Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
-H"1--:^^^
Uhc Bepavtnient
DANDIN'S KAVYADARSA
PARICHCHHEDA
KDITfiD
IT
WITH A NKW
S,
K.
BELVALKAlt,
i'ROFE?.^nR
M.
UANGACHAliYA
.v.,
OF SANSKRIT,
^egH, Peon
SriASTRI,
B.
RADDI.
VIDYABHUSHANA,
m
m
Mm
Bombay
no. LXXV.
1920
Price Onp Rupee and Four Annas
'
Kavyadarsa of Dandin
NOTES
PARICHCHHEDA
II
1006916
PARICHCHHEDA
II
Notes to II. 1 (i) Compare Note (i) to i. 10. Kavya, according to Dandin, is ^^o^cjf^^i q^[T^ that is to
say, he gives more prominence to the word-element in
poetry as compared with the sense-element. This does
not mean that the Gunas which are the sine qua non
must belong
clusively
^^,
exsubordinate elements of
own
decorations.
Thus there
distinct function
is
of the
^Tt^nf^OT^c^
from
cf^^:
ST^^PR^tT^, p.
20
Compare
II
Mammata*s a^55f^ ^:
^sm^ q^
II
same
thing.
KavyUdaria
ii.l
(iii)
with
in the theory,
it
an
68
and
in-
way
in full
swing
was
and he seems to have been anxious
rather to give an epitomized statement of the principal
results arrived at than to add his own quota to the
process of amplification. In fact he has even had to
reject some of the Alaihkaras recognised by his predecessors (cp. ii. 358-359 and notes thereon).
of progressive division and subdivision
;
Notes to II 2 (i) The fundamenta divisionis of the Alaihkaras have been variously stated in different texts.
The simplest division into ^i^^ and 3T^^, even after
the addition of a third class of ^svppT^, proved quite inadequate. It is however given by the 3<fi^Ji<l'J|, and most
elaborately by Bhoja. It was soon found necessary to
introduce various subclassifications based on the psychological principle involved in the process, or on
some such underlying peculiarity. Similarity, identity,
contrast
causation, word-grouping, lokavyavahara
Rasa, Rhetoric, Technicality these were some of the
principles of classification accepted. Compare, for
instance, the Alamkarasarvasva, and particularly the
following list based upon the Prataparudrlya (pp. 338339) [wherein the Alaihkaras not recognised by Dandin
are shown in square brackets ]
.
based on ST^^sn^-
^^f^",
=3^W,
5r^,
^TNT^;
69
Notes
ii.2
^^,
f^^TR^r,
^5[m, [r^WtH,
[
basd on
]
hK'J|^lc?il,
52rMt%, ^^[m,
w^,o?^^\l
on ^^rr^r
^^R,] based on >2^^["i^53T
ST^TPclT^^^rm, based
tr^^ost, ^loJI^IM^,
^Rr^tf%i,
It
^lo^ki^-, ar^JTR,
fft^Sff, ]
based on
^rq^q
and
classificatory
become
inadequate, as there would always remain some Alairikaras recognised by rhetoricians and falling outside
Thus of the 35 or rather 34 Alarhkaras
their scoperecognised by Dandin the following 14 are not includ-
3q^,
^-
and
^,
v5;^f^^,
'rf'^tTFJ,
Vm,
^^,
^,
5TT^: (not to
assert itself.
and
it
SR^Tift^
Thus Hemachandra
as distinct
will be seen,
Bhamaha.
are
Udbhata's Kavyalamkarasarasamgraha
is
ii.
2 ]
KavyndaHa
70
Sutras of Sauddhodani)
(p.
lays
29)tr^ g^iqfeKT^t^ ^
=^Tq\
stating further
(p.
38)
Who
mind
it is difficult
and as
to
the
^it<i4s
On
this
enumerates,
^11^, and
Notes to
(ii)
to
i. 2.
amongst
frPc[^^Tft,
II;.
the
71
[il.5
Notes
some of the later Alamkarikas to preface their treatment of the Alamkaras by a few mnemonic verses
but some writers, e. g.
of their own composition
Mammata, have not obliged their would-be students
in this manner; and just as in the case of Mammata
a commentator has added a versified enumeration at
;
We
names.
to believe
that
Acharya Dandin could not have avoided such solecisms and ambiguities if he had meant it.
(ii) Vibhavana is often rendered as Presumption,
but that is a name that we must reserve for ^TsfrrfrTt
which ^?t^ and others recognise as a distinct figure-ofspeech or as Peculiar Causation. It is rather an
Possibly
'
of the figure
'
The
Bhamaha
with
Notes to II 5 (i) The second half of this staza is identiWe have already
cal with Bhamaha iii. 1, first half.
commented upon the name 'Lava*. Later Alamkftrikas make a distinction between the figure called
.
ii.5
Kdvyadaria
W^ (which
figure
72
is
^TTTTfl^
Ruyyaka,
Vis-
the figure
-H^^lf^d
named
Notes to II. 6
others,
Notes to II
Intuition.
^thr!^,
p. 35)
10-12)
Compare
73]
[ ii.8
Notes
The first question that has to be determined in regard to this figure is whether a mere photographic
faithfulness to the object under description is what is
demanded.
Can we for instance regard the following
from VTRi (ii. 94)
On
at
any
seems
to
some of the
would be demanded
it
When
says
the question
(p.
in the
was actually
177)^ ^^g^^^fwM
^IT^JspR:
rTT%
^%
^ ^^^^^':^ It
was the ^srfcRRT^fJTwt ^^s^JT^ that alone came legitimately under the province of this Alamkara. Hence
the ^nffc^T^ says (x. 93) ^q^rttfrfilgT^^^f^rF^^^
^JT5ZR^5^iT^:^r^l
?ff| cTc]^^JT52R%T5r5T
figure
is
Mammata was
perhaps
10
as
KlTyidartaj
figure ?=^^7Rt%.
ti.
KavyMaria
74
^^
5r#T:
19),
(ii)
The tendency
of
most writers
is
to
make
short
for,
with this figure, which is rather a pity
apart from simile and other embellishments, there is
a considerable skill involved in the process of observation and the subsequent operation of chosing the details
and marshalling them out in an effective order. It is
the presence of this very skill in a pre-eminent degree
which makes those long descriptive passages in writers
like Scott such fascinating reading.
Not that there
is no nature-description in Sanskrit poetry poets like
Kalidasa and Bhavabhuti and the Epics above all
contain many a descriptive passage that can stand
comparison with the best in other literatures but
quite as often the description has been vitiated by the
intrusion of the subjective factor and a penchant for
pretty turns and quaint conceits which lend an unpleasant artificiality to the whole. Primitive poetry
depends for its effect almost exclusively upon SvabhS-
shrift
vokti.
(iii) There are two figures more or less allied to
Svabhavokti that have to be distinguished from it.
The figure :3^T^ (below, ii. 300) aims also at a description, but its object is some exalted personage or extra*
ordinary eminence of some sort, whereas it is die*
75
[ii.U
Notes
thictly laid
down
(Bhoja,
iii.
8) gj^w^^^^^^^^pfil
For
fur-
to
364ff
Bharata (Natyasastra
Agnipurana
^mr
Udbhata
xvi. 42)
(344. 6)
=^:?^^5rfrfrT?2f^fTT^(
in the
Vamana
(ii.
%%ctj^
ii
Kavyalamkarasamgraha
Rudrata (Kavyalarhkara,
Bhamaha
? )
viii. 4)
30)
(Kavyalamkarasiitra, IV.
ii.
1)
(P. 16)
UpamS
ii.
14]
Kavyadaria
Bhoja (Sarasvatikanthabharana,
Ruyyaka
(P.
Mammata
(x.
iv.
76
5)^
25)
1)
Vagbhatalamkara
(iv. 50)
Vagbhata (Kavyanusasana,
P. 33)
Hemachandra (Kavyanusasana,
Vidyadhara (Ekavali,
viii.
P. 239)
2)
Vi^vanatha (Sahityadarpana,
x. 14)
Appayyadikshita (Chitramlmansa, P.
Jagannatha (Rasagangadhara,
6)
P. 157)
Visvesvara ( Alamkarakaustubha, P.
4)
finitions of the
and that it
hold in respect of any conceivable aspect or
aspects of the two things to be compared. This neces-
may
77
[ ii.l4
Notes
in the definitions
^fp;F% (^WT^T qi^
W^ ^WWt
gn^q", as also
some
cT^Tt^^:) for
the simpler
w^
We
figures as based
upon
that relation
The
^i^^-^h^ft:"^
in these figures
is
ii.
14
Kavyadaria
78
Upama
the Alamkarasastra.
highest
cp.
eminent
^ Wl %i^ 5^
30.
(vii.
3)
The two
cp,--|g<fr'iTT5qqT5^4^RT?i(i, 113.15),
or pre-
word
of the
5. 1. 5).
4, iii. 15f.)
^T^TT,
5iTT,
3TT,
^m^ he says
<!^\M^\ ^ 3^
^i^\:^^
^^Mt^
(iii.
JT^T^T^
^\
Then he gives
^r^ ^
^fM^
^Rt^ ^[^mm
st^ttPt
^'WT
W^W^ ^
^n\
>^#Frrg-it^^
f*R^:
i_
Viii. 2-40
fe#Wr
fflr4J
\^^
and W<Ttq?TT:=3T#Wr%:
( ii.
5lf%tjq^
iT^%
^^\
),
);
^^(i.
sf^:
);
);
35-10
V. 78-8
45.3)
fc^TRTH^
).
^:
rl^ 2nf%
^^,
iii.
18,
fq#^5q>?r="^c^N^^,
of Vedic
^^
mythology
^5fTq%
vii. 13);
in general
(sfTf
ii.
^ 3^%q^ Whn^qwWt
16).
