ॥

इतिवृत्तवशायातां त्यक्वानतुगुणं स्थितिमिति ।

उत्पेक्ष्योद्द्यानतराभीष्टरसोचितकथोचयः ॥

सन्धिसन्ध्यङ्घटनं रसाभिव्यक्त्यपेक्षया ।

न तु केवलशास्त्रार्थस्थितिसंपादने च्छया ॥

उद्दिपनप्रकरणे यथावसरमन्तरा ।

रसस्यारूढविश्रान्तरतरनुसन्धानमड़ि्जिनः ॥

अलङ्कृतीनां शक्तावष्यानुरूप्येण योजनम् ।

प्रबन्धस्य रसादीनां व्यङ्कत्वे निवन्धनम् ॥ III, 10-14.

The Aṅgas or subsidiary themes and accessory emotional

interests have to be developed only up to the extent proper

to them and their Aṅgin, i.e., the chief theme and its Rasa.

Thus the episodes, the Patākās and Prakarīs, in a drama, or

the 'descriptions' in a Mahākāvya have to observe the rule

of Aucitya which is proportional harmony. They must not

make one forget the main thread and sidetrack him for a

sojourn into grounds foreign in purpose to the main theme.

That is why Lollaṭa condemns the descriptive digressions in

the Mahākāvya and emphasises thereby the same principle

of the Aucitya of proportion by demanding that everything

must be 'Rasavat'. When this rule is not observed, faults

are committed. By the transgression of the principles laid

220

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

down by Ānandavardhana in the above-given verses and in

other places also, Hemacandra, who follows Ānandavardhana

and of whose system he is a clear exponent, points out that

the following literary flaws are committed :

1. अङ्गस्य अप्रधानस्य अतिविस्तरेण वर्णनम्——यथा हयग्रीववध्दे

हयग्रीवस्य । यथा वा विप्रलम्भशृङ्गारे नायकस्य कस्यचिद् वर्णयितुमुपक्रान्ते

कवे: यमकादिलङ्कारनिबन्धरसितया समुद्रादे: । K. Anu. III, p. 121.

In Harivijaya, when the delicate sentiment of Vipralambha

has to be delineated, the poet has succumbed to the tempta-

tion of an overdone description of the beach and the sea.

Such irrelevancies can be characterised as so many swellings

on the face of a Kāvya. Hemacandra does not spare even the

major poets while considering this aspect of Aucitya. He

criticises both the prose works of Bāṇa and the Kāvyas

like S'iśupālavadha for their 'Gaḍus'.

2. अङ्गिन: प्रधानस्य अननुसन्धानम् . Hemacandra remarks

that though the drama has to be varied in interest and many

other emotions have to be introduced as subsidiary features,

the poet must not concentrate on the subsidiary Aṅgas and

lose sight of the Aṅgin which must be taken up and brought

to the forefront wherever necessary. The main thread must

never be lost sight of ; for as Hemacandra says:

अनुसन्धिहि सर्वस्वं सह्दयताया: ।

3. Irrelevant description or introduction of events, inci-

dents or ideas that have nothing to do with the Rasa is a

great mistake. It is 'अनङ्गस्य रसानुपकारस्य वर्णनम् । '. These

are the principles of Aucitya which secure proportion and

harmony. (See also Mammaṭa, K. Pra. VII, 13-14.)

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

221

The fourth Doṣa mentioned by Hemacandra is Prakṛti-

vyatyaya, breach of Prakṛtyaucitya of which Bharata has

spoken at length and which we referred to in the opening

section where we held that in this concept of Prakṛti, Bharata

implicitly laid down the doctrine of Aucitya also. All these

Doṣas are derived from Ānandavardhana's Vṛtti on his own

Kārikās on Prabandhadhivani which we have quoted above.

In this section Ānandavardhana speaks of the Aucitya of

Vibhāva, Anubhāva and Sañcārin, all of which can be included

in the one idea of Bhāvaucitya which resolves into a question

of Prakṛtyaucitya. Aucitya is very often met with in this

section in the III. Ud. of the Dhva. Ā. It is in this section

that Ānandavardhana formulates that memorable verse which

is the greatest exposition of the concept of Aucitya and its

place in poetry. He says here: Nothing hinders Rasa as

Anaucitya or impropriety ; Aucitya is the great secret of Rasa.

अनौचित्यादते नान्यद् रसभङ्गस्य कारणम् ।

प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत्परा ॥ III, 15.

Bharata himself recognises how each part and incident in the

drama has to refer to Rasa and how, otherwise, it has no

right to exist. It is only natural, for Bharata is the writer

who lays the greatest emphasis on Rasa to which everything

else is subservient. Ānandavardhana observes that, simply

because Bharata has laid down a certain number of emotional

points or incidents as Sandhyangas, one must not try to see

that he introduces everything mentioned by Bharata. What-

ever is introduced must be on the score of its suggestiveness

of Rasa and not on the score of loyalty to text.

सन्धिसन्ध्यङ्गघटनं रसाभिव्यक्त्यपेक्षया ।

न तु कवेरितिहासार्थस्थितिसंपादनेच्छया ॥ III, 12. Dhva. Ā.

222

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Bharata himself says so finally, after giving all the Sandhyaṅgas and Ānandavardhana only restates the following of Bharata :

सर्वाङ्गाणि कदाचित्तु द्वित्रियोगेन (गो न) वा पुनः । ज्ञात्वा कार्यमवस्थां च योज्यान्यज्ञानि सन्धिषु ॥

N. S'. XXI, 107.

Bharata emphasises discretion: ‘ज्ञात्वा कार्यमवस्थां च’; this suitability or writing according to the needs of the context is only the sense of Aucitya in a poet.

Ānandavardhana then goes to other kinds of Aucitya or rather points out how, not only the working out of a plot, not only the expression of an idea in figure, but even the words and the synonyms, the case, inflection, voice etc., have to be suggestive of Rasa. That is, a poet should explore all possibilities of suggesting the vast realm of emotion—as many possibilities as his poor medium called language can afford. If a jingle can aid him, he seizes it; if a use in the passive voice is more effective than one in the active, he prefers it; if Ātmanepada suggests more, that has to be exploited. Thus every bit of the medium called language from sound, word, position of a word in a sentence etc., has to be thoroughly exploited and capital use made out of it by the poet. All these ideas revolve round Aucitya. If Sup, Tiṅg, Kāraka etc., are suggestive, they are ‘ucita’, appropriate.

सुसिद्धवचनसम्मन्चैः तथा कारकशक्तिभिः । कृतद्धितसमासैश्वर्य द्योतयोडलक्ष्यक्रमः कचिच ॥

From this part of Ānandavardhana’s work is derived Kṣemendra’s Aucitya of Kriyā, Kāraka, Liṅga, Vacana etc. Similarly there is the Aucitya of Pada, of a word, of a name or

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

223

synonym. This is the Padadhvani of Ānandavardhana, found

in the beginning of Ud. III. The ‘ suggestive word ’ or the

‘proper word’ of Ānandavardhana and Kṣemendra is like the

‘inevitable word’ or the ‘strong word’ mentioned by some

English writers.

Of Aucitya of Vṛtti and Rīti also, Ānandavardhana speaks

in the third Uddyota which is devoted to the exploration

of all possible suggestive means in the medium of language,

the Vyañjaka.

यदि वा वृत्तीनां भरतप्रसिद्धानां कैशिक्यादीनां काव्यालङ्कारान्तर-

प्रसिद्धानां उपनागरिकाद्यनां वा यदनौचित्यम् अविशष्ये निबन्धनं तदपि

रसभङ्गहेतुः । Dhva. Ā., III, p. 163.

Aucitya regarding Rasa itself, how the main Rasa has to

be delineated, how the Aṅga-rasas are to be made to develop

the main, what Rasas are mutually incompatible, how a Rasa

like Sṛṅgāra must not be so over developed as to cloy, or

Karuna which, when again and again developed, makes the

heart ‘fade’ (Mlāna)—these are dealt with by Ānanda-

vardhana in the III Ud. In this respect also, the pitfalls

which may be called Rasadoṣas, are already mentioned to some

extent in Rudraṭa. Yaśovarman himself mentions ‘रसस्य

स्ववसरे पुष्टिः:’ ‘nourishing of the Rasa at the proper time’.

Rudraṭa gives a Doṣa called Virasa which is the introduction

or the flowing in of an irrelevant or contradictory sentiment

into the current of the main Rasa. In this Virasa is included

the Doṣa of Viruddha rasa samāveśa of Ānandavardhana.

(See Dhva. Ā. III, 2, pp. 164-170). Rudraṭa illustrates this

Virasa by a case of a very inappropriate mingling of Karuṇa

and Sṛṅgāra. Another kind of Virasa according to Rudraṭa

is the fault of overdevelopment of even the proper Rasa.

अन्यस्य यः प्रसङ्गे रसस्य निपतेद् रसः व्रमोपेतः ।

विरसोदसे स च शक्यः सम्यक् ज्ञातुं प्रबन्धेष्यः ॥

यस्सावसरेऽपि रसो निरन्तरं नीयते प्रबन्धेषु ।

अतिमहतीं वृत्तिमसौ तथैव वैस्यमायाति ॥

K. A. XI, 12-14.

The latter is Ānandavardhana’s Atidīpti or पुनः पुनदीप्तिः. These flaws of Rasa resulting from lack of Rasaucitya are mentioned in the Sṛṅgāratilaka also :

विरसं प्रत्यनीकं च दुस्सन्धानरसं तथा ।

नीरसं पात्रदूषणं च काव्यं सद्दिर्॑ शस्यते ॥ III, 20-22.

Virasa is explained by Rudrabhaṭṭa as Viruddha rasa, inapp-propriate or incompatible emotion and Nīrasa as the intermittent or excessive portrayal of one Rasa—निरन्तरं एकस्य वृद्धिः

Ānandavardhana puts these ideas of Rasaucitya relating to the handling of the Rasas themselves thus :

प्रबन्धे मुक्तके वापि रसादीन् बन्धुमिच्छतः ।

यत्नः कार्यस्सुमतिना परिहारे विरोधिनाम् ॥

विरोधोऽरमसमत्वादिविभावादिपरिसङ्ग्रहः ।

विस्तरेणावतस्यापि वस्तुनोऽन्यस्य वर्णनम् ॥

अकाण्ड एव विच्छित्तिः अकाण्डे च प्रकाशनम् ।

परिपोषं गतस्यापि पौनःपुन्येन दीपनम् ॥

रसस्य स्त्यान् विरोधाय वृत्त्यनौचित्यमेव च । III, 17-19.

The last mentioned Vṛttyanaucitya resulting in Rasānaucitya is an error in taste in respect of thought in the development of character and in the portrayal of actions and incidents

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

225

which is called by Rudrabhaṭṭa as Pātraduṣṭa. This is also taken by Ānandavardhana as the improper atmosphere—केशिक्यादिवृत्यनौचिल्यम्. A mellow temper cannot suit a boisterous scene of dust-raising conflict in Raudra ; a bloody and tumultuous chaos goes ill with the sweetness and quite pleasantness of love or the tenderness and delicacy of Vipralambha and Karuṇa. Of this Vṛttyaucitya Ānandavardhana again says :

रसाघनुगुणत्वेन व्यवहारोऽर्थशब्दयोः ।

औचित्यान् यस्ता एव वृत्तयौ द्विविधा: स्मृता: ॥ III, 33.

.Thus Ānandavardhana has shown how, in his own phraseology, Aucitya is the greatest secret of Rasa—परा उपनिषत् ; how in the fashioning of every part of the expression which is the body or the symbolic vehicle of Rasa or 'the empirical technique' as Abercrombie would call it, the only ruling principle of the poet is an all-round, all-comprehensive Aucitya, with reference to which alone, the choice of words, of cases, of metre, the collocation, style, Guṇas, Alañkāras—in fact every means of suggestion from the trifling jingle to the greatest, is intelligible. This Aucitya of word and thought, Vācya vācaka, with refernce to Rasa is the greatest rule in poetry. To attend to it and write according to it is the chief duty of the poet.

वाच्यानां वाचकानां च यदौचित्येन यौजनम् ।

रसादिविषयेणैतत् कर्म मुख्यं महाकवे: ॥ III, 32.

Between this verse on one side and with the verse—

अनौचित्यादते नान्यद् रसभङ्गस्य कारणम् ।

प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत्परा ॥

occurring in the same section in a similar context, on the other side, the whole theory of Aucitya is completely stated.

15

226

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

If Time had spared to us the whole of Rājas'ekhara's

Kāvya mīmāṃsā, we would have had a larger knowledge of

Rājas'ekhara's ideas on Aucitya. Even in the

Rājas'ekhara and his wife, Avanti-

sundarī

first chapter of Kavirahasya that has come to

us, Rājas'ekhara mentions Aucitya in the fifth

section called Kāvyapākakalpa. He first takes up poetic

culture and learning and opines that all poetic culture is only

the discrimination of the proper and the improper—Ucita

and Anucita.

उचितानुचितविवेको व्युत्पत्ति: इति यायावररीय: ।

p. 16, K. M. Gaek. edn.

There is also an oft-quoted Sanskrit verse which gives this

same idea regarding the larger art of man's behaviour in

the world.

श्रुत्वापि नाम बधिरो ददृश्याप्यन्धो जडो विदित्वापि ।

यो देशकालकार्यव्यपेक्षया पण्डित: स पुमान् ॥

Rājas'ekhara's wife also lays great emphasis on Aucitya;

for she says that Pāka, ripeness or maturity of poetic power,

is the securing of expression,—ideas, words, conceptions,

fancies etc.,—which is proper and appropriate to Rasa

तस्माद् रसोचितशब्दार्थसूक्तिनिबन्धन: पाक: ।

p. 20, K. M.

The idea of Aucitya as adaptation, the idea that in poetry

there is no fixed rule determining Guṇa and Doṣa and that

things are good or bad only on the ground of appropriateness

or inappropriateness and that, according to circumstance, even

a Doṣa may become a Guṇa—is also very well realised by

Rājas'ekhara who says at the end of the chapter Kavirahasya—

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRĪT POETICS

227

न च व्युत्क्रमदोषोडस्ति कवेरर्थपथस्पृशः ।

तथा कथा कापि भवेद् व्युक्रमो भूषणं यथा ॥

अनुसन्धानशून्यस्य भूषणं दूषणायते ।

सावधानस्य व कवे: दूषणं भूषणायते ॥1 p. 112. K. M.

The careful poet who has his eye on Aucitya employs even the so-called flaws and makes them excellences whereas the care-

less writer abuses even the Guṇas and spoils his expression by the absence of the sense of Aucitya.

The place of Abhinavagupta in the history of Aucitya is important. As the author of the Locana he lucidly expounds and elaborates the ideas of Ānandavardhana,

Abhinavagupta who, as we have seen above, is the greatest name in the history of Aucitya. On the other side, Abhinava-

gupta is the teacher in Poetics2 of Kṣemendra who is the systematiser of Aucitya. It is clear from Ānandavardhana's treatment of Aucitya in Ud. III, that Aucitya naturally

emerges out of the doctrines of Rasa and Dhvani and that the three cannot be separated. Abhinavagupta takes his stand on this triple aspect of the ‘life’ of poetry—Rasa first, then

Dhvani and then Aucitya. He says :

उचितशब्देन रसविषयमौचित्यं भवत इति दर्शयन् रसध्वनः

जीवितत्वं सूचयति । p. 13.

Aucitya presupposes something to which a thing is ‘ucita’ and that to which everything else is finally to be estimated as

‘ucita’ is Rasa which is the ‘soul’ of poetry.

1 Jayamaṅgalācārya's Kavis'ikṣā (Peterson's I Report, Last list, App. I, pp. 78-9) says : यान्येव दूषणान्याहुस्तानि स्युभूषणान्यपि ।

2 Vide Bṛhatkathāmañjari, chap. xix, 36, 37 and Bhārata-mañjari, last chap. 7, 8.

228

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

On the subject of Alañkāraucitya about which Ānanda-

vardhana speaks so much in Ud. II, Abhinavagupta says that

the greatest Aucitya of Alañkāra is that the term has any

meaning at all only when there is the ‘Alañkārya’, the ‘soul’.

Otherwise, it is like decorating the dead body. Decoration of

a living body also is Anaucitya in certain cases; ornaments

on the body of a recluse who has renounced life appear

ridiculous—anucita. Thus figures of speech without Rasa and

figures of speech in places which do not need them are bad.

तथा ह्यचेतनं शवशरीरं कुण्डलाद्युपेतमपि न भाति । अलङ्कार्य-

स्याभावात् । यतिशरीरं कटकादियुक्तं हास्यावहं भवति, अलङ्कार्यस्यान-

ौचित्यात् । p. 75. Locana.

He thus explains Rasaucitya, i.e., the Aucitya of Bhāvas,

Vibhāvas, etc., on p. 147.

विभावादौचित्येन हि विना का रसवत्ता कवेरिति । तस्माद्वि-

भावादौचित्यमेव रसवत्त्वप्रयोजकं नान्यदिति भावः ।

The idea of Aucitya, like that of Vakrokti, was current as a

very frequently used term in the critical circles of Kashmirian

Ālañkārikas for a long time. Vakrokti rose out of Alañkāra,

Aucitya in the wake of Rasa and Dhvani. Aucitya must have

become more current after Ānandavardhana who has spoken

of it so much and who has said that its presence and absence

makes and unmakes Rasa and poetry. It was so much in

use that, by the time of Abhinavagupta, it must have been

heading towards systematisation, even as the concept of

Vakrokti, which, as old as Bhāmaha, was given so much life in

the critical circles that it enlarged itself and through Kuntaka

built itself into a system. Aucitya also had assumed propor-

tions and was in search of a writer for systematisation. The

critics were speaking of Aucitya as the essence of poetry very often, more often than Rasa even. Says Abhinavagupta in

two places criticising these critics : ‘One cannot be indiscreetly using the word Aucitya by itself ; Aucitya is ununder-

standable without something else to which things are “ ucita ”

—appropriate. Aucitya is a relation and that to which things are or should be in that relation must first be grasped. That

is Rasa, nothing less and nothing else.’ Abhinavagupta first

proves that there is no meaning in Aucitya without Rasa.

उचितशब्देन रसविषयमौचित्यं भवतीति दर्शयन् रसध्वने:

जीवितत्वं सूचयति । तदभावे हि किमपेक्ष्ययेदमौचित्यं नाम सर्वत्र

उद्दोष्यत इति भावः । p. 13.

He again proves that Aucitya presupposes Rasa, and Dhvani

also.

औचित्यवती (अतिशयोक्तिः) जीवितमिति चेत्, औचित्य-

निबन्धनं रसभावादि मुक्त्वा नान्यत् किश्चिदस्तीति तदेवान्तर्भासि मुख्यं

जीवितमित्यभ्युपगन्तव्यं, न तु सा । एतेन यदाहुः केचित्, ‘औचित्य-

घटितसुन्दरशब्दार्थमये काव्ये किमन्येन ध्वनिना आत्मभूतेन कल्पितेन ’

इति स्ववचनमेव ध्वनिसिद्धावाभ्युपगमसाक्षिभूतम् अमन्यमाना: प्रत्युक्ता: ।

p. 208. Locana.

These two passages clearly show that critics there were who

were speaking of Aucitya as the only thing enough to explain

poetry, which according to them, was beautiful words and

ideas set in perfect harmony—Aucitya. These critics had

omitted the word Rasa from their vocabulary and dispensed

with Dhvani. Abhinavagupta criticises these poor critics who

do not understand the implication of what they say. Aucitya

implies, presupposes and means ‘suggestion of Rasa ’—रसध्वनि

i.e., the doctrines of Rasa and Dhvani.

230

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Abhinavagupta thus takes his stand on the tripod of Rasa,

Dhvani and Aucitya. Rasa is the ‘Ātman’ of poetry and the

fact is that it is so only through the process of Dhvani.

Again Rasa is or can be so only through Aucitya. Thus

these three are very intimately and inseparably associated

together. Aucitya is as inseparably associated with Dhvani

as with Rasa. If an Alañkāra is said to suit, to be ‘ucita’ to,

a Bhāva, it means that the Alañkāra effectively suggests that

Bhāva; if there is said to be Gunaucitya, it means the Rasa

there is suggested by the Guna. A word, a gender, a mere

exclamation–these are said to be ‘ucita’, and how ?

The test of Aucitya, its proof, is the suggestion of Rasa.

Another point which Abhinavagupta pointed out was that

the breach of Aucitya resulted in ‘Ābhāsatā.’ A Kāvya which

does not have Aucitya is Kāvyābhāsa, not poetry but semblance

of poetry. Improper Alañkāra is Alañkārābhāsa. If there is

Aucitya we have Rasa and sentiment; if there is Anaucitya

due to absence of Prakṛtaucitya etc., we have Rasābhāsa

and sentimentality.

औचित्येन प्रसत्तौ चित्तवृत्ते: आस्वाद्यत्वे स्थायिन्या रस: व्यभिचारिण्या भाव: । अनौचित्येन तदाभास:, रावणस्य सीतायामिव रते: ।

1

Neither in his smaller Sarasvatīkanṭhābharaṇa nor in his

bigger S'ṛṅgāraprakāsā has Bhoja any special subject under

a separate head called Aucitya. But the

concept of Aucitya is not altogether absent

1 The Rasakalikā (Madras MS. R. 2241, pp. 43-4), after giving

the several conditions causing Rasa-ābhāsa viz., एकत्र बहनुराग:, तिर्य-डपलेच्छागतराग:, योषितो बहुसक्ति:, concludes that Anaucitya in fine is the

basis of Rasābhāsa : उपलक्षणं चैतत्—औचित्यानौचित्य एवं रस-आभासनिबन्धने

यथा हि: ‘अनौचित्यादृते नान्यत् etc.’

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 231

from his two works. It is found in more than one place as a

basic idea underlying many principles. Long before the

concept of Aucitya dawned upon the literary circle, it was

accepted in grammar as ‘one of the conditions that determine

the meaning of a word in a context, when the word has more

than one meaning. The Vākyapadīya of Bhartrhari says :

वाक्यात् प्रकरणाद् अर्थाद् औचित्याद् देशकालतः ।

शब्दार्थाः प्रविभज्यन्ते न रूपादेव केवलात् ॥ II, 315.1

Other writers call these ‘S’abdārthapravibhājakas’, Aucitya

etc., as ‘Anavacchinna sabdārtha viśeṣa smṛti hetus’. This

sense-determinant of Aucitya, Bhoja mentions twice in his

S’ṛngāraprakāśa, fiśt while explaining various kinds of Vivakṣā

or intention in chapter seven and then in a similar context in

chapter twenty-five.

In chapter xi, Bhoja calls his magnum opus, the S’ṛngāra-

prakāśa by the name Sāhityaprakāśa and says that, among

other things, Aucitya is inculcated therein (p. 430, vol. II,

Mad. MS.).

एतस्मिन् शृङ्गारप्रकाशे सुप्रकाशमेव अशेषशास्त्रार्थसंपदुपनिषदाम्

अखिलकलाकाव्य—औचित्य—कल्पनारहस्यानां च सन्निवेशो दृश्यते ।

Bhoja realises that Aucitya is a vast and elastic principle

and that it pertains to every part of the art of poetic expression.

We first sight Aucitya in Bhoja in his section on Doṣas

where he speaks of a Pada doṣa called Apada, which means

that a poet must use the vocabulary suited to the character

1 Cf. The Bṛhaddevatā, II, 120, p. 55, Bib. Ind. edn.—

अर्थात्प्रकरणाल् लिङ्गाद् औचित्याद् देशकालतः ।

मन्त्रेष्वर्थावबोधः स्यात् इतराश्रयितश्च स्थितः ॥

232

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

who is speaking. A vulgar and a rustic character does not

employ the same words as a refined city-bred man. The

appropriate vocabulary is one of the chief conditions that call

up the correct atmosphere. Inappropriate vocabulary which

is a breach of Aucitya is the Dosa called Apada. See S. K. Ā.

I, 23, pp. 19-20. Bhoja's Vākyārthadoṣa called Virasa, which

is borrowed by him from Rudraṭa, emphasises a principle

of Rasa-aucitya. (See S. K. Ā. I, 50, p. 35.) Ratneśvara, com-

mentator on the S. K. Ā., quotes here Ānandavardhana's verse on

Aucitya and Anaucitya—अनौचित्यादते नान्यत् etc., and adds that

the three following Upamā doṣas also are various instances of

Anaucitya. Thirdly, the Doṣa called Viruddha (S. K. Ā. I,

54-57), Loka virodha, Kāḷa virodha etc., is also based on

Aucitya. These are only more definite and particularised

names for varieties of Anaucitya of Vastu or Artha. In the

sub-class of Anumāna viruddha, Bhoja has a variety called

Aucitya viruddha (see p. 40. S. K. Ā) and illustrates it by a

case of an incorrect and inappropriate description of a low

ordinary man, a Pāmara, as wearing refined silk-dress.

Fourthly, a similar instance of Anaucitya of Artha-kalpana

is mentioned by Bhoja in connection with his Śabdaguṇa

Bhāvika. (S. K. Ā., p. 58.) Here is an instance of the

larger Aucitya of Adaptation, which makes Guṇas of flaws.