79
Iii.
Notes
\i
w^
MimSnsakas
(sr^^^JRMTR
=^
tft^:, iii. 3
^5R373ii^?R3^ ficfRT^
His example is
defines
'
Govt. ms.
fol.
390) observes
:ftlf^ftrf^ ^f^5SP5T%f^
Bhamaha's criticism
^K^^ TifbT^:
same vein, no matter whether it
Dandin or some other writer
i
( ii
is
N^^RiciT
37 f. ) is in the
directed against
il.
KavyUdaria
14
It
has
be
to
80
Dandin
(
^:5HT ?
),
viz:^,
^, q^^^q^,
SRmr, ^7^,
chf?qdl,
RM<id,
R^,
3TR2R, ^^^T,
Mammata
344. 7-9
%^
The
varieties called
and 5i^T are even mentioned
and illustrated by Bharata himself ( xvi. 48 ff. ),
though neither Bharata nor the Agnipurana mentions
the
arrf^^cqm^TJTT,
the
main butt
of attack.
The author
varieties of
Jsqpj (xi. 3)
in the
the speaker
ST^ft^ft^^T it^TFr:
).
we
will
now
exhibit in a tabular
form
81
Notes
ii.
14
.13
r-H
4r
- T
tn
(V
I
T3
CO
r-t
XT
T3
IU
CO
45
a-
tr-
clE
I
OQ
/ft?
E
CO
-I
11
ESvySdar^a]
/tt?
Kavyadaria
ii.l4
82
made
place
to contain 7
more
which
in the first
is
varieties, 3
^^
For
known
as Trr^flT and
^^%q^
are
The
f.
varieties
sub-varieties under
1pu iT^j^%f^^ ^
(x)
For
Bhoja
details see
p.
iv
20
ff.
129 quotes a
from
^^
similarity
is
not
^^jsrra"^.
poet's imagination.
Compare
W^^m
^rf\^^\^^^^\z\\^^^J^[^m\o^^^:
He
has in fact
as
Notes
ii.
16
many
given
where the
w^^
Notes to II. 15 (i) This and the next variety have been
thus defined in the Agnipurana (344. 10)
The point
).
tences as in
^rqr
^^^ 3TRTTg
3TJ#^ =^ 3TT^5(J^5Tf^
In the latter case we
sometimes have what is called the ^^^Sff^^^TR (^^
^^TT5ffl^3Tfe
'^^ iq=hi'^^l^i^Ml^M*<)
S^^MI^NM^) as
and
^Ji^
as in -^bW^ri^idm
in3TJ:^it^ ^FT^W
^fTff3qt:^T%^ =^rnfr^fi^
^^ m ^ where ^
f^
and
srfrrf^
w^
Notes to
II,
ples of
16
Jagannatha would
(i)
^^?crRT.
call
this
The first line gives two separte examIf we were to read the line ^[T^ ^
ti.
16
Kavyadaria
^^ (Loc.
cT
kind of
case)
cfic^^jjl^^i
JT^4)<lft4 it
illustrated in
84
ii. 45.
It is so
^jqrrr.
the
Agnipurana
(ii)
(344. 12)
This f^t^FTT
is to
where
it is
called RqOdlWI.
be distinguished from
f^F?^qJTT
Notes to
30
and
II.
18
( ii.
5lid^'4lM44l
34
S5
tii.l8
Motes
%q^
This variety
(ii)
figure called
is
^^^tq^ by
p.
later Alarhkarikas.
67
It
has
iv.
23
In mJTtqTTT
iii
ly made.
is
Here
it
( ii.
is
^t^lkd<<>iJ^-S4*
(
iv
and
'^>^
Bhamaha
it is
ST^K^l^,
recognises
176).
riM^^riftq^l
as a distinct figure
feel
the case of
359
all
of
W^^, ^If
which are
>^M^I^q^,
and
^^TR^
figures admitted
Notes to
II.
21
(i)
number
of those are
the ^3Wr^ a
number
of distinct
common
qualities are
Notes to II
fails to
(ii) This variety is not recognised by the Agnipurana, unless we choose to identify it with what the
Purana styles
o^rf^^^Tq^
which
is
13)-
The Agnipurana, be
87
(ii.
Notes
24
Dandin who does it can only be supposed to have distinguished between atfcT^pfrwT and o^Td^* in the manner
above indicated.
good example of this variety is
p.
30
Notes to II. 23 Dandin seems to have been alone in recognising ^^%^q?Tr as a sub-variety of Upama. We have
already indicated in a general way ( cp. Note (x) to
Utpreii. 14 ) the distinction between ^f|T and ^^.
ksha may be said to be more particularly concerned
with that human faculty which, Shakespeare tells us,
" bodies forth the forms of things unknown and gives to
airy nothing a local habitation and a name. " In a
regular Utpreksha it is the actual ^TTJ^ between the
^^H^ and the W{^[^ or some aspect connected with it
that
is
us there
s^fTcq-
poetically conceived.
is
ject of assertion.
The
^^^
comes
in only second-
the poetic fact of the stanza could have been expressed without bringing in the 'bragging of the Moon' :
arily
The introduction
of the bragging
24
explains-
2r^cj^^jff%^?3f-
Notes to II
(i) ;3f^,
as the
(ii) This variety has been admitted by the Agnipurana and is thus defined (344. 16)
ii.
24]
Kavyndaria
88
To
As
a peer.
variety
is
3T:^cRTr
%^qT^^
the
consisting not in
^q^Ti:
is
<s{:^:
see
ii.
38,
below.
( ii ) Adbhutopama is to be distinguished from Abhutopama and from Asambhavitopama; and the distinc-
ST^Wr the
presumptive ^^^[^
ft^t^s cannot
coexist with the ^M, but rather a single simple
which is nowhere to be met with in nature, as for instance the concentrated essence of the charms of all
tion
is
is
lotuses
In
rather subtle.
not
R?m'J|Rl?l^4^5
cp,
^sqrrR^
36
).
wherein
the
^^ ^^^MJ4M^ ^^HT5[^icTct^r^
In 3T^IKdlH^I
it
is
not the
(iii) The wr^rwi as recognised by w^ and the Agnipurana ( which merely quotes "^^ ) comes most near to
Bharata thus illustrates it (xiv. 51)
3T?^^tq?n.
89
mtes
ii.
25
Bhoja's illustration
3{:^[^}tq3TT.
o3ft^ etc
the verse
is
^^ ^rf^
^^^\
is to
In ^^Rtqrrr
(ii
is
struck by the
he perceives
If
is a real perception, in
preceded by a moment of doubt or
hesitation, in the latter by one of actual blunder.
the former
(iii)
it
is
w^
just considered
must be based upon ^r?^. If the doubting or the blundering is the result of normal causes mentioned in
12
Kavyadarsa
'
ii,
25
Kavyadarsa
dO
the result cannot be an ^^mi- It goes without saying also that the ^\^^ ought to be ^FJ^rfcnm^l^T.
The
(iv)
4l^^^l of
rise to
two
in-
^5[TPcRl^ and
dependent Alaihkaras of later writers
Ullekha might be said to be a ^TT^JTWr^ and is
^3^^.
thus defined by
(p. 270)ir^j^
f^ftrT^^TRI^^j iJ{
The common property berj,ft<^'=hi^'hK4 JT^ cT^^'
tween the ^m^ii and the 3miM which has been the source
but it can be
of the error is not stated in the example
:
^^
wm^
'
i'
'
stated also
And
compare
this circumstance
makes
it
clude under
^mM
^ffl^^^'JI
x 89-90.
.
^m
while f^^^TRT
is
Visvanatha's
is
Of
ft^WwT.
ft^sfT^j^jK
^^q^
As
is
(ii)
From
decessors of
ii.
358 below
Bhamaha
it
did
'
91
Note^i
pendent
Now Bhamaha
figure.
iii.
ii.
30
il-
42-43)
Notes
II.
varieties
differ
from
vqiJft^T
ii
15
?^ 3t4#^ ^rJ^3T^
therefore both of
^TS3[^fi^).
them
The two
varieties can
who gives
Notes to II 30-31
.
(i)
:3^qTfR
in respect of that
common
quality.
The
ii.
30
Kavyadarsa
between the
^q^TT^
9^
represented
about pre-eminence in
(ii.
In fti^^qHT the
33).
as still undecided in ^^T^frRT
to
the common
claim of the ww^ is allowed in regard
quality, but certain extraneous facts are adduced (e.g.
which should lower it and
^|^^5j^, ^RRTlf^^, etc. )
also in our estimation. In 5lf^consequently the
34 ) the ^q?TR is represented as fighting a for^^qr^TJTT ( ii
lorn fight for regaining its normal pre-eminence in resthis quality
is
^^
pect of the
common
quality.
ii.
180.
From
these
it
=^^r:
when he says
5r?ffTT:
What
sion
is
right
%^^^Jl
therefore ^JTRfTT^r^^r
as the ^nT%5
observes. Dandin however seems to have taken a
different view of the case.
Whether he was the first
to do so is however difficult to decide. The f^J^tqJTT as
defined and illustrated in the
near to the srfcl^^qJTT ( ii. 34 )
Alamkarasekhara comes
;
93
Notes
is3T#W^T^ ft^^^
tion
Notes to
32
II.
other
See
5ffcT%^:
note
^T
(vii) toii.
ii.
37
illustra-
14 above. Because no
to us
Vamana
except
3TTM^^-JI<flM^l
The
(1) to ii, 30 above.
must be admitted comes nearwe can possibly distinguish them from
srfcT^TtqffT it
oi|[cK'^;
the degree of
is
^JTPcT
the point at
srfd^MlMJ^T
or 3Tr^[^?Fc^
the
common
possess
w^
The name
=^^3qr
between
Notes to
II.