Besides this, there is a whole section of Vaiśeṣika guṇas at

the end of chapter I where it is shown that as a result of

circumstance, special context and Aucitya, all the Doṣas may

cease to be so and may even become Guṇas (S. K. Ā., pp. 74-

120, see esp. p. 118).¹

अत्र श्लोकाद् औचित्यविरोधेऽपि तत्समयोचितत्वाद् गुणत्वम् ।

S. K. Ā. p. 118.

¹ See also above pp. 202-3 and 211-2.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

233

Aucitya figures to some extent in Bhoja’s Alamkāra-

section also. Bhoja opens his list of S’abdālamkāras with the

elaboration of the idea of the choice of the appropriate

language, Bhāṣaucitya, which, he says, is an ornament or

Alamkāra called Jāti. Certain subjects are well expressed in

Sanskrit; certain in Prākṛt or Apabhrams´a. There is also

the appropriateness of country or province (Des´a) and rank

and culture of character (Pātra,-uttama; male, female etc.)

which decides the language. Bhoja and Ratnes´vara point

out all these Aucityas which are seen already in the eighteenth

chapter of Bharata’s N.S’. called Bhāṣāvidhāna. Bhoja him-

self uses the word Aucitya here and Ratnes´vara clearly

explains the Aucitya involved in this Jāti S’abdālamkāna.1 In

chapter xi, Bhoja gives a Prabandha-ubhaya-guṇa, a compre-

hensive excellence of the S’abda and Artha of the whole work,

called “language according to the character”, पात्रानुरूपभाषत्वम् .

What is this Ānurūpya except Aucitya? This Prabandha-

bhāṣaucitya is only the extension of the Vākyālamkāra

called Jāti (p. 432, vol. ii, Sṛ. Pra. Mad. MS.). The second

S’abdālamkāra of Bhoja is also a principle of Aucitya. It is

called Gati; it is the choice of the proper poetic form, verse

(padya), prose (gadya), or mixed style (campū) and the choice of

the proper metres suggestive of Rasa in the padya-class; this

last is only another name for Vṛttaucitya. In explaining this

Gati, Bhoja himself bases his Alamkāra on Aucitya of Artha

which he mentions twice here. (see S. K. Ā. II, 18 and 21.)

पद्यं गद्यं च मिश्रं च काव्यं यत् सा गति: स्मृता ।

अर्थौचित्यादिभ: सापि वागलङ्कार इष्यते ॥ II, 18.

1 I have spoken of these at greater length in the chapter on

Bhoja and Aucitya in my book on Bhoja’s Sṛṅgāraprakās´a.

(Vol. I, pp. 191-195.)

234

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

In chapter xi again Bhoja speaks of this, the ' proper metre ',

as the Prabandha-ubhaya-guṇa called ' metre according to

idea '—अर्थानुरूपच्छन्दस्त्वम्.

" अर्थानुरूपच्छन्दस्त्वम् इत्यनेन श्रृंगारे दुतविलम्बितादयः, वीरे

वसन्ततिलकादयः, करुणे वैतालोयादयः, रौद्रे सङ्षरादयः, सर्वत्र शादूल-

विक्रीडितादय: निवन्धनोया इत्युपदिशति ।"

p. 432, vol. II. S'r Pra. Mad. MS.

Bhoja speaks here of yet another similar principle of Aucitya,

that again as a Prabandha-ubhaya-guṇa, called ' Rasa-

anurūpa sandarbhatva '. See above, p. 200.

All these Aucityas, Bhoja does not fail to relate to Rasa ; for

he takes these principles of Aucitya as Doṣa-hāna, as Guṇa and

as Alamkāra and all these three are, according to his statement,

the means to secure the eternal presence of Rasa, Rasa-aviyoga.

Lastly Bhoja speaks of Anaucitya in the very story as

available in the original source. He says that the poet must

leave off those Doṣas or Anaucityas in the source which

hinder Rasa and conceive the plot in a new manner. Bhoja

calls this Prabandha-doṣa-hāna and Anaucitya-parihāra. (See

above, p. 218-9). Says Bhoja :

" तत्र (पबन्धे) दोषहानम् अनौचित्यपरिहारेण यथा माघकवेः-

दशरथाभ्यां रामः प्रवासितः न मातापितृभ्याम् इति निर्दोषदशरथे (राज-

शेखरस्य बालरामायणे) " । p. 410. Vol. II. S'r. Pra. Mad. MS.

In his S. K. Ā. Bhoja has the above-quoted passage on p. 642

and he has also this Kārikā :

वाक्यवच् प्रभन्वेपु रसालङ्कारसङ्करान् ।

निवेशयन्ननौचित्यपरिहारेण सूरयः ॥ V. 126, p. 418.

Compare Anandavardhana III. 11 and Kuntaka IV, p. 224.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 235

Kuntaka naturally speaks much of Aucitya which, we are given to understand by the Locana, was a term widely current in circles of Sahṛdayas of that time. Kuntaka was a younger contemporary of Abhinavagupta or wrote immediately after him. The word denoting the essence of poetry at that time seems to be ‘Jīvita’. For we find the Locana itself rendering the ‘Ātman’ of Ānandavardhana as ‘Jīvita’ twice. Kuntaka uses the same word ‘Jīvita’ to praise his Vakrokti and soon Kṣemendra is to use the same to signify the place of Aucitya. The two main facts recognised by Kuntaka in poetry are the utterance and its embellishment or its strikingness called Alaṅkāra or Vakrokti. Besides these, he recognises certain general concepts which go to define his notion of poetry. Notable among these is the idea of Sāhitya. Along with Sāhitya, Kuntaka mentions two ‘Sādhāraṇa Guṇas’ called Aucitya and Saubhāgya. These general excellences pertaining to all styles of poetry are to be distinguished from the ‘Asādhāraṇa Guṇas’, special qualities, which go to distinguish styles into the graceful (sukumāra), the striking (victra), and the middling (madhyama). The Sādhāraṇa Guṇas, Aucitya and Saubhāgya, are of greater importance.

एवं प्रत्येकं प्रतिनियतगुणग्रामरमणीयं मार्गेत्नितयं व्यवसाय साधारणगुणस्वरूपपक्याह्यानार्थमाह—॥ p. 72. V. J.

The first of these two Sādhāraṇa Guṇas, Aucitya, is thus defined in two verses :

आज्ञसेन स्वभावस्य महत्वं येन पोष्यते ।

प्रकारेण तदौचित्यम् उचिताल्यनजीवितम् ॥

यत्र वक्तुः प्रमातुर्वा वाच्यं शोभातिशायिना ।

आच्छाद्यते स्वभावेन तदौचित्यमुच्यते ॥ V. J. I, 53-54.

236

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Both kinds of Aucitya are for heightening the power of expression, for developing the idea undertaken to be described.

They are very general and comprehensive, referring to all aspects.

Kuntaka describes Aucitya generally as उचितारण्यान—proper expression.

Vide pp. 72-74. V. J.

Kuntaka grasps the supreme importance of Rasa and character, i.e., Prakṛti or, as Kuntaka often says, Svabhāva.

He accepts the Aucitya pertaining to these which has been spoken of by Bharata and Ānandavardhana.

Other items of Aucitya also are shown by Kuntaka, and everywhere, he points out that all Aucitya is to develop the idea or Rasa.

Firstly, defining the speciality of S'abda and Artha in Kāvya, Kuntaka points out the ‘Pāramārthya’ of these two.

His S'abdapāramārthya is only the Aucitya or Dhyani of Pada or Parvāya and his Arthapāramārthya is nothing but Arthaucitya.

His Arthapāramārthya comprises cases of the propriety of minor fancies—Pratibhaucitya.

Explaining a case of the absence of this Arthapāramārthya, Kuntaka remarks that the fancy of the poet is contrary to the greatness of the character of Sītā and Rāma.

This is a case of a breach of प्रकृत्यौचित्य.

The test of this Aucitya is, according to Kuntaka, Rasa.

" अत्र असक्त प्रतिक्षणं कियदपि गन्तव्यमित्यविधानलक्षणः परिस्पन्दः न स्वभावमहतामुन्‍मीयति, न च रसपरिपोषादृतां प्रतिपद्यते । यस्मात् सीताया: सहजेन केनाप्यौचित्येन गन्तुमध्यवसिताया: सौकुमार्यादेवंबिधं वस्तु हृदये परिस्फुरदपि वचनमारोहत इति सहृदयैः सम्भावयितुं न पार्यते ।"

p. 21.

On page 28, mentioning the qualities in poetry which should vie with each other, i.e., while explaining Sāhitya, Kuntaka refers to Vṛttyaucitya.

This is either the Aucitya

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

237

of the Kaisikī and other Vṛttis or of the Vṛttis Upanāgarikā

etc. The latter is the Aucitya of Rīti, Saṅghatanā, Guṇa or

Varṇa and Kuntaka calls it Varṇavakratā, which he deals

with at the beginning of Unmeṣa ii. This is a case of Varṇa-

Saṅghatanā-dhvani of Ānandavardhana or Gunaucitya of

Kṣemendra. Kuntaka says that letters or sounds must be

appropriate to the context and that certain letters unsuited

to certain situations may help the idea and Rasa of other

situations.

वर्गानतयोगिनः स्पर्शा द्विरुक्ता तलनादयः ।

शिष्टाश्र रादिसंयुक्ता गद्युत्कृष्टिदर्शोभिनः ॥ V. J. II, 2.

"ते च कीदृशा:---प्रस्तुतौचित्यशोभिनः । प्रस्तुतं वर्ण्यमानं वस्तु,

तस्य यदौचित्यमुचितभावः, तेन शोभनते ये, ते तथोक्ताः । न पुनः वर्ण-

सावर्ण्येण्यसनितामात्रेण उपनिबद्धाः: प्रस्तुतौचित्यम्लान(नि)कारिणः । प्रस्तु-

तौचित्यशोभित्वात कुतश्चित्पुरुषरसप्रस्तावे तादृशनेव अभ्यनुजानाति । "

p. 80.'

Following the principles of Alañkāraucitya pointed out by

Ānandavardhana, Kuntaka speaks further of this Varṇavakratā,

under which come S'abdālaṅkāras like Anuprāsa and Yamaka,

'Vide above p. 216, Ānandavardhana, III, 3-4. शब्दौ सरेपसंयोगौ

etc. It is of this Aucitya of Varṇa that Pope speaks of in his Essay

on Criticism :

'Tis not enough no harshness gives offence,

The sound must seem an echo of the sense.

Soft is the strain when Zephyr gently blows,

And the smooth stream in smoother numbers flows;

But when loud surges lash the sounding shore

The hoarse rough verse should like a torrent roar.

Hear how Timotheus'varied Lays surprize,

And bid alternate Passions fall and rise.

that Anuprāsas must not be written at a stretch and that the repeated letters must often be changed.

नातिनिर्बन्धविहिता नाप्यपेशलभूषिता ।

पूर्वोक्तवर्णनिर्यातनानूच्चार्जनोज्ज्वला ॥ II, 4

The first principle of all Alaṅkāraucita is that figures must easily come of themselves, without the poet taking special effort for them. Says Kuntaka in the Vṛtti on the above Kārikā.

निर्बन्धशब्दोक्त्र व्यसनितयां वर्तते । तेन अतिर्निर्बन्धे पुनः-

पुनरावर्तनव्यसनितया न विहिता, अमयलविरचितेत्यर्थः । व्यसनितया प्रयत्नविरचने हि श्रुतोदितपरिहाणेः वाच्यवाचकयोः परस्परस्पर्धित्वरक्षणसाहित्यविरहः पर्यवस्यति । p. 84.

Here Kuntaka speaks of what Ānandavardhana has said that Rasa is lost when special effort is taken to build a structure of alliteration.

रसाक्षिप्ततया यस्य बन्धः शक्यक्रियो भवेत् ।

अपृथग्यत्ननिर्वर्त्यः सोऽलङ्कारो ध्वनौ मतः ॥ Dhva. Ā. II, 17.

रसं बन्धुमध्यवसितस्य कवे: योऽलङ्कारस्तां वासनामत्यूप यत्ना-

न्तरामस्थिततस्य निष्पच्यते, स न रसानुमिति । p. 86.

In the second line of the Kārikā, Kuntaka has said what Ānandavardhana has put in another form that the same sound effect should not be continued to a great length.

श्रुत्यारस्यैक्ङिनो यत्रादेकरूपानुबन्धनात् ।

सर्वश्रवणप्रवेशु नानुप्रासः प्रकाशकः ॥ II, 15.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

239

एकरूपत्वानुबन्धनं त्यक्त्वा विचित्रानुप्रास: अनिबध्यमानो न दोषाय । Locana, p. 85.

See Kuntaka's Vrtti also on p. 84. Kuntaka adds another point of Aucitya, namely that cacophony should be avoided. Concatenation of very unpleasant sounds like शीतग्राणादूदि etc., are not to be written at all. Kṣemendra quotes such verses of a poet of hundred and more works in his Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa and condemns them as devoid of even a drop of Camatkāra.

These sounds by nature, says Abhinavagupta in his Abhinava bhāratī, torture our ears, while there are other sounds that seem to pour nectar into our ears.