(h'JI^Im^I
it.
For
37 Dandin
uses both
qj^r
( i
dis-
the distinction
(i)
to
53,95
ii. 25.
and ^B^T
Sanskrit
ii.
37
KWvyadarm
^fj^^TTJ^.
94
The word
^fj^
is
Vedic,
ii. 2.
illustrates
it (iii.
44-45)
Vamana
( iii )
(iv. 3. 14.)
As sf^i^lqiii
in
results in f|cft2W?2^2IT%^.
ii,
18 3TH?i
is
^^
the verse
H'^i=rid
5nT% 5^J-f|^JRTf^^Ti^fq
(ii.276)
^ ^^s^?i^f^
variety.
3Tcq?:3T^t%T
o^:s^^
observes
constitute
ii
f%
?ft<
p-
42
an example of this
95
itotes
ii.
40
iv
ST5r
This however
is
(p. 174).
Notes to II
(ii)
to
ii
In regard
has been well
24 above.
Notes to II 40 ( i )
Bharata already
Compare Note
tells
Here of course,
tion is
^^^
Now
made
to
( i )
to
ii
21 above.
us (xvi. 43)
in order are
ge^
ct
and ^r
^rsTT:
most primitive form, the distincdepend upon whether the ^l;^\^ or the
#T^ff'iW^T?Tt g^raj:
in its
ii.
-40
Kavyadarsa
itself to
common
quality,
96
show
off
the poet*s
Notes to II. 42 See Note (i) to ii. 40 above. The illustration in the text is based upon identical ^ETn^iR'Jnrf; but
this is not essential. With f*i7(^rpqTWT4 a good example
of Jrr^M^l is the familiar stanza
TTT^
l^ ft^ %!%
Apparently
alone
is
ft^^
pp. 146
ff.
^TfWT'*^^ pp.
181
II
II
ff.
and
s{c5^<-
97
[ ii.45
N'otes
Notes to
43-45
By
(i)
^^
Dapdin seems
cfi^
to
have
all its
31^^ri%^
is
^jq^rrs
as
Hence
^l^Hl^ifN^r.
^^^
it is
shown below
iiM^M\
Pl^q>*^cfi
W^
is
q^qifefT
*ii^\i^m
m^m^m^
3?!%^ =
ii.
^^
pair.
(ii) In
the two examples of ^r^pqT#-l?Tr given by
Dandin the ^flT^^ between the various pairs of ^^qiTRrs
and ^3q^s in each is clearly felt although not actually
expressed. But it is not absolutely necessary that
there should be this ^^^^n^^cfT everywhere. The 3T^cjjt^^^ cites the following where there is
W^^m^^---
^^
13
KBvyldar^a]
ii.
45
Kavyadaria
98
It is
i
m^ Jf^^TRTT
tT^
(ii) The following quotation from 5rrt*8 Alaihkarasarvasvavimarsini (p. 28) is illuminating as to the
to be
temporarily identified
^^
f|
^W^
f^ujict^
sd^-
99
Notes
(iii)
ii.49
^^nf|
^m
^^w
ii.l69
<=l^'d<W<^%%
5T5f[f^-c}^
^^^^7^^
clc^*'-^R^Tr5j^%q:^?rrri;
ff
Tc^'^'JtV
v.
l. )
^c^wn
In other
^^
of devices
and divides
(iv. 34)
?^l'dlRtr. smrfrff:
STRT^^r^ ^
11
ii.49
Kavyndaria
100
ge^Rtf't^T
to
We
gq^
51^^
or the
wm
^c^q^il^ldT
like that of
Pl*HlH'=r
3T5n^^%jjHi^
plicit (p.
(ii)
(ft^cTT^rt
^i^^'-
Udbhata
is
60)
If this
^^^pft^ftqJTT
qr).
and
statement of
the
^JpjWtrTT is correct
difference
it
between
^m as
it is
w^
(p.
^m
m^
<^
101
[ii.50
Notes
fines
it
(ii.
<>T^lci'=bl<.
(iii)
which
97ff.)
is
We
Dandin probably must have made between 3?5r^t%RTr and 5^3pftPtcTT but writers who do not
admit this ^^^\ variety have defined ^o^JRtRrlT in terms
that Dandin might have reserved for 5^?Rt%nTT. The
definition of Bhamaha is (iii. 26)
tinction that
That of Ruyyaka
That
of
Vamana
(p.
70)
(iv. 3.
26)
for
which his
illustration is
STTfcI^^fTf^T^RT fqRJg^
ERR ^
(iv)
go^^jft'TiWr
m^
m^
not think that the fact of the ^7?^^ being ^fP^ in the
one (^ gc^) and ^^:^^ in the other would have been
adduced by Dandin as the additional distinctive
feature.
ii.
50]
Kavyadaria
102
between the same ^jq^^T and ^sq^R while in the example before us a number of ^s are adduced to bring
out the ^TTJ^ between one and the same ^qfr^r and a
series of ^JTRs with which it is to be compared.
As
;
in
^|W
(ii.
40) or Jn^tqirr
(ii.
m^
than one.
^s
II. 51-56
(i) Like 3^s the
have been most
elaborately treated by Indian Alamkarikas. They have
Notes to
The extra
line in
ii.
56 which
we have enclosed
number
verses, is clearly
103
[ii.66
^otes
The colophon ^g'7TlT=^^ (and other similar coloto mark the conclusion of the treatment of an
alarhkara with a number of subdivisions) is generally
(iii)
phons
synonyms
^w
^ and
substitution of
and other small variWe have ignored the variants and have generally
ants.
followed best Ms. authority in giving the colophons or
like
omitting them.
66 (i) The name of this figure is thus explained 3T^ 5 %Rft ;3qTrRf[19[^rf?^) fwt ( 5T^cT5^^J^) ^^"^'^ ^^^
^^ aT?^5TTf^^5^ ^^^^^^ Rupaka has to be carefully dis-
Notes to II
tinguished from
^^^
(especially
the varieties of
it
from
(ii. 221), and from sm|f^
^M^I^rfxfT (ii. 214), from
amongst alamkaras recognised by Dandin
(ii. 304)
and from qf^WTTf, ^^^, wf^H^and^3^ amongst alamkaras not recognised by Dandin. The various definitions of WW* given by alarhkarikas (we quote a few of
the more important of them below) are an attempt
merely to sharpen the outline of the figure with a view
Thus Bharata (xvi. 57) defines
to this differentiation.
the figure as under
205),
^^
Bhamaha
^B^TT^frff (ii.
(ii.
21)
li
66 ]
ICavyadaria
Udbhata
(p.
^'il-^lrl
(viii. 38,
Vamana
(iv. 3. 6)
(iv.
Ruyyaka
40)
24)
(p. 34)
Vidyanatha
We
104
9)
Rudrata
Bhoja
(p.
371)
in the Sanskrit
Commentary.
f^^ti^T^T.
one asserts their identity either because he erroneously believes in their identity (cp ^t^FWT and the remarks made in our Notes to ii. 25 regarding wf^RHL
and ^^); or because he wants purposely (poetically
speaking) to deceive some one (e. g. in 3Tq^T%, cp. our
Notes to ii. 95 also) or because he is himself in doubt
;
(e. g. ?3^TqtqTrr
^^Hii is
105]
[ ii.
Notes
one name
As the
that of
5rdiH<:.j{i2f
(p.
the ^hwft
is
371) trenchantly
<l4 m^rf^'^TRJ^
f^^
66
remarks^fT^^
to which we might
f^GRf^^ff^nift^^r'-^^T^HR:
arfcRT^fm
Regarding
our last statement it will be noted that Dandin*s conception of 3Tici<il4)Rh is somewhat different from the one
given above after the manner of
but on this
point see our Notes to ii. 214.
^qSflcllTh^i
f^f^'JTr
RTi^TcW'--3T^r^:
w^
As
may
to the rest, it
14
KavySdarsa
ii.
66
Kavyadarsa
A ^flmtfxFi (see
106
^P^sfj^
rl^^T
^3c^S3^
ii.
5i^
in a
^TTTT^fxfJ
W^, and
the
is
it
superimposition
Cp. on the point ^if^Q4<M'J|
or
tion
Ic^TTg:
is
(p.
534) ^;q%
3<'^tciH,3TRfl^^^-
to
ii.
205.
^^
must transfer
its
^ completely
must
to the eye or
^.
The
an
or
5Ri?ic^
cannot become a
common
property re-
new
the
^^
is
transferred its
itself
We
which the
between the
%Ct^, but the result is not that
figure in
assumed the
to the
^^,
^ of the
;3q^3f
^W^
and
^tpTH has
107
Notes
ii.
66
see.
This therefore is the figure called Tf^'JiHT. Compare the Chitramimafisa (p. 59) ^q% si^rlJ?5f^^T^^qm VRi^
In this connection it has
'^R^r^ 3 ^^"^ Vi^^WWVk Wcf
to be observed that ^^fRM^M-i (as quoted by the 3T^5^RI
^JTJTT
this
seems
(vi)
We
will consider
one
little
figure before
divisions.
upon the
by-the-word, or of both simultaneously. Says Pratiharenduraja (p, iDcT^^f^ ^^R^T: %f%^5f ^T^i<lm^4*'^I
^5q?TR3^^3T^=^TmT^ 5^1^
^^m
three varieties of
ii.
66
H'=h
^-^^M^ s
jm^)
is
Kavyadarsa
may
known
3T%iEr^
and
^M ^h^Mch
(ii.
93)
and
%s^^
(ii.
87),
108
(p.
Dandin
228) that
make
43ff. qr^^TT^
mt ^T^Tsff^ci^T^q: ^Tq^T^f^??^
?T^
RIW-
This however is regarded by the majority of Alaihkarikas as m^^^Sht. Compare the familiar example
of
it
After a long and technical discussion the 3T^=lrRt?=5*?^T^ decides against the acceptance of ^t^=2Tt4^^, the
instances quoted for it being merely those of ^^^.