अन्यैरयुक्तं (आनन्दवर्धनाचार्यै:) ‘तेन वर्णा रसच्युत:’ (Dhva. Ā. III) इत्यादि । स्वभावतो हि केचन वर्णा: सन्तापयन्तीव ।

अन्ये तु निर्वापयन्तीव उपनागरिकोचिताः ; लोकगोचर एवायमर्थ: ॥

p. 415, vol. III, Abhi. bhā. Mad. MS.

Of Yamakaucitya pointed out by Rudraṭa and by Ānandavardhana Kuntaka speaks thus:

औचित्ययुक्तम् आद्यादिनियतस्थानशोभि यत् ।

यमकं नाम . . . . . . . . ॥ II, 6-7.

औचित्यं वस्तुनः स्वभावोर्क्षै:, तेन युक्तं समन्वितम् । यत्र यमकोपनिबन्धनव्यसनितया चित्यमपरिम्लानमित्यर्थ: ॥

The few and rare cases of ‘Rasavad Yamakas’ are called by Kuntaka “समर्पकाणि यमकानि” p. 87.

The suggestive Pratyaya of Ānandavardhana is Pratyayakratā, having Aucitya to the context, according to Kuntaka.

This is a case of Pratyayaucitya, the propriety of the definite Pratyaya or its effectiveness in suggesting the idea or emotion.

240

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA SĀSTRA

प्रस्तुतौचित्यविच्छित्तिं स्वमहिम्ना विकासयन् ।

प्रत्ययः पदमध्येऽन्यासमुल्लासयति वक्तारम् ॥ II, 17.

किं कुर्वन् ? प्रस्तुतस्य वर्ण्यमानस्य वस्तुनो यदौचित्यम् उचित-

भावः तस्य विच्छित्त्युपयोगां विकासयन् समुल्लासयन् ।

Here are given two instances of very proper, striking and suggestive use of the present participle : वेलद्दलाका घना: and

क्ष्वेलात्कटाक्षे दशो ।

Lingadhvani or Lingavakratā or Lingaucitya is described on pp. 114-115; II, 23.

विशिष्टं योजयते लिङ्गम् अन्यस्मिन् सम्भाव्यपि ।

यत्र विच्छित्तये सान्या वाच्यौचित्यानुसारतः ॥ II, 23.

कस्मात्कारणात्, वाच्यौचित्यानुसारतः । वाच्यस्य वर्ण्यमानस्य

वस्तुनो यदौचित्यम् . . . . . . . . . . . . पदार्थौचित्यमनुसृत्येत्यर्थः ।

Kuntaka thus often speaks of this Aucitya of every element to the idea (Vastu) or emotion (Rasa). He calls it Prastutaucitya or Svabhāvaucitya or Vastvaucitya. He speaks of it again while describing the fivefold Kriyāvaicitryavakratva, II, 25, p. 227.

A case of Tense-Aucitya is mentioned by Kuntaka in II, 26. It is to promote the Aucitya of the idea to the Rasa that the poet adopts the कालवैचित्र्यवकता। Upagrahaucitya is dealt with also by Kuntaka. The poet chooses one of the two—Ātmnepada and Parasmaipada—on the score of Āucitya.

पदयोरुभयोरेकम् औचित्याद् विनियुज्यते ।

शोभायै यत्र जस्पन्ति तामुपग्रहवकताम् ॥

Unmeṣa III thus describes Prakṛtaucitya which Kuntaka calls the Svabhāvaucitya of various beings and things.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 241

भावानामपरिम्लान स्वभावौचित्यमुन्दरः ।

चेतनानां जडानां च स्वरूपं द्विविधं स्मृतम् ॥

स्वजात्यौचित्यहेवाकसमुल्लेखोज्ज्वलं परम् ॥ III, 5-7.

Of Vyavahāraucitya or Lokavr̥ttaucitya, which idea is the basis of Bharata's Nāṭya, Kuntaka speaks in III, 9, p. 155.

Thus we see how largely the idea of Aucitya looms in Kuntaka.

As a matter of fact, in almost all cases of Kuntaka's Vakratā, the test or proof of the strikingness or charm is this Aucitya of the various elements with reference to the Vastu or Rasa the depicting of which is the work of the poet.

Vakrokti is only another name for Aucitya ! For Kuntaka says of Pada-aucitya that it is Pada-vakratā.

तत्र पदस्य तावदौचित्यं बहुविधमेदभिन्नो वकभावः ।

V. J. p. 76.

As more than once pointed out already, many of the instances of Ānandavardhana's Dhvani, Abhinavagupta's Vaicitrya mentioned in the Abhinavabhāratī, Kuntaka's Vakratā and Kṣemendra's Aucitya are identical.

Many items of Vakratā mentioned by Kuntaka are seen in the Abhinavabhāratī as cases of Vaicitrya, with exactly the same or similar illustrations and Abhinavagupta says that the same idea is called Suptingdhvani by Ānandavardhana and Subādivakratā by others.'

There is bound to be this close relation between Aucitya, Dhvani and Vakratā.

Criticising Kuntakā's definition of poetry as S'abda and Artha set in Vakrokti, Mahimabhaṭṭa says in V. V., Vimaras'a I : ' The " out-of-the-way-ness " of poetic word and idea as

1 See my article on Writers Quoted in the Abhinavabhāratī, Journal of Oriental Research, Vol. VI. pp. 219-22.

242

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṄKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

distinguished from those of S'āstra and Loka must either be the

Aucitya, so very essential to Rasa which is the “ Ātman ” of

poetry or be the Dhvani of Ānandavardhana. If therefore the

new Vakrokti is only Aucitya (which as a matter of fact figures

largely in Kuntaka's treatment of his subject), nothing new

is said. If this is denied, the only other possibility is that

Vakrokti is nothing but a new name for Dhvani which really

seems to be the fact. For the same varieties and the same

instances as given by Ānandavardhana are given by Kuntaka.’

यत्पुनः ‘ शब्दार्थों सहितौ . . . . . ' इत्यादिना

शास्त्रादिप्रसिद्धशब्दार्थोऽपनिबन्धव्यतिरेकितद्वैचित्र्यं तन्मात्रलक्षणं वकत्वे

नाम काव्यस्य जीवितमिति सहृदयमानिनः केचिदाचक्षते, तद्‌व्यसर्मौचीनम् ।

यतः प्रसिद्धोऽपनिबन्धनव्यतिरेकित्वमिदं शब्दार्थयोरौचित्यमात्रपर्यवसायि

स्यात्, प्रसिद्धाभिधेयार्थव्यतिरेकि प्रतीयमानाभिव्यक्तिपरं वा स्यात् ।

प्रसिद्धप्रस्थानातिरेकिणा: शब्दार्थोऽपनिबन्धनवैचित्र्यम्य प्रकारान्तरसम्भवात् ।

. . . . . . . . . द्वितीयपक्षपरिग्रहे पुनः ध्वने-

रेवेदं लक्षणमनया भङ्‌ग्याभिहितं भवति, अभिन्नत्वात् वस्तुनः । अत एव

चास्य त एव प्रभेदाः तान्येव उदाहरणानि तैरुपदर्शितानि ।

V. V. I, p. 28.

Mahimabhaṭṭa wrote in the same age, just after Abhinava-

gupta and Kuntaka. Mahimā accepts Rasa as supreme and also

the Aucitya pertaining to Rasa, Bhāva and

Mahimabhaṭṭa

Prakṛti. He could not escape the idea of

Aucitya which was in its season then. As his criticism of

Kuntaka's definition of poetry by Vakrokti shows, critics of his

time were aware of only two things as specially distinguishing

the poetic ‘utterance from the ordinary or S'āstraic one, viz.,

Aucitya and Dhvani. Of these two, there is no need to specially

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

243

speak of the former because Mahimā considers it as the

supreme necessity in so far as Kāvya is accepted as utterance

ensouled by Rasa. That is, according to Mahimā, there can

be no opposition to Aucitya. It is only with Dhvani that

he fights.

यतः प्रसिद्धौ ध्वननधनौ यतिरेकित्यमिदं शब्दार्थयोः औचित्यमात्र-

पर्यवसायि स्यात् . प्रसिद्धाभिधेयार्थव्यतिरेकि प्रतीपमानाभिव्यक्तिरपंर वा

स्यात् । प्रसिद्धप्रस्थानातिरेकिणः शब्दार्थोपनिबन्धनवैचिच्यस्य प्रकारान्तरा-

सम्भवात् । तत्र आध्मस्तादत् पक्षः न शङ्कनीय एव । तस्य काव्यस्वरूप-

निरूपणसामर्थ्यमिदंस्य पृथगुपादानवैयर्थ्यात् । विभावाद्युपनिबन्ध एव

हि कवित्वयापारः. नापरः । तं च यथाशास्त्रं उपनिबन्ध्यमानः रसाभिव्यक्तिं

निबन्धनभावं भजन्ते. नान्यथा । रसात्मकं च काव्यमिति कुतस्तत्र अनौ-

चित्यसंभवः संभार्यते. यन्निरासार्थ काव्यलक्षणमाचक्षीरन् विचक्षणंमन्या: ।

V. V. I, p. 28.

On the point of Rasa and the Aucitya of every element of

expression to this Rasa, Mahimā is completely in agreement with

Ānandavardhana. Ānandavardhana says that if there is one

word which is Nīrasa, devoid of Rasa, it is the greatest literary

flaw, the Apas'abda. Similarly all flaws are comprised in

one common flaw, viz., hindrance to the realisation of Rasa.

All Doṣas are hindrances to Rasa and Mahimā calls them by

the common name Anaucitya. He quotes Ānandavardhana's

memorable Kārikā on this subject.

कथञ्चिद्धा मिन्नक्रमतयापि अभिमतार्थसम्भन्धोपकल्पने प्रस्तुतार्थ-

प्रतीते: विशिष्टतयात् तन्निबन्धनो रसास्वादोडपि विशिष्टः स्यात्, शब्द-

दोषाणाम् अनौचित्यमगमात्, तस्य च रसभङ्गहेतुत्वात् । यदाहः

244

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

अनौचित्यादते नान्यद् रसभङ्गस्य कारणम् ।

प्रसिद्धौ चेत्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत्परा ॥

V. V. I, p. 31.

Certain ideas get certain writers as their brilliant exponents. Thus Sāhitya gets Kuntaka as its first great exponent. To Mahimā falls the share of expounding two ideas, Svabhāvokti and Doṣas. The most important part of Mahimā's work is chapter II of his V. V., devoted to a study of five important flaws of expression, on which the classic Kāvya Prakāśa, the model for later compilations, draws for its own Doṣaprakaraṇa to a great extent. These five flaws, and all others also, are only the many varieties of Anaucitya which means hindrance to Rasapratīti. For Aucitya of Rasa and Prakrti is the greatest Guṇa, most essential for Kāvya. The absence of this Aucitya is the greatest Doṣa within which every other Doṣa is included. Aucitya and Anaucitya pertain to the content, i.e., Rasa and Artha or Vastu, as well as to the outer garment of the Rasa and Vastu, viz., the expression—S'abda. The former is Ābhyantara or Antaraṅga—internal, while the latter is Bahiraṅga—external. Even the unsuggestive or inappropriate metre is an Anaucitya, one belonging to the latter category. Among S'abdānaucityas, Mahimā says that five are to be specially noted; they are five Doṣas named Vidhheyāvimarśa, Prakramabheda, Kramabheda, Paunaruktya and Vācyāvacana.

इह खलु त्रिविधमनौचित्यमुक्तम्, अर्थविषयं शब्दविषयं चेति ।

तत्र विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिणाम् अयथायर्थं रसेषु यो विनियोगः तन्मात्रलक्षणमेकम् अन्तरङ्गम् आधैरेवोक्तमिति नेह प्रतन्यते। अपर्ं पुनः बहिरङ्गं वहुप्रकारं सम्भवति ! तथथा विधेयाविमर्शः, प्रक्रमभेदः, क्रमभेदः, पौनरुक्त्यं, वाच्यावचनं चेति । न धृष्टतामपि वृत्तस्थ शब्दानौचित्यमव्

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

245

तस्याऽऽनुप्रासादेरिव समानुगुणयेण प्रवृत्तेरिष्टत्वात् । . . . . . एतस्य (अनौचित्यस्य) विवक्षितरसादिप्रतीतिविधायित्वं नाम सामान्य-

लक्षणम् । . . . . . त एते विधेयाविमर्शांदयो दोषा इत्य-

च्यन्ते । II. V. V. p. 37.