See further our Notes to ii. 348.
We
the
common
^^
requirements of the
Consider for example the illustration in ii. 87.
The compound word ^^^^frr^ is to be dissolved here in
a manner so as to give more prominence to
(i. e.
figure.
^^
^^fli^n^^ according
to
109
Notes
ii.
72
w^
primarily predicable of
alone, which they are,
seeing that the senses of ^^*^ and *gfR: that suit
are only secondarily suggested and that too after an
effort.
With this important condition governing the
expression of the common property, therefore, we can
obtain for
the various sub-varieties that turn upon
q^
w^
the
manner
of expressing the
common
property.
243) ^rm^'^l'^im^^T'^'WRTT^
Jagannatha
(p.
^R-gis^TTm-."
w!^
5{^p?frT^cRrT ^tTTtT:
Says
f^f^'^^^M*il
itself.
Notes to II. 67-68" (i) The BT ^-=bK^^ l thus versifies Dandin's examples of J^^fT^^^W
It will be
^^-^jcJ^M-^i,
nature of the
Notes to
II.
Me taphor-out-of- Compound.
69-70--(i)
clcT^
rTRTf f^;^^^'^
clPR
primarily
with
q^-
ii.
70.
Notes to
ciate
^m
and
tt^Cts
with
it.
ii.
73
Kavyadaria
Notes to
II.
73-74
(i)
The compound
solved so as to result in
other
adjectives
110
^s^^J
^'^^,
as well as in
If the
^^q^.
^^^[^cJJ^, 3TT^Tf|%^Ji^
TT^T^srt %['3Tl1%
as
^^
Dandin's intentions ?
Notes to
II.
exhibited
having
^T^^q^,
upon
5T5[3rf^+
= 3T^2r%^q^,
all 3T^2fq[s
=
sntP?
ii.
70.
ii.
some
74.
3f^s
ii.
all
ii.
72.
grfi^cR
79.
3Tq^s
31^2rq^^^,
3T^-
alone
ii.
77.
srg^^qq;
ii.
78.
^^
^^
Ill
l^otes
ii.
86
3T^3T^s.
Notes to
II.
79-80 (i)
consists in the
5T^3f^s
of 5pr the
w^
^^, %^%
the
3T^q^s
In
circumstance the general impression is
that of the superimposition of the ^qR along with its
ST^^s upon the ^i^M along with its sr^^f^s, although
the correspondenc does not exist in all the details as
in a ^ch^^M^.
spite of this
Notes to II. 81-82 (i) This ^l^qni^^ can be distinguished from y^^^'-l^-h by reason of the circumstance that
in the latter it is possible to have the 3TT^ on the
ST^f^ (e. g. =^ qf^c^) independently of the sr^q^Rfqs,
which merely serve to heighten the charm of the
In the present variety the STRtq of '^^^Tc^ upon
ST^^fs^TKtq.
qr^ the 3T^i^ becomes meaningless taken by itself.
It can become plausible only if qr^ as well as the ^^i^
are taken as fq^tw%%5. The f^q'^lf^^^TT^ is a more
intimate relation than the sr^^Rlw^T^.
Notes to
II.
if
^^
for the
Notes to
|rjj7?Tr
II.
85-86
(i)
The
OTJj^tg.
and
87
ii.
Kavyadaria
112
II. 87
(i) See note (ix) to ii. 66. The sinza is omitby M. The usual explanatory stanza is lacking
in this case, regarding which the ^cTT^^TRSift observes
^m^^^ [ fmwH ] ^r^^cTT ^ 53fpc?TT^J^ This might seem
Notes to
ted
to raise a suspicion
it is
Notes to II.
follows
^^^.
own
to suit his
own explanation
of the definition
would be to
take 3TniT=the secondary or arRtft^ (moon) and 5pq" = the
actual moon. As in both the varieties illustrated in
ii. 89 and ii. 90 the g^^'^rn": is compared (or contrasted)
with the actual moon it is evident that such a comparison can only take place if and after the=^;^ is superimposed upon the face. The Wi^ must therefore already
exist and all that is done in addition is to bring out
the similarity of the i^^-^^qr: ( and impliedly but not
expressedly of the
with the actual moon in an
)
the
and
dissimilarity
between them in a
^M^IH^^^
The ^i^mii^tTt apparently so interprets
o^-^kR^^M*.
TftoftsjW^: g^: 5I>qT^'these varieties for it says
g^we
And
can accordingly take
civ^^-i ^^r^^^ %fcr
5n%^^i%=<iTTfR ^sdf^ rt^ ^?^ ^^' following again the
same commentary. For a similar use of ^TM and 5?52f
in
ii.
88.
compare
ii.
160.
(iii)
Bhamaha
accepts
defines
^jqJTT^^^
and
is
it.
illustrates
it (iii.
34-35)
113
Notes
ii.92
^^
or strange
^"Ji,
show
is nothing of the nature of a dispute or controversy between the statements of the two concerning
this figure.
It is likely therefore that the two writers
there
of the
Bhattikavya
is
illustrated
by
x.
is
composed
Amongst them
3q?TT^^^
60
Kavyadapsa]
ii.
9^
tCavyadaria
W^
on a
and serving
weaken the
to
^^,
Q^KFT
114
while a
so
is,
^rrn^TR^^'T^
an
to say,
3TT%q of
much
as the face
^^,
the
is
c|rj(,^i<|Lj
pletely justified.
own
way
ill
of the
3TT^K^-b<:^
ol
ii.
face moon.
is
moon
is
Any
^Tf^^r
deroga-
3T:=2fTOTf^
reader
93 (i) Regarding
from
the
quite
is
^c^3?t: JT^cf^#T
WVn\^ ^^>f;q^f^
It will be^observed however that
is not an 3T^3f^ of the sr^ as
was
of the
JT^^^Rtq
the
qf^
is
<S'c=iiOh
in
ii.
69, the
example
for ^ch^^Mch
The
^^^,
X.
29
'
or q<MRd^M**i and
Rupaka
variety.
115
[ ii.95
Notes
Notes to
(ii.
II.
36).
5^r?^
(ii)
called ^TqfRT
what
between the
is
called
(ii.
304-309).
In
ii.
figure of speech
309 he alludes to
name amongst
difficult
to
determine in the
first
instance whether
Dandin sees it. Now some hold that by ^qTTTT|^ Dandin means ^TT^n?g^[^77^-~^JTr^^5Tt^f^^[^[Tci; as Ca puts it.
Cp. ii. 96 also. Cb thinks that by ^3q?TNifr[ is meant
3rT|#RT or ^"^ftqJTT, adding 5iRrr|^ ^^ <U)di^mr?q^:
TT^
Premachandra explains ;3q?TPT|^- by ^IT^^^TNyf^:
and thinks that ^^rr?^3TTM^ '^4^4+.^ ^^^ ft^l^R^TN^^^^*
Cs
^^rtwr (ii. 34) is what Dandin intends in ii. 309.
also agrees in this. Now in view of the fact that in
outward form at least the ^^W} variety exemplified in
ii. 36 bears an unmistakable resemblance to any ordinary case of 3Tq^, and in view further of the fact that
the ^f^T^RtqiTT may be a judgment subsequent to a
it is not impossible
be
equally plausibly
ii.
309 Dandin might
we
case
can regard the
thinking of ii. 36. And in any
^ff^rq^cj^Mch (as
also to a
JTrftq^rr),
that in
95
ii.
Kamj(l(iaria
116
and clf^Nf^^'^j^ are quite distinct on ^the verythem no attempt need be made to distinguish
5rfcl^*'JliHWr
face of
(iii)
Tf^^^ from
the figure
QT^jfrf
Notes to
II.
96
Bhamaha
^H<*il5^*i
its
place
cp.
3{q^
says
Notes to
II.
raised.
In the first place, is it necessary that ^ro be
based upon similarity ? Bharata, Dandin, Bhamaha,
Bhoja, the author of Vagbhatalamkara, and Visva*
natha are quite silent on the point. Rudrata regards
Dipaka as a matter-of-fact {^\^^) figure and not an
Udbhata
demands
14)
3Tiqj:zT
figure.
while
Vamana (iv. 3. 18 vdMi{lHl4+l^=il<+i)^*l f^), Ruy(p. 71), Mammata (p. 775 ^ff5i%^ ^q^
yaka
explicitly
^TT^
(p.
117
lii.97
Motes
and Jagannatha (p. 322-si^JdHmi^^^ii^ri" i'^P^'-TR'Jr'-^mtdo the same thing; though Mammata, for
instance, admits a variety of ^tq^ (the so-called ^R^In as much
is not in evidence.
^q^) where the
however as every Dipaka demands one word syntactically related to more than one sentence, we can
always regard the thing connoted by that word as
the w^-, and so we need not make much of the condition about the ^v\t^ being ^^^, as Ruyyaka puts
The next issue raised is about the '^v^^ that are
it.
^\^),
?^
cfi';^?^),
w^
said to possess
the
^f^s
common
tti^
^4.
Most writers
and partly
3T5[^cT but
they must not be all either 5[^ alone or 3T5I^ alone.
This last, according to them is a case of ^wi^cTT (see
Note (i) to ii 48, above). Now Dandin is not particular on this point his examples suggest that he
admits all STfcTs (e. g. ii. 100), all srsfff^Ts (e. g. ii. 101),
and some Sficfs and some 3T5lff^s (e.g. ii. 99). Regarding the distinction between ^iq^ and ^^^ftf^t^T the
following extract from the sr^^R^st^^^ (p. 296-297)
be partly
5i|R^
may
^ ^m^\ *R^5TOT
cm ^o^tf^t-
A large
ceivable.
Jagannatha remarks
(p.
327)
11
97
Kavyadaria
118
d^4M^^-lti^
^%w^
^^fqf^
TrRi# ^TT^
^mi ^^'
mf^ ^^r%
In connection with this variety another similar gratuitous principle of sub-division (not enunciated by
Dandin) turns upon the case of the common ^3T^, and
so
we have Dipakas
and 3Tf^r^^
292
pp.
ff.
ii
109,
ii.
The
Ill,
^SR^JJ^TT^
Jayaratha remarks
5r^dMr4i--bl^^Jra#*T^T5^^Rc^TW ^T5^2TT^-
remarks
(pp. 324-325).
in
Regarding
(p. 73)-3T5r...f^rlj|iJ||
Similar
of
by Jagannatha
by our author
113 are an attempt to combine the
also
are
passed
varieties illustrated
ii.
varieties can
figure-of-speech.
^^^
relation
rather
difficult
to
establish.
f^
119
(ii.ll9
Notes
^^^^
Notes to
II.
instance in
word
^^
3Trf^^tw
first
it
distinctly, the
107 contains an s^rf^^M^-h. Since the
the common word it follows that in an
enough if it occurs somewhere in the
ii.
is
is
The variety
illustrated in
Note
(ii)
to
ii.
Premachandra
manuscripts.
(iii) The statement in ii. 115 testifies to the existence before Dandin's day of writers who gave a still
larger
number
of
Dipaka
varieties.
Bhamaha
(ii.
25)
ii.
Notes to II. 118-119 (i) The ?n^5[r^^jR called jr^ also has
words or syllabic groups repeated; but there the
ii.
119
Kavyadaria
120
Notes to II 120
.
(i).
Akshepa
of widest application.
As Jegannatha
(p.
424)
remarks-
Others
^R^'tfrf ^s3T^% R^: ^^^TT^m^^-hK:
delimit the field of this alaiiikara to the negation of
5^W^^
the
vdMijM
^r^:
alone
As Vamana
iv.
^^^T^r^lT^^ %?f^^TT%SfRfRr%"7:
3.27
,
says^qqRT#?-
as he explains the
Vamana's example
is
^^ ^
^cT ^q^Jr^^tTqTTR5iT%^^5^'3c^Tf^
seen
894)
(p.
II
^Wfrn
is
As we have
same as Dandin's
5rrftqf3[l
the
(ii. 17);
while Dandin's i^ld^lNlM-nr (ii. 34) perhaps comes nearer to the first kind. The srfrf^ ^ ^-'hK
recognised by the f5f^53rr^^'lJr%r^^ (stanza 164) is of
%prf^q3Tr
They say
conditions.
a 5rRfWtT%
The thing
even more
of
it.
puts
As
it
121
Notes
The
definitions of
most
later writers
120
ii.
are framed so as
Thus
Mammata
Visvanatha
Bhamaha
(x. 65)
(ii.
5Tr%q ^(%
It
and Udbhata
68)
t wk[:
29)
with
(p.
) 2Trr
^i
li
^^
example of
fits in
it would be a regular
all
With regard
to the
(ii)
the negation of the ^5rT'-b"#Ji* theme is usually grounded on the fact of the thing being already too well
to
q^^^fl^f^
the work
if
^c2TT%q^ =^^RT
cited.
Dandin
^^:
is
alone,
amongst extant
upon
based
3n%c3|-^.
of
q^q^fqt
It will
16 [Kavyadars^]
Ii.l20
KFivyUdaria
122
under this variety. The figureas Bhoja says, (iv, 64) ?n%r|
is
nature
%?TlH^RHi
Its
ll[Rr ^^R^TT g^?n ^
%^\
examples
(e. g. q^^fRl^^,
author's
our
of
Some
[^IcfK'Jifi^
of
Rodha
as thus
nature
of
the
primarily
ii. 123) are
pies of
Akshepa
of-speech called
fall
is,
..
understood.
(v) Howsoever understood Akshepa has to be distinguished from Virodha and from Apahnuti; and the distinction is not very difficult to make. In Virodha (see
ii. 333) there is expressed contradiction between the two
things with a view to bring out some peculiar f^tt^ of
the theme under discussion. In Akshepa with the
same intention there is a contradiction but it is
;
asserted in
its
place,
will
in
our
Notes to
Uktavishaya Akshepa
the
stanzas
the same as
The four-fold
the words of the Alamkarais
of later writers.
Vartamanakshepa
is
otherwise designated
as
f^ ^ f^
123
I ii.
jSfotes
132
^'TTr^'R^Tri^ sr^iwirfq
S^ f^^%q:
noted that
As to Bhavishyat
it is
whereas here
is
Akshepa.
(ii)
the
varieties
is
an effect of
( sr^qFr^R'^ ) as well as
), and if the principal cau^e is said
to be lacking there is nothing unusual if the result does
not follow irrespective of whether the subordinate
causes are or are not present. Consequently Premachandra's attempt to distinguish this figure from Vibhavana (which is reproduced in our Sanskrit Commentary)
The main point of the
is not very much called for.
illustration is the cool and unblushing denial oi his
fault by the lover.
fear.
of
=^^[JFT
fear
is
STsn^TR^RW
ii.
132
Kavyadaria
We
(ii)
124
this variety
R^qtfrff
in the
illustration under discussion at least the subordinate
^RWs are all there, but no effect ensues. But the gist
of the illustration
what makes
is
in
That
is
this a 5r^%*<Tr^.
in
An Akshepa
Note
ffTT^'ri
(ii)
to
5Tr%qt
ii.
But that
we
135-156 (1) In
all
extraneous ideas.
Notes to
II.
how one
identical
ir.^
Notes
ii.
im
ample of err^T which combines most of these prohibiand adds some more of its own (p. 309)
tion-varieties
Our readers
thff
end of th
(ii.
13?)
W^ [^^Jhl
Ri^^r%q:
(iv) Regarding
the illustration of 3Tc^%q (ii. 147)
Bhoja observes (p. 424) 3T?f ^r^Tfj^opc^i j% ^i^ ^q^r^^^^-
%qt
^r ^qm
(v) The two stanzas about ^J%^ (ii. 155, 156) are
Our oldest Mss. J and N
probably interpolations.
omit them, and the fact that the Madras edition takes
them before the two stanzas dealing with ^qT%q points
to the same conclusion.
The interpolated stanzas
were naturally placed at the end of a series dealing
with the same theme. We had to retain them in the
text so as not to disturb the numbering of the editio
princeps.
ii.
I5t
Kavyadaria
126
Notes to
II.
Mss J and
original copy,
copy.
Notes to
II.
varieties of
of the
preceding
gical
varieties
to
figure.
^^ and ^rm in
and the figurative
moon the explanation of the same words we gave in
our Notes t ii. 88 gains additional plausibility.
(ii)
Notes to
^^^^
as in
ii.
27,
second
line.
127
Nolei'.
--ii.
169
^fsqf;^-
a^
Notes to
169 (i) As
definition of
figures-of-speech
known
g.
is set forth,
and there
is
in the figure-of-speech
of
of
^)
yjfp)
that
known
duced the complete paraphernalia of a logical inference including the s^rrfH. Both the figures nevertheless agree in this that both
the ^^^^^ and ^tt the
objects and not statements
^m--h?4 are individual
or q^^s.
169
iU
Kavijadaria
128
3r^frcT<?2|T?T on the other is furnished by the condition that while the relation between
and %^ in first two figures is not of the nature
say
of genus-to-species or species-to-genus,
it is
invariably
that in the case of the ^ffa^q^ and the ^^^^F^^^ occurring in the latter alamkara. As Dandin does not lay
down
figures
(iii)
eT^^TTJT
We
and
^T^^f
will next
draw attention
3T^RcR?^T^
it is
always the
to the
word
sr^^c^T
Jl^cl or
is
%^T
^^
made
?[rT?Tlf^^?2TT^:
to suggest
may
of Mammata and others ( 5TSir-:Rf^q%?f Sd^^cMand that his account of 3T5i^5?T5nfr^T (ii. 340) is
^a^^SRM
qTT^q:),
Notes
see
to that figure].
129
Notes
ii.
169
it is
may
true,
but that
is
figure.
Compare
Rrf!fTl>^^
p.
35) ?f
cf^
?SRT^
and
sr4P?rR^m
Ruyyaka
viii.
79
'TW'^frj'-fi^^
by
Mammata
(p.
8D4)
and by Jagannatha
^I^MH
rIpsR^
p.
471
f^tl^'JT
^WR^n^T
^ ^\ ^JT^
cT^^T??^-
KSvySdarsa
ii.
169
Kavyadarsa
and the
We
give the
130
first
last
(vi)
sjJtlf'rT^^^W
348).
(ii.
^TRT^^rf^'^^T.
As
Compare
(ibid.) trq
=^
'ifff1<^l=Hr4^TfeT^'Jl-
Dandin's
Other principles
of division adopted are according to Bhoja ( iv. 68 )
(vii)
to
Udbhata
^5Trfq
(
X.
62
m
)
(p. 32
of
divisions
the
by
3TMF'd<"-4W
itself.
%T5^c^-
sub-variety
=^
The majority
sub -variehowever
Visvanatha tries his best to establish its existence, while the last and one of the very best incisive
comment on the same is by Jagannatha (p. 474). We
retrain from going here into the controversy.
of writers
ty.
(viii)
further varying
of this
known
An illusm^m ^
)5T5r
131]
[ ii.ltS
Notes
and
^?=?n^r
*{#T
Vikasvara
is
(verse 123);
same
figure.
between
It turns
men
of the denotation.
But the
Fate, and the proposition All
relieve suffering, are equally universal
All obey
%^^
ii,
175
itavyadaria
135i
interpretation if
of the use of
words
%^
is
in
two senses.