Kṣemendra was the pupil of Ācārya Abhinavagupta in poetics. Kṣemendra first wrote a work on Poetics called Kavikarṇikā1 which is unfortunately lost to us. Perhaps in it he dealt with Rasa and Dhvani. Our sense of its loss is keen because, in his critical writings spared to us we find many a touch of originality. Kṣemendra's Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa and Suvṛttatilaka have only slight and subsidiary interest for us. It is his Aucityavicāracarcā we are concerned here with, a small work which yet belongs to the class of 'Prasthāna-works' like those of Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Vāmana, Ānandavardhana, Kuntaka and Mahimabhaṭṭa. As is plain from the above-gone survey of the concept of Aucitya, Kṣemendra is not the author of Aucitya, but, as in the case of Vakrokti and Kuntaka, Kṣemendra made Aucitya into a system, elaborating that concept and applying it to all parts of the Kāvya. Kṣemendra only worked out Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta in whose system he had his being. Abhinavagupta criticised those critics who glibly talked of Aucitya without reference to Rasa and Dhvani which alone render Aucitya intelligible. Just as Kuntaka's Vakrokti proceeds only after accepting Rasa as supreme and accepts also Dhvani, so also Kṣemendra's Aucitya. Kṣemendra first posits Rasa as the soul of poetry, as the thing whose presence makes Kāvya ; Aucitya is its life—'Jīvita'. The term 'Jīvita', as can be seen from the two quotations given above, was used

1Vide Au. V. C., K. M. Gucchaka I, p. 115. St. 2.

246

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

by Abhinavagupta to denote Rasadhvani with Aucitya. Thus

Abhinavagupta used both the words ‘Ātman’ and ‘Jīvita’ as

interchangeable and as meaning generally the essence-

सारभूतोऽर्थः.

But Kṣemendra made a subtle distinction between

Soul and Life, Rasa the Ātman and Aucitya the Life.1 These

two metaphorical names and the relation between them in

metaphysical speculations point to the fact of the intimate

relation between Rasa and Aucitya and of how both come into

existence together. Kṣemendra’s attitude to Rasa is thus

plainly stated even in the opening:

औचित्यस्य चमत्कारकारणस्य श्रारुचर्वणे ।

रसजीवितभूतस्य विचारं कुरुतेऽधुना ॥ S'l. 3.

It is to explain Rasa, by which Kāvya is already explained,

that Kṣemendra offers Aucitya. Aucitya is the very life of

Rasa, the soul of poetry and this is the natural view of Aucitya

in the texts of Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. In a

verse or in a Kāvya, Aucitya gives Camatkāra, Aucitya which

is the life of Rasa. Rasa is the thing to which Aucitya is the

greatest relation in which other things exist. He again says:

औचित्यं रससिद्धस्य स्थिरं काव्यस्य जीवितम् । S'l. 5.

रसेन श्रृङ्गारादिना सिद्धस्य प्रसिद्धस्य काव्यस्य धातुवादरसिद्ध-

स्थैव तज्जीविते स्थिरमित्यर्थः । p. 115.

1 Jayamaṅgalācārya's Kavis'iksā (Peterson's I Report, Last

list, App. I, pp. 78-9) calls Aucitya the ‘Jivita’ of poetry.

औचित्यं श्राधयते न तु कविताजीवितोपमम् ।

कवयस्तदजानन्तः कथं सुयः कीर्तिभाजनम् ॥

Cf. also the Sāhityamīmāṃsā (TSS. 114, p. 154) : अत्यन्तं रक्षणीयं

स्यादौचित्यं काव्यजीवितम् ।

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

247

We had observed before that Aucitya is as unintelligible without Dhvani as without Rasa. As a matter of fact it had its greatest exposition at the hands of Ānandavardhana only as a supplementary idea in the system of Rasadhvani; for, to Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, the Soul (Ātman) of poetry is 'औचित्यद्रवद्रसघ्वनि:' and the three are inseparable.

But such an explicit mention and acceptance of Dhvani, as of Rasa, are not found in the Au. V. C. But Dhvani is all throughout implied. We had said that the test and proof of Aucitya is Dhvani, the suggestion of Rasa or idea. Showing the propriety of Pada (which is a case of Padadhvani with Ānandavardhana), i.e., Padaucitya in a verse, Kṣemendra says that Aucitya in that word pleases us because that word in particular suggests the state of separation and the consequent suffering, i.e., the Vipralambha Rasa : विरहावस्थासूचकं 'कृशा-ज्ज्ञ्या:' इति पदं परममौचित्यं पुष्णाति.

Similarly in all instances of all kinds of Aucitya, Kṣemendra must have sufficiently and clearly based his explanations of Aucitya scientifically on the principle of Dhvani. For, it is from Ānandavardhana that the concept of Aucitya took new life.

In most cases, Dhvani, Vakrokti and Aucitya are merely the more specific names for the Camatkāra in a certain point. In his commentary on chapter XV, the opening chapter of the Vācikābhinaya section of the Nāṭyaśāstra, Abhinavagupta uses another word for this Camatkāra, viz., Vaicitrya, strikingness or beauty or charm.

Bharata gives ten grammatical divisions of words and Abhinavagupta says that everything in poetry, gender, number, name, case etc., has to be 'vicitra', wonderful or striking. Having explained the Vaicitrya of all elements of language in poetry, Abhinavagupta reconciles to this Vaicitrya of his the Dhvani of Sup, Tīṅ, Vacana etc., of Ānandavardhana (Ud. III) and the Vakratā of Sup. etc., of others

248 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

(Anje) meaning Kuntaka or those of whose ideas Kuntaka is the systematic exponent.1 To these can be reconciled Kṣemendra's Aucitya of Pada, Kriyā, Kāraka, Liṅga, Vacana, Upasarga, Nipāta etc. Again Suptiṅdhvani, Subādivakratā, Subādivaicitrya or Subādyaucitya is the same as some of the ten different kinds of Camatkāra, Camatkāra in S'abda, in Artha etc., given by Kṣemendra in the third section of his Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa. As a matter of fact there is nothing new in Kṣemendra's Aucitya of Pada etc., except appreciation under a different name of the same points mentioned by Ānandavardhana in Uddyota III of his work under the heads of Dhvani of Pada, Sup. etc., forming the numerous parts of the Vyañjaka. The Au. V. C. is vastly indebted to the third chapter of the Dhv. Ā. On the subject of Rasaucitya alone, while explaining Viruddha rasa samāvesa, combining of two contradictory sentiments, Kṣemendra quotes Ānandavardhana's verse on the subject. (p. 134. Au. V. C.) Except for this one quotation, it must be stated that in this tract of his which only works out Ānandavardhana's ideas, Kṣemendra has not paid adequate homage to Ānandavardhana. He grows eloquent on Aucitya in the opening but strangely does not even quote the famous verse of Ānandayardhana, अनौचित्यादते नान्यत etc.

Kṣemendra has elaborated and pointed out some more principles of Aucitya in the wider sphere of thought – Artha and Arthasandarba. Most of the things in this class like Aucityas of Deśa, Kālá, Vrata, Tattva, Sattva, Svabhāva, Sārasaṅgraha and Avasthā are comprehended in Prakṛty-aucitya and in the absence of the flaw of Loka-āgama-virodha,

1 Vide p. 367, Vol. II, chap. xiv. Abhi. Bhā. Mad. MS. Vide also my article on Writers Quoted in the Abhi. Bhā. in the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III, p. 221. See also above, this same chapter on this point.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 249

which is pointed out by all writers from Bhāmaha and Danḍin,

which is part of Aucitya, and can be said to be generally in-

cluded in Prakṛtyaucitya itself which is as old as Bharata or can

be separately called as Lokasvabhāuaucitya. The Pratibhāu-

citya given by Kṣemendra concerns with the minor ‘fancies’

and not with poetic imagination or genius as a whole. Simi-

larly innumerable items of Aucitya can be elaborated and so

does Kṣemendra say in the end : ‘अन्येषु काव्यद्रॆषु अनयैव दिशा

स्वमौचित्यम् उत्प्रेक्षणीयम् । तदुदाहरणान्यन्यान्यत् न प्रदर्शितानीयल्लमत-

प्रसङ्गेन ।’ p. 60. As for instance, the propriety of metre,

Vṛttaucitya, is an interesting study. Bharata has spoken of

it in his chapters on Vṛttas and Dhruvās, xvi and xxxii.

Abhinavagupta quotes in his Abhi. Bhā. Kātyāyana, an old

writer on metres, on the appropriateness of certain metres to

certain subjects, moods and situations.

वीरस्य भुजदण्डानां वर्णने संघर्षरा भवेत् ॥ etc.1

Kṣemendra reserves this subject for special treatment in his

Suvṛttatilaka. (Vinyāsa iii. S’ls. 7-16).

काव्ये रसानुसारेण वर्णनानुगुणेन च ।

कुर्वीत सर्ववृत्तानां विनियोगं विभागवित् ॥

वृत्तरत्नावली कामाद् अस्थाने विनिवेशित ।

कथयत्यज्ञतामेव मेखलेव गले कृता ॥ etc.

Kṣemendra then goes to explain with illustrations what situ-

ations and subjects should be depicted in what metres.

Though there is bound to be a large amount of subjectivism

1 Vide Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III,

p. 223, my article on Writers Quoted in the Abi. Bhārati.

250

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

and impressionism in this study, though, even as regards the

question of relation of Rāgas and Rasas in music, in this

enquiry also, it may be that one same metre has many emo-

tional significances, there is some truth in some principles of

Vṛttaucitya like the association of long metres like Sragdharā

with descriptions of war, Vīra, Raudra and Bībhatsa Rasas

and the use of Anuṣṭubhs for narration, brief summing up

and pointed speech.

The concept of Aucitya was born as a supplement to

Rasa and Dhvani and is so developed by Kṣemendra, though

it must be stated that the latter, Dhvani, is not specifically

spoken of by him. From the verses in the beginning which

state the doctrine of Aucitya in general, it is plain, that like

Rasa and Dhvani, Aucitya came in as a severe criticism of

a merely physical or 'materialistic' or a jeweller's philosophy

of poetry which made much only of Alañkāras and Guṇas.

This is true not of the critical literature of Kṣemendra's time ;

for Rasa had been established firmly as the soul of poetry

in poetics and the discussion yet going on was only on the

process of the realisation of that Rasa, whether it was Dhvani,

Anumāna, Bhāvanā and Bhōga or Tātparya and so on.

But it is true of literary practice, of what the poets them-

selves were doing. Kṣemendra's Aucitya is another and final

criticism of Alañkāras.

काव्यस्यालमकृङ्कै: किं मिथ्यागरिणतं गुणै: ।

यस्य जीवतमौचित्यं विचिन्त्यापि न दृश्यते ॥

अलङ्कारैस्वलङ्कारा: गुणा एव गुणास्सदा ।

औचित्यं रससिद्धस्य स्थिरं काव्यस्य जीवितम् ॥ S'lṣ. 4-5.

उचितस्थापनविन्यासादलङ्कृतिरलङ्कृति:

औचित्यादृते नित्यं भवन्त्येव गुणा: गुणा: ॥ S'l. 6.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 251

अलङ्कृतिरुचितस्थानविन्यासादलङ्कृतु क्षमा भवति. अन्यथा त्वलङ्कृतिर्यपदेशमेव न लभते । तदूदौचित्यादपरिच्युता गुणाः गुणतामसादयन्ति, अन्यथा पुनरगुणा एव । p. 116.

An illustrative verse (which elaborates, as pointed out at the beginning of this paper, a verse on the same subject in Bharata) is also cited by Kṣemendra :

कण्ठे मेखला. नितम्बफलके दामण हारग्ण वा पाणौ नूपुरवन्धनेन, चरणे केयूरपाशेन वा । शोयेण प्रणन्न. रिपो करणया, नायन्न के हस्यताम् औचित्येन विना रुचि प्रतनुन्त नालङ्कृतिनों गुणा: ॥

Bharata xxiii. 64 :

अङ्गशोो हि वेप्सु न शोभां जनयिष्यति । मेखलोरसिचनं च हास्यायैवोपचायतं ॥

Bharata says this in respect of music also where the alaṅkāras of music must be utilized only according to Rasa.

अभिनवद्रवत्या गीतिर्वर्णाविरोधेन । स्थाने चालङ्कारं कुर्यात न द्वारोस काञ्चिकां वध्येत ॥

N. S'. xxxix, 73-4, p. 335-6 Kasi edn.

Thus well has it been said by Ānandavardhana that Aucitya is the greatest secret of Rasa and Anaucitya, the greatest enemy.

The section on Poetics in the Agni purāṇa contains little by way of any development of the concept of Aucitya : but it is also noticed here because it shows some ingenious and original reshuffling of concepts and gives this concept of Aucitya as an Alaṅkāra of both Śabda and Artha, an Ubhayālaṅkāra. 345/2 and 5.

252

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

प्रशस्ति: कान्तिरौचित्यं संक्षेपो यावदर्थता ।

अभिव्यञ्चकिरिति व्यक्तं पद्भेदास्तस्य जाति: ॥

यथा वस्तु तथा रीति: य(त)था वृत्ति: त(य)था रस: ।

ऊर्जोस्मिन्दुसंदर्भौचित्यमुपजायते ॥

"Riti in accordance with theme and Vṛtti in accordance with Rasa ; expression, forceful or soft (as occasion demands)—thus is Aucitya engendered."

The unpublished Rasārṇavālañkāra (Mad. MS.) of Prakāśavarṣa is somewhat important. It is another work which

Prakāśavarṣa speaks of Aucitya as a whole as an Alaṅkāra, but differs from the Agni purāṇa in holding

it as a Śabdālaṅkāra.

श्रेषश्रितं तथौचित्यं प्रश्नोत्तरप्रहेलिका ।

शब्दालङ्कृतय: स्पष्टमष्टादश मनीषिभि: ॥

p. 16. Mad. MS.

Some valuable ideas on Aucitya are also given by Prakāśa-varṣa. He defines Aucitya as the spirit of mutual help

between sound and sense, between word and idea, S'abda and Artha, and as an element which makes poetry great. He adds

that to Sahṛdayas, Anaucitya is the greatest offence.

उपकार्योपकारत्वं यत्र शब्दार्थयोर्भवेत ।

उत्कर्षाधायकं . . . यै: (प्राज्ञै:) औचित्यं तत्प्रकर्षान्तिमम ॥

अनौचित्येन किमन्योऽस्ति तिरस्कारस्य चात्मसात् ॥

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

253

Prakāśavarṣa gives a new twofold classification of Aucitya but

does not explain the varieties further. He says that others

have said enough on this subject.1

There is one more point to be considered before closing

this account of Aucitya. Bharata has said2 that Hāsya Rasa

or the sentiment of laughter is produced by

Anaucitya

and Hāsya

Anukṛti and Ābhāsa. It has been pointed out

above that Abhinavagupta remarks in his

Locana that Anaucitya is at the root of Ābhāsa, as in the case

of the Sṛṅgārābhāsa of Rāvaṇa for Sītā. We can only laugh

at it. So it is that Laulya, which is proposed as a Rasa by

some, is made by Abhinavagupta an accessory in Hāsya Rasa.3

In the Abhinava bhāratī on the text of Bharata which explains

the origin of Hāsya Rasa, Abhinavagupta discusses what con-

stitutes the basis of the comic and points out that Anaucitya is

at the root of the comic.' Aucitya is Rasa and Anaucitya is

Rasābhāsa and Hāsya Rasa. The illustrative verse quoted by

Kṣemendra gives a series of Anaucitya and concludes 'नायान्ति

के हस्यताम्'. Surely one with a girdle round the neck and a

necklace at the foot will be laughed at. So it is that Bharata

also says :

मेखलोरसि वन्धे च हास्यायैवोपजायते । xxiii, 69.

This takes us to another aspect of poetry and of Aucitya.

In poetry of Rasa, Aucitya is the very life, Jīvita ; but in

1 Vide Journal of Oriental Research, Vol. VIII. Part 3 for an

account of Prakāśavarṣa and his work.

2 N. S'. VI, p. 296 Gaek. edn.

3 Vide p. 342, Abhi. Bhā., Gaek. edn.

4 Pp. 296-297. Abhi. Bhā.. Gaek. edn. A study of mine on

the Comic Element in Skr. Literature (on the theory of Hāsya

and its treatment by poets) will be published

254

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṆKĀRA SĀSTRA

comic writing, the very life of its Rasa, i.e., Rasābhāsa or

Hāsya Rasa, is Anaucitya. Anaucitya is the secret of comic

writing. We can well say :

चार्वनौचित्यमेवैक हास्यस्योपनिषत्पर ।

अनौचित्यं रसाभासकारणस्य स्थिरजीवितम् ॥

It is only with various forms of Anaucitya that Hāsya can be

developed : all Doṣas of speech and thought occur in S'akāra

and we have already pointed out above how Nyūnopamā and

Adhikopamā are the secrets of satire and parody. Inappro-

priateness is at the root of all varieties of the ridiculous and

the laughable, and this has been shown by Abhinavagupta in

his Abhi. Bhā. :

अनौचित्यप्रवृत्तिकृतमेव हि हास्यविभावत्वम् ।

p. 297. Gaek. edn.

Thus Anaucitya is the Aucitya in Hāsya Rasa. This Aucitya

is that aspect called 'adaptation' by virtue of which, flaws

become excellences, by change of circumstances. The incohe-

rent and the inappropriate themselves become appropriate.

Just as S'rutiduṣṭa, a flaw in Sṛṅgāra, is a great Guṇa in

Raudra and this adaptation is one Aucitya, so also Anaucitya

which spoils all Rasas, and is the greatest Rasadoṣa, is the

greatest Rasaguṇa in Hāsya. This is of course said of the

fundamental basis, the root cause, Vibhāva, of Hāsya Rasa

and of those conditions of inappropriateness, oddities and

ludicrousness which are the stuff of which Hāsya is made.

And in the delineation of this Anaucitya itself producing

Hāsya, in expression and in all other parts, principles of

internal Aucitya have to be observed. There are two old

verses on this subject of how Anaucitya becomes Aucitya,

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 255

of how Doṣas become Guṇas and of how adaptation and

appropriateness are the only rule.

सामान्यसुन्दरीणां विग्रहामावहत्यविनय एव ।

धूम एव प्रज्वलितानां मधुरो भवति सुरभिदारुणाम् ॥

(Chāyā of a Prākṛt Gāthā).

अन्यदा भृशणं पुंसः क्षमा लज्जेव योषिताम् ।

पराक्रमः परिभवे वैयात्यं सुरतेपिव ॥

Māgha. S'. V. II, 44.

It is all some kind of relativity in the realm of poetry.

There is no absolute Guṇa and Doṣa but only Ucita and

Anucita; and the poet takes up even Anaucitya to make

Aucitya out of it. The poet's attitude is as free and open in

this respect as in respect of the question of morality in poetry.

It is this Aucitya which Robert Bridges speaks of in his

essay on Poetic Diction under the name 'Keeping', a concept

borrowed from Painting and which he describes as the

'harmonising of medium'. The following line of his explains

his idea further : 'But in Aesthetic no Property is absurd if

it is in keeping'. Bridges speaks here of absurdity (Doṣa)

ceasing to be so and becoming a Guṇa (Vaiśeṣika) because of

Aucitya (keeping).

Three doctrines form the great and noteworthy contribu-

tions of Sanskrit Alañkāra Literature to the world's literature

on Literary Criticism. They are Rasa, Dhvani

and Aucitya.1 Aucitya is a very large principle

within whose orbit comes everything else. The Aucitya-rule

of criticism is obeyed by all others, including Rasa.

1 A survey and review of Western Literary Criticism from

Aristotle to Abercrombie from the point of view of Skr. Alañkāra

Śāstra has been made by me in a separate study.

256

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Mahāmahopādhyāya Professor S. Kuppuswami Sastriar puts the whole evolution of Skr. Poetics from Alaṅkāra to Aucitya in a Kārikā and illustrates it with a graph. Within the big circle of Kṣemendra's Aucitya, there are three viewpoints in the shape of a triangle. The topmost point of the triangle is the undisputed Rasa of Bharata, which Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta accept as the 'Soul' of poetry and which critics of Dhvani like Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka and Mahimabhaṭṭa and other theorists like Kuntaka accept. Lower down, the two points of the triangle are the two prominent theories, opposed to each other, regarding the process of realising Rasa, viz., the Dhvani of Ānandavardhana and the Anumiti of Mahimabhaṭṭa. Anumiti is mentioned only as 'upalakṣaṇa' and it stands for other anti-dhvani theories also, like the Bhāvanā and Bhoga of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka, Tātparya etc. Within this triangle is a smaller circle named after the Vakrokti of Kuntaka. This circle again contains a triangle within it, the topmost point of which is Vāmana's Rīti, a concept decidedly superior to and more comprehensive than the two lower points called Guṇa and Alaṅkāra of Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha. Beginning with Alaṅkāra, the theories get superior or more comprehensive one by one. The Alaṅkāra-guṇa-rīti modes of criticism deal with diction and style in the lower sense of the terms and are classed under one bigger current of the study of form culminating in the comprehensive Vakrokti-circle of Kuntaka, which is also an approach to poetry from the formal side. The next, the bigger triangle begins the current of the study of the content, of the inner essence of poetry, viz., Rasa and the process, the technique by which the poet delineates it and the Sahṛdaya gets it. All these are comprehended in the outermost circle of Aucitya which pertains to Rasa and everything else in

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 257

Kāvya. All the other theories only run at the back of Aucitya

which leads the van. If there is a harmony or a beauty as

such, innate in every part of a great poetry, it is this Aucitī.

The Kārikā and the graph explained above are given

below :

“ औचितीमनुधावन्ति सर्वे ध्वनिरसौचया: |

गुणालङ्कृतीरितीनां नयाश्रानुजुवाड्मया: ॥ ”

Mm. Prof. S. Kuppuswāmi Sāstriar

17

THE EVOLUTION OF THE NAMES OF

SANSKRIT POETICS

AND KRIYĀ-KALPA

A PRE-BHĀMAHA NAME OF THE ALAṄKĀRA ŚĀSTRA

It will not be a surprise if on examining the history of the

several names of a branch of knowledge in its long course

through the centuries, one finds that it is not always the

survival of the best that is the rule in the realm of nomen-

clatural evolution. This is borne out by an examination of

the names of the subject of Sanskrit Poetics also which is

called Alaṅkāra Śāstra, not because of the absolute appro-

priateness of that name. The name of the concept of

Alaṅkāra stuck to the whole subject even though the concept

itself got dethroned after a time.

In English the subject called Literary Criticism has the

old name Poetics or the Study of Poetry and we have

Aristotle’s work on the subject called Poetics. In Sanskrit,

the most common name for the subject and as a matter of

fact, the only name which finally stood, is Alaṅkāra Śāstra.

Sometimes we have in its place the name Sāhitya Vidyā.

"पञ्चमी साहित्यविद्या इति यायावरीय:" says Rājaśekhara. (K. M. p. 4).

The name Sāhitya is very much later than the name Alaṅ-

kāra. It was evidently born out of Grammar and it slowly

came to denote poetry itself upon the basis of Bhāmaha's definition of poetry 1 :

शब्दार्थौ सहितौ काव्यम् । I, 16. K. A.

Sāhitya was gaining some importance after the time of Ānandavardhana. It was taken up by two prominent writers who came immediately after Abhinavagupta, namely, Bhoja and Kuntaka. Sometime afterwards, we had the first regular work on Poetics which took the name Sāhitya, namely, the Sāhitya Mīmāṃsā of Ruyyaka. After this, the word was in greater use and in later Alaṅkāra literature one of the most important works had this name, namely, the Sāhityadarpana of Vis'vanātha. Whenever accomplishments of men of taste were referred to, the word Sāhitya was always used along with Saṅgīta. Though not as old as Alaṅkāra, Sāhitya is the only name of Sanskrit poetics, which became as common as Alaṅkāra.

Sāhitya means the poetic harmony, the beautiful mutual appropriateness, the perfect mutual understanding, of S'abda and Artha. The concept is of great significance and I have dealt with it and its history in a chapter in my book ‘Bhoja's S'r̥ṅgāra Prakāsa.’ Compared with Sāhitya, the name Alaṅkāra is of less poetic worth. It is a reminder of that stage in the history of Sanskrit Poetics when the concept of Alaṅkāra was sitting high on the throne of poetic expression. The Alaṅkāra-age of Sanskrit Poetics is much older than Bhāmaha and lived up to the time of Udbhata, Vāmana and Rudrata. Its last great votaries were Bhoja and Kuntaka. Bhāmaha's work is called Kāvyālaṅkāra; Udbhata, who commented upon Bhāmaha, names his independent work on the subject as Kāvyālaṅkāra-sārasaṅgraha; Vāmana and Rudrata only follow and name

1 See my thesis Bhoja's S'r̥ṅgāra Prakāsa, Vol. I, pt. 1, pp. 87-110.

260

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAṆKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

their works also as Kāvyālaṅkāra. Though Daṇḍin seems to

be an exception, he only proves the rule; for, though he calls

his work Kāvyādarśa or Mirror of Poetry, he is the writer

who pays the greatest tribute to Alaṅkāra. These ancients,

the Alaṅkāra-vādins, took Alaṅkāra as the beautiful expression

and as the distinguishing mark of poetry, and considered even

the Rasas as only subserving this beauty of expression. Bhoja

ardently walks behind Daṇḍin and in his stupendous S'ṛṅgāra-

prakāśa, erects a new and huge throne for Alaṅkāra. Guṇas

Alaṅkāras, Rītis, Vṛttis, Sandhis, Lakṣaṇas, Rasas, Language,

Metre, Form of composition, namely, epic, drama etc.,—why,

everything is Alaṅkāra to Bhoja.1 The Alaṅkāra-age of

Sanskrit Poetics which can roughly be marked off as ending

with Rudraṭa, is also a very significant period in the history of

Sanskrit Poetics. For, it is the analysis of the Alaṅkāras

that led to the rise of Vakrokti and in another direction

through such Alaṅkāras as Dīpaka, Samāsokti, Paryāyokta

containing a suggested element, gave rise to the concept of

suggestion, Dhvani. Vakrokti is a continuation of Alaṅkāra ;

its greatest exponent, Kuntaka, describes his work, the Vakrokti

Jīvita as Kāvyālaṅkāra.