174.
Other sub-varieties, it is true,
paronomastic words; but in ^^"^rf^^
variety it is the most important word that is so used
Compare Cb ^u^^h<^^q- ^vfrfq^rqf ^^:
^5 sp^I^^:
is
so used in
may
ii.
use
alsp
3TMi'd<i^l^
is
evidently
were
according to
Dandin, a case of sifcf^^qr. We consequently prefer
taking the word f^^ in the sense of a good brahthe leading idea of the ;3tRt4.
the
it
would
be,
'
man \
Notes to II. 176-17-: (i) The distinctive principle underlying the last four varieties is very elusive. In ii. 176
the ^^5h^3 [ and not the ^4^BqR3 also as in ii 175
involves some one doing something impioper or
against one's nature in ii. 177 both the ^5^^ and the
^W^i propositions involve the doing of an appropriate
)
action
in
ii.
w^^
proposition
is
(ii.180
Motes
133]
Notes to II.
^y^^f^,^^
two parts
which are essential to
The Upama-variety called
both
( ii.
22
consists of
of
w^ alone
%^^^ m^T
in the
Jfpqr)
Upamana,
^c^^and ^ 3^t
cp. ^qi'fHlM
JwftgtqjfT,
ii.
17,
?TT^^3q7TR^rnq':RrfiqT^ ^\
later likerwise
7\
53jf^<^^^qq^
remarks
p.
350 )
^^ifcn% ^
=^tic^rr-
to this figure.
is
consequence of
%^
in
below.
If
{[^
Kavyadaria
180]
134
ingness and this is how Dandin wants us to understand the passage we can distinguish siRl^'^rq^fT from
o^f^^, because in the former there is not guri^^torq^
:s^: as Jagannatha would say. Compare to the same
effect the definition of Rudrata ( vii. 86 )
As
the
distinct
(
344. 13-14
^t^^^^
must be taken
(iii)
As
^rn^fq
'k^^
to include
t%^cf i^
both o^f^^^^and
to the varieties
5rT%T'-TTWr.
of this figure,
since one
it is
as to ^i^5JTfifi ;3qflR^3TTq^%flTffl[^q^
%cg*r2rJ7fq
difference, as in
ii.
193, 194.
there
is
the genesis of
which
statement of Rudrata
^T
3^
^^^
^^
51^
vii.
89-90
^T ^^Jrf^q^^ =^
^ ^fWT ^
efpJi: ^ft-jfrfq
rq<JT
is to
^^Y
^q ;3q^
5?j%>^T2fq?3T^3
^^
f^*4^
II
^rc^q^
II
135
[ ii.
Notes
Ruyyaka
this
(p. 80
184
^;=[MT^?r^Tf^^'Jlc'^
^fr^ by
saying=^:?^'^^2rr
As against
^^9'JIc^ ^'leS^n'^ ^^r^^WRTc^
this Mammata asserts ( p. 784 )
sr^ ^'r^^l^TT^^rffwf f|
=^
MH-\k^A
^-Ti^f^ras^
^^2ftq^?r
f^Tn^q-'T q;
m^ ft^f
[Jagannatha replies]
Notes to
^ ^^
f^
st^t^i?'
^ ^q-
^iH^R-^q-^ri;
srr^^
f| S^TTf^fRo^T
( Note (iii) to
has been customary to have, along with tt^
and ^^3T Vyatireka, <i{^W^ Vyatireka with the three
sub-varieties depending upon the manner of expressing W^^, each with further two-fold differentiation
depending upon the presence or absence of ^^. The
three %^ varieties from out of these six are declared
Says Uddyota on Kavyaprakasato be impossible.
pradipa ( p. 793 )--3tI(^ i^"^^^^ ^^mhi^^ ^Xm ^f^^fm
it.
II.
180
it
f%?c^f^
the conclusion of
5[T=^igf%fT^5cTr^r^'JTT-
ii.
Kavyadaria
185]
Notes to
136
Notes to II.
180
),
189(i) As
^h'^qi^ R^Fff^?
before observed
includes what
Note
called
is
to
ii.
^iis^<-fi^:ri^
as
(iii)
M^'^'JTP^^
cT'^rfif
5^^f%;JTf|RT
qr^
3n?ff
^^m
^*
^T5^ ^^i
%^
i^
In
ft^r
^m
%%:
SRfrzRT^RTRq^T
^^
^^
q^to;
^^^^ (qr V.
(qr^ V.
the
i.
115)
^flRH^^^
5(1%-
116)
i.
^^
is
al-
together absent.
Notes to II. 190-192 (i) Compare ii. 190 with ii. 22. In
the latter
f^^ ^fF^TT emphatically declares the
In the former only the
is stated and the
^rnsR^.
is left to be inferred.
It should also be noted
that ii. 22 mentions a circumstance that can be regarded as ^frRtFRill^ while the ^c5^^f| 6l ii. 190 by an easy
change into 5T^^^f| and even without it can con-
^^
W^
stitute
(ii)
an
On
^sqiTRPT'^F^^.
ii.
191,
Notes to
II.
sists in
sr^RRR^^^^Rt:
^Jq^r^iT^^T^ft
^^^>
193-196 (i) The essence of a ^^sq^f^ conthe fact that in it what is offered as a ^^ ox
^^ has in
it
an element of
^\^\^.
^^
137
I ii.
Note
(ii)
ii.
The
illustration in
rise
ii.
to
196
opinion amongst the commentators, which is partlyhelped by a difference of reading in ii. 195. The reading adopted by us is supported by strong manuscript
authority while P's substitution of ^?^t^^: forf^^^vr^t:
is hardly motivated, although he remarks
3T?r 'J^W^
It is
even
(iii)
The commentaries A and B printed in the
Madras edition are at one in regarding ii. 194 as
containing two illustrations of ^?^?fcR^, one in each
ardha, the first being 5lrtt^JrR( = ^'4T%i; ^'rjtr)ht^^ and
the second 5(^rrT(=5ri%^)^''-:n^, both however being disThe
tinct from ii. 193, which is a case of ^n^fTTfl^j:^.
full
Our
is
(i) it
is
1.
is
^^]
KSvyadar^a
ii.l96
[138
Kavyadaria
(iv)
better
way
would probably be
of
to regard
Thus
^l^I^^m^rr'^Ufe which
is
apprehended
fl^fW^, ^3c5^f5^^;
^c[^^rT?^
this is
first
( sfrftri
apprehended
as an afler-thought.
only difficulty in the
Bhoja,
tation.
Notes to
must be added, favours the earlier interpreHis remarks on this stanza are (p. 305)
it
II.
tion as follows
(p.
this illustracl5^>n^T
^ttrt:
^^
Kadambari,
(B. S. S. p. 102,
1.
16)--%qf^
=^ ft^'fcT
^ sr^-
^^si^^q;
Nothing
need hinder us, as far as the two passages alone are
concerned, from regarding the Kadambari idea as an
elaboration of that in the Kavyadarsa. More probably
the two are quite independent of each other.
^t?j'Rc5TT^r#'%^i^^tq5rvrTq^RRRr'T^
139
[ii.l99
Notes
Notes to II.
(i)
and
(ii)
to
ii.
131-
^^ ^^
amounting
to the
same
thing.
But
it
is
interesting
follows
f^^^rt
(p.
38)^
?ST#q%:
cf^4:?r:
^^fn%?:i[rq%
5rT^?t%%5T
is
^'^
\^^.\^^H^
qfe^qTIT^FR^T^
fe^rr^^r
^t
'^R^SiipRt
T%n^l^41'c^^'bK:
terminology
#ui
^ ^^
is
^f|
sfNcclId
ii.
199
the
kavyadaria
same
darpana
(p.
effect writes
551)
^f^vrr^Rt
140
independent figures.
(iii) The contradiction involved in a Vibhavana is of
course an apparent contradiction which admits of an
The
easy solution by ^jR^iRRf^-^TT^ or ^qr^rf^^R^f^W^.
solution, however, ought to be quite easy ^^V$^ ^cS^
:
?rf^,
as
Bhamaha
(ii.77)
and Udbhata
ii.
200
^nrc^
him (p.38)
must be some
Thus in the
after
qRJTTTrir,
the
secondary
sense. Now g^nTRT is not the cause of the ^^ifiwr and
so there is no contradiction in the statement that the
^Rc^r^s^sfR^tc'^Tlf^q:, the
case in point
3i%T^^ci^M<^qrr%^2nf%f^35(Tnicpcf2TT
^^
t3[^
^^ w^-^<m ^^^m^ ?m
^^
3^TTdi<=bKJwiq
wm
--hMV^l^rrf^^-^ct
^^\
^n
=^
=^
r^
qR
ft
^c^jRJt^r-
3TH^ri^fqo^#fjt-
^^
tj^
f^^wi^
141
Notes
ii.
IM
might be
under (stanzas
76ff.)
^^M ^ ^^?j:'^c2r%^^'w:
^f^T5T^Tf^T^^g5T%
^7^Sf%^'JiT^rT;^^1f
II
fff^--?^^^
^^ ^.iiq^PcT
II
^\H,
II
434) dfiTKi^^
Rudrata
q^TO
laying
'
5f=^>T 5fq^KPcRmmT^t^c^[<T
(ix.
^^ 5[^Rr
^c^rgq-
down
upon
3iT^^2f,
^r^%Bc^[^^^l
after the
manner
of Dandin, gives a
(iii. lOff.)
ii.
199
Kavyadaria
142
ii.
323.
of
ii.
these as examples
His explanation of
200 is-srli^ ^r^j^rf^^gf^^ sft^^: '^^T?qiR<$'=h: 5rf%^-
Notes to II
^r %?R^
%n^5FTT
as above defined.
and of
ii.