काव्यस्यालंमलङ्कारः कोऽप्यपूर्वो विधीयते । I. 2.

ग्रन्थस्यास्य अलङ्कार इत्यमिधानम् । Vṛtti. p. 3.

V. J., De's Edn.

It is as a result of the importance of this Alaṅkāra-stage

of Sanskrit Poetics that the whole system got itself named

after one of the several elements of poetry, Alaṅkāra. Says

Kumārasvāmin :

1 See my Bhoja's S'ṛṅgāra Prakāśa, Vol. I, pt. ii, chapter on

Bhoja's Conception of Alaṅkāra.

NAMES OF SANSKRIT POETICS

261

यद्यपि रसालङ्काराध्यनेकविषयमिदं शास्त्रं तथापि छत्रित्रिन्यायेन अलङ्कारशास्त्रमुच्यते।

p. 3, Ratnāpana on the Pratāparudrīya; Bālamanoramā Edn.

At the hands of Vāmana, Alañkāra gained greater proportions; it expanded and attained greater significance and beauty. It came to him from Daṇḍin and when he turned that stone of Alañkāra handed to him, he found it flashing diverse hues. He realized that it meant Beauty. It had come to mean not only the small graces of the Śabdālaṅkāras and the figures of speech called Arthālaṅkāras but also the absence of all flaws and the presence of all excellences, in fact the sum-total of the beauty of poetic utterance as such, distinguished from other utterances. To Vāmana, Alañkāra was Beauty, Saundarya.

For the nonce, it seems as if Poetics has got a new and comprehensive name, Saundarya Śāstra. The word ‘Sundara’, the Beautiful, baffles analysis. We have to resign to the magic of the poet’s genius ultimately, to what Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka and Kuntaka would call Kavivyāpāra. Sundara and Saundarya are words which Abhinavagupta uses very often in his descriptions of poetry in the Locana on the Dhvanyāloka. The synonym Cāru (चारु) is also used by Ānandavardhana.

1. रसद्गति: चारुत्वहेतु: p. 5 Ānandavardhana. कान्ती-यकं and चारुत्वहेतु p. 8 Ānandavardhana. काव्यस्य हि ललितो-चितसत्रिवेशचारुण: p. 13 Ānandavardhana. विविधविशिष्टवाच्य-वाचकरचनाप्रपञ्चप्रचारुण: p. 27 Ānandavardhana.

2. प्रतिभा अपूर्ववस्तुनिर्माणक्षमा प्रज्ञा। तस्या विशेषो रसावेश-वैशद्यसौन्दर्यकार्यनिर्माणक्षमत्वम्‌। Abhinavagupta, Locana, p. 29. न हि त्वया रिपवो हता इति याह्गनलड्कृतोऽयं वाक्यार्थ: तर्हि-गयम्‌; अपि तु सुन्दरीभूत:। Ibid. p. 72.

262

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Beauty is the primary factor and in its absence neither Alañkāra nor Dhvani can have any claim to be called such or make for poetry.

तथाजातीयानामिति । चारुत्वातिशयवताम् इत्यर्थः । सुलक्षितेति यत्किलैषां तद्विनिर्मुक्तं रूपम्, न तत्त् काव्येऽर्थनियाम् । उपमा हि 'यथा गौ: तथा गवय:' इति । (रूपकम्) 'गौ: वाहीक:' इति । श्लेष: 'द्विवचनेडच्' इति तन्त्रात्मक: । । । । एवमन्यत् । न चैवमादि काव्योपयोगीति । Abhinavagupta, Locana, p. 210.

This is said of Alañkāra by Abhinavagupta and the point is stressed by Bhoja also in his Sṛṅgāraprakāśa (Chap. XI, p. 371, Vol. II, Madras MS.), where he says that the statement भूमोऽयमग्रे: cannot be considered any Alañkāra, because it is devoid of the primary characteristic common to all Alañkāras (Alañkāra-sāmānya-lakṣaṇa), namely, S'obhā, which is Beauty. Such a significant interpretation, Bhoja gives to Daṇḍin's description of Alañkāra, काव्यशोभाकरान् धर्मान् अलङ्कारान् प्रचक्षते । The point is further stressed in a well-known passage by Appayya Dīkṣita in his Citra mīmāṁsā.

सर्वोऽपि ह्यलङ्कार: कविसमयप्रसिद्धानुरोधेन हृद्यतया काव्यशोभाकर एव अलङ्कारितां भजते । अतः 'गोसदृश: गवय:' इति नोपमा । । p. 6. N. S. Edn.

The same condition of the necessity of beauty applies to Dhvani also. It is not enough if one tries to point out in a case the existence of some technical Dhvani. Even Dhvani has to be beautiful.

गुणालङ्कारौचित्यसुन्दरशब्दार्थशरीरस्य सति ध्वननात्मनि आत्मनि काव्यरूपताव्यवहार: । Locana, p. 17.

NAMES OF SANSKRIT POETICS

263

Commenting on Ānandavardhana's

विविधविशिष्टवाच्यवाचकरचनाप्रपञ्चचारुणः काव्यस्य

etc., (p. 27, Dhva. Ā.)

Abhinavagupta says :

तेन सर्वत्रापि न ध्वननसद्भावेऽपि तथा व्यवहारः

etc., Locana, p. 28.

Therefore the poetic beauty is the real soul of poetic expression. Abhinavagupta accepts that Beauty is the essence, the soul of the art.

यद्युक्तम्—‘ चारुत्वप्रतीतिस्तर्हि काव्यस्य आत्मा स्यात्’ इति,

तदङ्गीकुर्‌म एव । नास्ति खल्वयं विवाद इति । p. 33, Locana.

It is this Beauty that is otherwise called Camatkāra on which word Viśveśvara, the author of the Camatkāracandrikā, takes his stand. The words Vicchitti, Vacitrya, and even the word Vakratā finally mean only Beauty. It is the same, the beautiful in poetry, that is meant by the Ramanīya in Jagannātha's definition of poetry. From this point of view, it seems that there was good chance for a new name for Poetics, namely Saundarya S'āstra, but it did not come up.

The name Saundarya S'āstra would correspond to the western name Aesthetics. In the western literature on the subject, the words, the Beautiful and the Sublime, are met with. There are the works such as that of Longinus on the Sublime. One whole chapter, in his work, ‘What is Art ?’, is devoted by Tolstoy to an examination of the works on Beauty. But S'āstra, does not strictly mean Poetics but embraces the critical appreciation of all Fine Arts, including sculpture, painting and music.

264

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA SĀSTRA

In Uddyota I and elsewhere, Ānandavardhana refers to

writers on Poetics as Kāvya-lakṣaṇa-kārins, for, those who

wrote on poetry did so with the idea of defining Poetry.

(Dhva. Ā. pp. 8, 10, etc.) And Kāvya-lakṣaṇa can also be

taken as a general appellation applied to Poetics in the days

of the reign of Alaṅkāra and even earlier. Bhāmaha, who

opens his work with the words—

काव्यालङ्कार इत्येष यथाबुद्धि विधीयते।

closes it thus with the name Kāvya-lakṣaṇa :

अवगम्य स्वधिया च काव्यलक्षणम्।

Daṇḍin proposes in 1. 2 of his work to write Kāvya-

lakṣaṇa :

यथासामर्थ्यमस्माभिः क्रियते काव्यलक्षणम्।

All these names, Kāvya-lakṣaṇa, Alaṅkāra and Sāhitya,

are however later names. Before Bhāmaha and before the

names Alaṅkāra and the much less definite Kāvya-lakṣaṇa

came into vogue, what was the name of the subject of

Sanskrit Poetics?

It is the list of the sixty-four arts—Caṭuṣṣaṣṭi Kalāḥ—

given by Vātsyāyana in his Kāmasūtras that gives out the

first glimmer in this connection. After mentioning 'the com-

posing of poetry'—Kāvya kriyā—and two of the subjects

helpful to that purpose namely, Lexicon (Abhidhāna kośa) and

Prosody (Chandojñāna), Vātsyāyana gives a subject called

KRIYĀ-KALPA. (I. iii. 16, p. 32.) What does this Kriyā-

kalpa mean? Coming close upon composing of poetry,

Lexicon and Prosody, it is very likely that Kriyā-kalpa

NAMES OF SANSKRIT POETICS

265

is a subject related to literature and poetry. A reference

to the Jayamaṅgalā upon this reveals to us that Kriyā-kalpa

means Poetics or Alaṅkāra S’āstra.

क्रियाकल्प इति काव्यकरণ-

विधि:, काव्यलङ्कार इत्यर्थ: । त्रितयमपि (i.e. Abhidhāna, Chandas

and Alaṅkāra) काव्यक्रियार्थं, परकाव्यावबोधार्थं च । p. 39. To

explain, Kriyā-kalpa must be expanded into Kāvya-kriyā-

kalpa, a practical treatise showing the way to compose

poems.

The name Kriyā-kalpa consists of the two words—Kriyā

meaning kāvya-kriyā and Kalpa meaning vidhi. Kriyā-kalpa

is the correct word. S’rīdhara’s commentary on the Bhāga-

vata reads it wrongly as Kriyā-vikalpa and that wrong form

is given in the list of sixty-four kalās in the S’abdakalpadruma and the Vācaspatya, both of which reproduce from

S’rīdhara. Relying on this reading, Mr. P. K. Acharya,

in an article on Fine Arts in the Indian Historical Quarterly,

(Vol. V, p. 206), says that Kriyāvikalpa is the art of “ deri-

vation and conjugation of verbs in various ways ” and that

“ it refers to grammar and poetics as Yas’odhara says ” ! If

the reading Kriyā-vikalpa is taken as correct and is inter-

preted as verbs and their derivation and conjugation, where

does Poetics come in? And nobody says that it refers to

grammar.

The Lalita vistara’s list of Kalās mentions this Kriyākalpa.

See p. 156, Lefmann’s Edn.

Daṇḍin says in his Kāvyādarś’a, I. 9 :

वाचां विचित्रमार्गाणां निबबन्धुः क्रियाविधिम् ।

Here he refers to his predecessors who wrote Kriyā-vidhi.

Vidhi simply means kalpa ard here there is an indirect

266

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

reference to the name Kriyā-kalpa, which Vātsyāyana has

acquainted us with. Taruṇavācaspati explains Daṇḍin's Kriyā-

vidhi as Racanā-prakāra and the Hṛdayamiṅgamā, as Kriyā-

vidhāna which mean the same as the Kāvya-karaṇa-vidhi of

the Jayamaṅgalā.

In a list of the sixty-four Kalās attributed to Bhāmaha

and quoted on p. 29 of Tippabhūpāla's Kāmadhenu on Vāma-

na's K. A. S. and Vṛ., which list closely agrees with that of

Vatsyāyana, we have in the place of Kriyā-kalpa, the word

Kāvya-lakṣaṇa.This again proves that Kriyā-kalpa is the

correct word and that it is an old name for the Alaṅkāra

S'astra.

Lastly, we find Kriyā-kalpa mentioned in the Uttara-

kāṇḍa of the Rāmāyaṇa, along with many other arts and

branches of knowledge. Though much of the present Uttara-

kāṇḍa may be later accretion, it may be that the cantos on the

banishment of Sītā and the recitation of the epic by her two

sons are genuine or at least older parts of the epic. Their

superior literary merit easily separates and marks them off.

In canto 94, (verses 4 to 10), Vālmīki describes the assembling

of Rāma and other men of learning in Rāma's court to hear

the two boys recite the epic of Vālmīki. Among the learned

men who gathered on that occasion are mentioned पण्डिताः;

नेगमाः;, पौराणिकाः;, शब्दविदः (Grammarians), स्वरलक्षणज्ञाः;, गान्धर्वाः;

कलामाताविभागज्ञाः (all the three referring to musicians), पादाक्षरसमासज्ञाः;, छन्दसि परिनिष्ठिताः (those well-versed

in Grammar and Prosody) and then we find the line—

क्रियाकल्पविदश्रैव तथा काव्यविदो जनाः । S'l. 7.

When Grammar and Prosody have been mentioned, surely

Poetics is the only subject waiting to be mentioned and who

else than one who is learned in Poetics deserves a seat in a gathering assembled to hear a poem ?

Thus, from Daṇḍin in a way, and from Vātsyāyana and the Rāmāyaṇa in a clear manner, we come to know that, in its early stages, the Alaṅkāra Śāstra was called KRIYĀ-KALPA.1

1The semantics of the word “Kriyā” is interesting to study in this connection. It means among many things “ a literary composition ” and Apte’s Dictionary gives here apt quotations from Kālidāsa himself.