3l^%
^TVrTft?Fc4
^mfyh-
=^lftiric=f|[%
Notes to
II.
are
Bhamaha
(345. 17)
(ii.
79)
Vamana
(iv. 3. 3)
some
of the
143
Notes
Ruyyaka
Bhoja
(iv. ^6,
ii.
207
49)
(page 741)
Visvanatha
(x. 56)
s^T^fR^JTRtq:
finally,
51^^^ ^^:
II
'<:r^^53T5f^RT^
(ii)
(page 84)
Mammata
And
It will
this figure a
^T^
m ?RT^itf%:
most elementary
definition, the
advance
^m
i^
his definition
is
not
^s
plicit (p.
84)f^
BTfcTs^rH
^,
5f^cTT5f^3?TTf^t
^f%5^-??c#
^f%^J^I^m 1^-
ii.
207
Kavyadaria
^cfSTT^:
m^^Wn:3TTfe
JTcft^TfTT^JTII^d
144
ST^l^TR^^^J^ 5r^q%
for
W^
This
^^^^t^:
statement of the case has however been much criticised.
We would refer the curious to Sahityadarpana
(p. 530), Kuvalayananda (stanza 60, Vriti), Rasagangadhara (pp. 373 if.), Alamkarkaustubha (pp. 254 ff.)
and Sahityasara, (pp. 446 fiF.).
^^^JTr^^q^Tq^Tc^Rl^nTT^^T^^FJc^H
ii.
3i^T5JrRq%fqr
^A^^
T%^rfq
%d
f^srm??!
il
145
l^ofes
is
as follows (cp.
ii.
214
Alamkarasarvasva
pp. 88f.)
S4*T^^4HT^I^
^^l^fRc"^'
Mq'JI^R^^
....
And
this
{loc,
cit.)
^....
with another
=^r^ s^f^TT^fTR^T
'^Ji^m,
^^f%f
tinguished into
s^^^rfrfi,
5Tii?^%,
3?v:^RTl%^RrT ^:5[T^Tq%:)
^^
and
and
^vf^Tf%^,
f^^jr.
(iii) Bhoja quotes stanza ii. 208 ( = Bhoja iv. 48) reading ^-qr^^ for T%TTfv[(. Mammata would regard ii. 209
as an 3T^?ftl% ofthefirst variety.
Notes to II. 214 (i) The treatment of 3rf^3Ttf%i by Alarhkarikas falls under two main categories. Some writers
look to the etymology of the word and describe thb
figure in a general manner as a heightened or hyperbolic
mode
of expression.
The main
definitions in
Ip
[Kavyadarsa]
ii;
214
Kavyadaria
1461
Bhamaha
81)
(ii.
II
Hemachandra
Vagbhata
Vamana
(p.
264)
37)
(p.
(iv. 3.
10)
(iv. 82,
83)
(ii) It is during the process of division and subdivision of the possible hyperbolic statements of a
s^i^Rh,
3T^?:?T^t%cT,
[
(Kuvalaya-
^^rfcRT^frff
^^^rfct-
and
QT^^jTrfTfcRT^fi^
five-fold 3rfd^l4lfxh as
Some
to the fore.
that
understood by
Mammata comes
are
Mammata
(p.
762)
f^t^rrfcR[3ftf%i:
Visvanatha
Ruyyaka
^r
(i
(x. 47)
(p. 65) is
3T2Tq^ 5R
"^
f^q^m
ft
14^
Notes
ii.
214
Rudrata perhaps marks the middle stage in this promuch as he regards en^^^T not
as an independent figure-of-speech but as a rhetorical
devise of the same kind as comparison or contrast and
giving rise to a number of figures (12 in all) which he
thus enumerates (ix. 1-2)
cess of evolution in as
f^N*|l^^lfdNi|cT52rT^idi^d4t
^r:
^ f^
(iii)
called. q^stfrff
is
(ii.
85)
II
Vakrokti
is
(iv. 3.8)
as
^^f^^5^%^5T
observes
^^^T^T
p.
285
) ^nqfTRtq^^fFT
^gq^TT^t^JT^-^^dlMT^
ft^ft^fr^I^H^^Tf^RRtf^:
ii.
214
Kavyadariu
(v)
Bhoja's statement
differentiates
Commentary
Sanskrit
(iv. 82)
^iRRRtM from
p.
236
148
^TPcl
6-12.
11.
Notes to II. 215-2i(' (i) Verse 215 is given by Bhoja (p. 462)
as an example of^FT^i'^zT with the remark-s?^ ^^^^sjj^
^r
'eJ^'^ #r4
cites this
^Fc^rf^^ JmrrRr^^^^:
Hemachandra
^^
as an example of
5T^m:
(p.
265)
^ST^rrnwrtt^BT^t
Mammata
cJ^f^^fmiq ^2ftc^HNlg?4)r+/tf%^T^ 3T^^ ^xR:
would regard the example as containing an indepenbut Bhoja observes
dent figure called jfiRSrT or Nf|^
I
3T5Tr^fqf|c[T^5^t
R%^:
^^%
fqf|^ =^^cTWTtc^'JIT%TTR^-
^^l
Notes to II. 218 (i) Bhoja (p. 462) gives this as an example of 3'JTrf^^ JTff^TfcRR: and remarks 3T^i ^f^otl*-
J^f^lfel^r fnqrfrRm^:
Mammata and others recognise this as an independent figure- of-speech called
Notes to
11,
^20--(i)
this figure
such as
or r$qT%^2T.
(ii)
strain
Bhamaha
(ii.
84)
also delivers
himself in a
similar
149
We
ii.
221
to
Notes
regard
^\^^
fundamentum
as a
fying figures.
Agnipurana
(344.24)
Udbhata
43)
(p.
Bbamaha
Vamana
(iv.
Ruyyaka
Rudrata
91)
(ii.
39)
(p. 55)
(viii. 33,
34)
Vagbhata
(p.
Vagbhata
(iv.
Bhoja
50)
(iv.
36)
TleRKiohandra
90)
(p.
247)
ii.
221
Kavyadaria
Vidyanatha
(p.
Vidyadhara
(viii.
Mammata
and Chitramimahsa
383)
150
(p.
73)
12;
707)
(p.
Visvanatha
(x.
40)
Jagannatha
(p.
285)
5^^ri
And Visvesvara
(p.
180)
noted are
1.
q^T4^ '^hm^
(iii)
^^ =^lf^q,fii4^l^^dl^l^ra: ^^
I
Numerous subdivisions
by Alamkarikas
%5r ^:
compare Alamkarasarvasva
(p.
57),
Notes
151
Rasagahgadhara
ii.
225
(pp. 286-87),
We
m^^j
^nf^f^^RTi
?pTf^iq^
5Irfr2mT?[T
^o^rf^r
f%2fTr%3r[
1^
%qTftftrfT
g-Jif^rftrfr
;3qTT#ftTiT
3T3qmft 3>r
3T*f^ 3>f^
^r^^o
storo
way
divi-
are in this
Each
^of?r
to a total
of these
varieties
J^
^$r^
^^'fic^^'l
Thus we have
cfl-^l
^IklRm^l
of
24
varieties
cil^'NI
^iJ|R^^i
of
24
varieties
of
24
varieties
of
varieties
i|rl7^|^M| ^ilf^Rl^rtjl Ol
12
varieties
qi-^-^r i^^Ti^i'iii
41-.^]]
ic^'i^i\]
^M
d^M
^^^
^ft:
Rffl[f!^2<r5[qT-
^*H'=fi'd);
ii.
225
KavyadaHa
^^mi^'^^m}
varieties;
of
12
5rat^riTT5TrT%2T[f^q^
of
12
varieties;
R^ft^RRT ^<^9^^\
of
varieties;
120 varieties.
Total
Illustrations
152
varieties,
especially the
are not always quotable. Jagannatha*s criticism of these manifold varieties is also
sicft^Rl^ varieties,
worth quoting.
He
says
(p.
295) ?f ^TR^TT^
f|
^r
As
if.
359.
to
to
^^qf^
^jq^rr
variety recog-
Notes to
II.
side
issues
which we
shall
first
dispose
of.
Dandin
all
suppose that the Mrichchhakatika is itself an elaboration of the Charud^itta (compare a paper on the subject
153
[ ii.
Notes
228
at
regard
Here of course one word is made to perform two functions, which is obviously a mistake.
(iv)
was
i-nterpre-
80
Kavyadar^a
ii.
228
Kavyadarin
fc5Ja7fct
= 3Tg^^-3T5^^-^53TrqR.
Now we
154
have seen
Can we
^qJTR.
retained, the
w^
^^
Now
the question
is,
who
the
is
cT^ ^^:
^q^ ?
arwrfff
If
the idea is
we obvi-
f^jp^,
ously can connect sr^f^ with the ^^^^ alone and not
with the ^^\^ also, whereas, as a matter of fact, arflf^
seems to be intended in the stanza as going with both.
Hence Dandin says 3T^pftr% ^
(or adopting the
variant which also has good ms. authority ^^^: ^W^f^
^ ^^^:). Further, the point of similarity between the
proposed ^qqr?! and ^q^ (or, adopting the variant, the
point in which ^^^ the ^^^r is compared with the &q^
the ^qJTR) has got to be extraneously supplied: it is not
actually given in the stanza.
^^^
of
^ ^^^H,] but the second difficulty still remains. We can, it is true, conceivably
imagine w^s^ or some such characteristic of the ^q^r
as the supposed common dharma, but it is f^ and
first difficulty
sTg^r^ftf^
155
t ii.234
J^otes
(vii)
^^.
to regard
it
The
^q^~the ^%TJT
or o^\^^
is
observed.
^^
The word
^ accordingly
can be a ^\^^ of
also.