श्रुत मनोभिरवहते: क्रियामिमां कालिदासस्य । Vik. I, 2.

कालिदासस्य क्रियायां बहुमान: ! Mālavikāgnimitra.

Kriyā thus means Kāvya and Kriyā kalpa is Kavya kalpa. It is remarkable how the English language also has the synonym of Kriyā, “Work”, used in the sense of “a literary composition”.

(“Krti” in South Indian music vocabulary means a music-composition).

CAMATKĀRA

At first, works on Poetics approached from the stand-point of Alañkāra and were invariably named also Kāvyālañkāra. Then, with the rise of Rasa and Dhvani, works on Poetics approached the subject from the ‘Ātman’ of poetry, namely Rasa-Dhvani. Then came Bhoja, whose work, the Sṛṅgāra prakāśa, among the many points which it emphasised, emphasised the concept of Sāhitya also, which together with the brilliant exposition of that concept in Kuntaka's Vṛokti Jīvita, gave rise to a new kind of aproach for a Poetics-treatise in the works called Sāhitya mīmāṃsā.1 Another approach is that of Camatkāra, the literary delight which comprehends all the poetical elemeuts from Guṇa and S'abdālañkāra to Rasa and Dhvani. It is clear that when we read poetry, we have a certain enjoyment ; this enjoyment may be due in one place to a sound effect, to a striking idea in another, and to the emotional movement in still another ; but it is all the same one relish.

It is a striking coincidence that, like the concept of Rasa, the concept of Camatkāra also came into the Alañkāra S'āstra from the Pāka s'āstra. Its early semantic history is indistinct and dictionaries record only the later meanings, the chief of

1 One Sāhitya mīmāṃsā is the work of Ruyyaka mentioned in his Alañkāra sarvasva, but this work has not yet come to light. MSS. of another Sāhitya mīmāṃsā are available in the Tanjore, Madras and Trivandrum MSS. Libraries ; and this work has also been edited in a highly defective manner in the TSS. I have dealt with this work and the concept of Sāhitya in a separate chapter in my thesis on the S'ṛṅgāra Prakāśa.

which are 'astonishment' and 'poetic relish'. In appears to me that originally the word Camatkāra was an onomatopoeic word referring to the 'clicking sound we make with our tongue when we taste something snappy, and in the course of its semantic enlargements, Camatkāra came to mean a sudden fillip relating to any feeling of a pleasurable type. Nārāyaṇa, an ancestor of the author of the Sāhitya darpaṇa, interpreted Camatkāra as an expansion of the heart, Citta vistāra, and held all kinds of Rasa-realisation to be of the nature of this Camatkāra or Citta vistāra, of which the best example was the Adbhuta rasa. But as a general and all comprehensive name for literary relish, the word Camatkāra occurs even in the Dhvanyāloka (p. 144, N. S. edn.). In the same sense, the word occurs about fourteen times in the Locana of Abhinavagupta (pp. 37, 63, 65, 69, 72, 79, 113, 137 and 138). From the reference on p. 63 we understand that Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka also used the word in the same sense. On p. 65, Abhinavagupta describes Rasa to be of the nature of Camatkāra. Kuntaka uses the word in the same sense. The Agni purāṇa equates the Caitanya of the Ātman, Camatkāra and Rasa. (Ch. 339, S'l. 2).

Abhinavagupta's pupil Kṣemendra, whose brain went on many a refreshing and original line, made an approach to poetry through this Camatkāra in one of his small but interesting works, the Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa. The third Sandhi of this work is called Camatkāra kathana and here, Kṣemendra analyses the points of Camatkāra in a poem into ten.

तत्र दशविधश्रमकार:-अविचारिरमणीय:, विचारीतरमणीय:, समस्तसूक्तव्यापी, सूक्तैकदेशहृदय:, शब्दगत:, अर्थगत:, शब्दार्थगत:, अलङ्कारगत:, रसगत:, प्रख्यातवृत्तिगतश्च ।

K. K. A. Kā·yamālā Gucchaka IV. p. 129

270

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ASTRA

But the first regular Poetics-treatise to make the Camat-kāra-approach is the Camatkāra candrikā of Vis'ves'vara, protege of Simhabhūpāla (c. 1330 A.D.)1. This work opens with the statement that Camatkāra is the Sahṛdaya's delight on reading a poem and that the ‘Ālambanas’ of this Camat-kāra in a poem are seven, viz., Guṇa, Rīti, Vṛtti, Pāka, S'ayyā, Alañkāra and Rasa.

चमत्कारस्तु विदुषामानन्दपरिवाहकृत् ।

गुणं रीति रसं वृत्तिं पाकं शय्यामलङ्कृतिम् ।

ससैतानि चमत्कारकारणं ब्रुवते बुधाः ॥

India Office MS. No. 3966.2

Vis'ves'vara classifies ‘poetry’ into three classes on the basis of the nature of the Camatkāra. The three classes are Camat-kāri (S'abda citra), Camatkāritara (Artha citra and Guṇibhūta vyañgya) and Camatkāritama (Vyañgyapradhāna).

In A.D. 1729, Hariprasāda, son of Māthura mis'ra Gan-ge'sa, wrote his Kāvyāloka (Peterson's III Report, pp. 356-7) in seven chapters. He solved the problem of poetry in a straight and simple manner by taking his stand on Camatkāra which he called the ‘soul’ (Ātman) of poetry.

विशिष्टशब्दरुपस्य काव्यस्यात्मा चमत्कृति: ।

उत्पत्तिभूमि: प्रतिभा मनागत्रोपपादितम् ॥

1 This Vis'ves'vara must be distinguished from the author of the Alañkāra kaustubha who flourished in the beginning of the 18th cent. The Camatkāra candrikā is not yet published, and on the basis of its MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental Library, (R. 2679), I published a study of it in the Annals of the BORI, XVI, i-ii, pp. 131ff.

2 The introductory verses in the India Office MS. of the C. C. are not found in the Madras MS.

CAMATKĀRA

271

It is again on the basis of this Camatkāra that Jagannā-

tha gives his most comprehensive definition of poetry in his

Rasa gaṅgādhara. Camatkāra, he says, is the supermundane,

artistic delight brought about by the contemplation of Beauty,

and poetry is such verbal expression as is the embodiment of

an idea conveying such Beauty.

रमणीयार्थप्रतिपादकः शब्दः काव्यम् । रमणीयानां च लोकोत्तर-

ह्लादजनकज्ञानगोचरता । लोकोत्तरत्वं चाह्लादगतात् चमत्कारापरपर्याय:

अनुभवसाक्षिको जातिविशेषः ॥

ADDENDA

I

LAKṢANAS

SĀGARANANDIN ON LAKṢANA

P. 28.—Sāgaranandin, author of the Nāṭakalakṣaṇaratna-

kośa (edn. M. Dillon, Oxford, 1937) speaks of the Lakṣaṇas in

two places in his work, first in lines 1464–1729 and then in

lines 1734–1852. In the first context, he speaks of these as

Lakṣaṇas, gives thirty-six of them and follows the Anuṣṭubh

recension. The text enumerating these follows that in the

Kāśī edn. of the N. S’., except for a disorder from verse one,

pāda four, to end of verse two. On the function and nature of

Lakṣaṇas, Sāgaranandin gives the simile of the Cakravarttin

and his Sāmudrika Lakṣaṇas which bespeak his sovereignty,

and adds to it a further comparison of the Lakṣaṇas to other

good qualities with whose help a king attains to the state of

an emperor.

When he begins the enumeration Sāgaranandin says :

‘तान्यमूनि लक्षणानि नामत एवाहु भरताचार्यः’

a remark which may give rise to the suspicion that, according to him,

Bharata's text originally contained only an enumeration and

not definitions also: the definitions which follow in the

274 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

Nāṭakalakṣaṇaratnakoṣa are the same as those found in the Kāśī text of the N. S'. For Pṛcchā and Sārūpya, Sāgaranandin notes a second definition with the words ' अन्यस्त्वाह '.

It is interesting to note that it is while dealing with the first Lakṣaṇa called Bhūṣaṇa, which is defined as " being adorned with plenty of Alañkāras and Guṇas ", Sāgaranandin gives his brief treatment of the Alañkāras, Svabhāvokti, Upamāna etc., and the ten Guṇas, S'leṣa etc. according to Daṇḍin.

In the second context referred to above, lines 1734—1852, Sāgaranandin takes Bharata's statement ' सालङ्कारं तु नाटकम् ' and says that though Upamā etc. are the generally accepted Alañkāras, there are still others which are called Nāṭakālañ-kāras; and he gives here 33 Nāṭakalankāras, some of which pertain to the Upajāti-list of Lakṣaṇas in Bharata and the rest are found in the lists of Bhoja and S'āradā-tanaya and in Vis'vanātha's list of Nāṭakālañkāras.

The Nāṭakalakṣaṇaratnakoṣa shows that when Vis'vanātha gives a separate set of 33 items under the name Nāṭakālañ-kāra, he is following Sāgaranandin or one whom the latter followed or one who followed the latter.

As has been pointed out above on p. 32, footnote one, Mātṛgupta is the earliest writer now known to speak of Nāṭyālañkāras, in addition to Lakṣaṇas.

The next writer now known to do so is Sāgaranandin.

The lists of Nāṭakālañkāras in Sāgaranandin and Vis'va-nātha tally, except in two cases : in the place of Ahañkāra and Guṇānuvāda of Sāgaranandin, Vis'vanātha has Utprāsana and Upadeṣana.

At the end of the illustration of these 33 Nāṭakālañkāras, Sāgaranandin says that these are Alañkāras which exclusively pertain to the Nāṭaka, i.e., the first type of drama, as its own

ADDENDA

275

Alaṅkāras; but a poet may add to the Nāṭaka other Alaṅkāras also. What are these other Alaṅkāras ? They are 57, the 27 Aṅgas of the Śilpaka, the 10 Aṅgas of Bhāṇa, the 13 of Vīthī, and the 7 of the Bhāṇikā.

एवमस्य नाटकस्य स्वकीयाङ्गैरैश्वर्यलक्ष्मीशोभालङ्कारा: । अन्येषामप्यज्ञातेऽन्यालङ्कारत्वेन एतस्य कविभि: कार्याणि । तथथा—शिल्पकस्य उत्कण्ठादि सप्तविंशतिरअङ्गानि, भाणस्य गेयपदादि दश, वीथिकाया: उद्धात्यादि त्रयोदश, भाणिकाया विन्यासादि सप्त । एवं सप्तपञ्चाशदप्यज्ञाति नाटके᳚ऽप्युद्घाटने कार्याणि ।

Sāgaranandin, lines 1852-57.

This places Nāṭakālaṅkāra on a par with Sandhyāṅga, Lāsyaṅga and Vīthyāṅga,—several thematic points which go to form and enrich the composition.

II

SVABHĀVOKTI

Pp. 101-2.—Regarding Dr. De's observation quoted here that it is Svabhāvokti “when words are used in the ordinary manner of common parlance, as people without a poetic turn of mind use them ”—

it must be pointed out that no Ālaṅkārika gives such a definition of Svabhāvokti. See pp. 93, 96, 103, 106, 111-4, where I have emphasised that Svabhāvokti is not a bald or ordinary statement, but that it has also got to be 'striking'.

276 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAÑKĀRA S'ĀSTRA

III

RĪTI

A

P. 131-2.—Regarding Bāṇa's verse on the literary habits distinguishing writers of the different parts of India,—शेषप्रायम-

दीच्येषु etc.—

compare Kātyāyana's remark on the subject of provinces and metres :

‘शार्दूलवीलिता प्राच्येषु मन्दाक्रान्ता च दक्षिणे’ ।

quoted by Abhinavagupta in his Abhinavabhāratī, GOS, II, p. 246.

B

P. 147-9.—Regarding Rājas'ekhara's high praise of the Vaidarbhī Rīti and his mention of Mādhurya and Prasāda as its essential Gunas, on which both his Kāvyamīmāṃsā and Bālarāmāyaṇa have been quoted by me—

the following may also be quoted on the same subject from Rājas'ekhara's Viddhasālabhañjikā—

अहो हद्या वैदर्भी रीति: । अहो माधुर्यमपयांसम् । अहो निष्प्रमाद:

प्रसाद: ।

Act I. p. 40. Jīvānanda Vīdyāsāgara's edn.

IV

AUCITYA

P. 208.—Lollata's verse that Yamaka, Anuloma etc., are undesirable, यमकानुलोम *** गडोरकादिप्रवाहो वा ॥

ADDENDA

277

this is quoted, with mention of Lollaṭa's name, also by Jayamaṅgalācārya, in his Kavisikṣā. See Peterson's I Report, App. I, p. 79. The text is corrupt as printed there.

V

NAMES OF SKT. POETICS

A