We have said that the line fei-m^ etc. con^^. There are however two possible ways
of understanding the ^^- We could say that here
(viii)
an
tains
rW:?Rt^-3TFsj5^-5^FR (which
H!^4'd^ '+ ^^^^^
's^+ii^'fl
%^^
is
ftft'^JT
(which
is
also ^r^qm
Or we could say
?W:^>^-BTW^'^-^qHdl<^lc^H ^vfTs^T^
that here 3Tl^if|4)^^H*5?TTq^3^^fc[JTTR: (the ^qfrlf^)
I
s^rq^
(this
Some Mss.
ii.
an
^^
by Poetic-fancy.
usual to render
is a lighter product of our plastic or
creative faculty, which generally concerns itself with
associations or combinations of ideas which are remote, recondite, arbitrary, and unexpected; while Ut(x)
It
is
Fancy, however,
ii.
234
Kavyadaria
l66
Hence we
Notes to II. 235 (i) The three figures ^5, ^^, and ^,
and in this order, are enumerated by Bhamaha (ii. 86)
who however saysl^^
^IT^sfJR^T ^^: I, the
view of Dandin being just the contrary. The question
about the chronological relation between the two
writers cannot be settled either way on the strength of
this circumstance alone.
Compare, however. Notes
to 244 below.
Other writers who recognise all these
^^ ^^
^2
56),
f^55qT?l?5^
or two of
ii.
(iii.
^^
12,
iii.
(p. 43),
21,
and
some other
in
(vii.
figure or figures.
236-259,
defines
(ii) Hetu is a poetic cause, and Indian Alarhkarikas recognise a number of figures of speech based upon
causal relation. These are (cp. Note (i) to ii. 2 also)
^^ift^^R^^
qtf^
(ii.
(ii.
323),
169),
f^wn
f^^
(ii.
known
^^^r^,
5l^^<l?rn,
157
Notes
ii.
235
Ignoring the last two groups of alarhkaras, and confirst the alariikaras not found in the Kavya-
sidering
darsa,
it is
serving the
first
word
for the
alamkara.
the
Ruyyaka
(p.
it is
^nrrflcf
w^{^
and
of the last
as
44),
96),
two
dis-
two writers
is
About '^^^r we
Notes to
298,
ii.
shall
Mammata
as
^^t^^q^q%
practically the
same
as
^5^ varieties.
Notes on
of 15 of
(e. g.
is
^)
mark
the logical
valid
from
is
or
f^ (e.
actually the
^^
g. '^)
which
of the
iirq^s
in its most
|[M^
(viz. (^).
But a poetic ^FI^ need not always have that rigorous
validity in its s^rrfH which logic requires. For instance
^^ ^
ii.
person
the
who
ITT'T^ is
valid.
is restless,
the
of the
It
is
only
if
sqri^ is invariably
ii.
235
KMvyadaria
(iv)
An ar^W'^KH,
as
(p.
158
128),
The particular
difficult to
(v)
make.
Some important
definitions of
Ig
are
given
below:
Agnipurana (344.29-32)
Bhoja
(iii.
VSgbhata
12)
(iv.
105)
159
Notes
Rudrata
(vii.
Vagbhata
(p.
Visvanatha
ii.
235
82)
43)
(x. 64)
first
later
dTj^^^l
^f%^P^
^%lRpTrHl^^''H^2TT
^^^1^1^
]^^qf^
=^^^K^H*MT^
ii.
235
Kavyadaria
160
to
'GO
Ifil
Noten
ii.240
tration^
illus-
^^^trSt ;T^2??fT^^:
Notes to II. 238-239 (i) Bhoja thus explains the illustration3T^%IFr q^H '?f^--bSinm^|V:|Hf^J^Mi ^^^^TT^^r^.5^^:
^S^^TTTn^
I
(ii)
In
difficilior
ii.
239**
to be
^3[RfT^
2l
3|ci;
ii.240
[162
Kavyndaria
unknown both
to
f^c^qj^
is
in the sentence
*Jc?t:
^z %^f^
JTHT
jm
^TTRI
or ^#7 ^\A
q^^lfe.
|^
last.
It will be incidently
noted that
^^
involves the
163
Notes
ii.
241
Notes to II. 241-245 (i) In ii. 242 the forests have been
transformed into poison. A f^^iR: involves a change of
form and quality, the inner substance remaining the
same.
.
243 as an illustration of
For explanation
^see Sarasvatikanthabharana, p. 274 f.
(ii)
what he
ii.
^^
was one
many another in Patanjali's Mahabhashya which had been made the object of exposition
by several Alarhkarikas before them. Dandin, we
tional lineslike
thinki gives
it
is
unpoetic,
^^3
with 5[M5r4.
and so is not an illustration of
But it can be a good HN^I^ for indicating the time.
Mammata
q[JT^5T^^T
^^
ii.
245
Kavyadaria
^cflfd
f^^^'4J<=lflPl
^^RTT^T^
STTTT^t^TTf^ ^iRflf^^l
164
f^<H<=fT^o4w^-
(v)
^,
becomes mere
hence void of any
alamkara. The chronological relation between Dandin and Bhamaha cannot in any case be made to rest
upon the doubtful testimony of this passage alone.
illustration of a ffN^g. It then
mere report of the weather, and
Notes to
ii.
II.
dlci'^i^iiw
if?T:^^OTcqi3[
ii.
250-3T5fRT^r%%flcT^r^?3^Tmmt
(with the variants ^5 for
and rt^I
f^^i^ f^^^'^:
^4T f^^3T: for ^^ ^^im^:
).
ii.
251 sr^r
^^
commentary
^qi^:
sftn-
last illustra-
251'.
II. 253-254-(i) A
T%||5 is a violation of the
law of Nature. Hence Dandin suggests that
the violation should not be prominently
expressed but should
be conveyed in a secondary or subdued
tone. Otherwise
it would be a different figure.of-speech.
Notes to
i65
Notes
Notes to II.
given
ii.
257
involves only
^^^t^^<il
commentary
255.
ii.
Several writers
(ii)
who do not
distinct
^>RW
to
^
Mammata
and
3T^icf.
recognise Hetu as a
^'4e5^^i%^Jc^
as a distinct figure-of-speech
thus defines it (p. 869)
between
known
as
Notes to
II.
variety
rr^i:
^^rqtcq^R^q^^fcT-
is
3T5T ^rj^TTrvf^^jT^flo^f-
variety illustrated in
ii.
stanza.
(iii)
^^
5fTq^
Thus
next or the
Notes to
II.
^^^71%^
^jT^frrJcT^
257
(i)
%% as
a commentator explains.
would include also the
variety of f^fg.
^ jpw?^ I^rm^^
SETjcfr^^t
+i'4Wd<^^ ^^^
f^^t
258
ii.
Notes to
166
258-259(i) The figure called f^f^5{ as recogby Wi^ (who defines it, P. 133, as ^qf^^t^^sf^-
II.
nised
sq^
Kavyadarka
SRcff:
),
When
Mammata
(p.
875)
3^f^[i^'rt
^^ *K'JM !F^
'
(ii)
Op.
Mammata
(p.
911)
83 as an illustration
Dandin apparently re-
ii.
by Bhoja as
can also
(iii.
18)
i^t^^.
167
Notes
(ii)
f^cii|M'<^
ii.
267
asfqT%T
diflScult to distinguish
T^^l^rTflT^: ^TTfcf^rll^
is
very
from ^^.
(ibid, p. 191)--?j2^T^?fn^
^T-
^T^P%S^
'
is
^^i %''-^^T'R%qfq
cTci;
fqif rTT]^ n
there
is
(a)
a concealing,
(b)
a discovery leading to
(ii.
304).
m^
;fi
(iii)
Vamana's example
^^^^(v.
1.
^JT^^nq^^^ ^^qici
1.
II
II
267
Kavyadaria
165
This
is
ly different circumstances.
Bhoja
(iv.
Rudrata
who
define
in the
56)
(vii.
100)
Kuvalayananda (137)
Vagbhata
(p.
43)
and Jagannatha
But none
it is
(p.
512)
difficult to ascertain
nates by
rejects
TT%.
Bhamaha cannot
be one of them, as he
(ii)
siiivsi^fci
(ii.
343).
We
Commentary
(p.
269*'
larity
169
Motes
ii.
274
to
ii.
343.
Bhamaha
(ii
89)
Vamana
(iv. 3. 17)
42)
79)
Mammata
and
(p.
34)
(vii.
(iv.
here be collected
and Udbhata
Rndrata
Bhoja
may
(p.
803)
between them a relation of similarity, Bhamaha contrarywise holds that the things should not be so related.
Jagannatha, as also Hemachandra before him,
argues (p. 478) that ^'A\wm should not be recognised as
a distinct figure. His words are ^T^^^^^^jR^^^t^
m^
BT^rq^jq^q^q^RT^R tt^ ^tstw^^iTH, Vamana's requirement of similarity would probably supply the element
of 1f%^3T needed for the figure. It is however a fact
that quite apart from the similarity there is a charm
I
'
alarhkara.
22
Kavyadar^a
ii.
275
Kavyadarin
Notes to II.
170
as ^^r^Rs. Bhamaha
generally following Bhamaha in his treatment) are alone amongst ancient
writers to recognise these three alamkaras in the
sense in which Dandin understands them. Ruyyaka
(P. 185), Visvanatha (x. 95^96) and one or two later
three
of
(iii.
1^7)
and Udbhata
writers accept
their
hita,
(see
(p. 49,
number
these
alamkaras
sake.
first
71)
ii. 5,
Anandavardhana*s
Aloka on
follows
:^^
^'^
JTTJT^Bt^: 'T^:
^f^
p.
this
karika
runs as
Bhamaha
as against the
new
school.
We
(ii)
Note
i. 18 the
nature of Rasa, but it is necessary to afford a detailed exposition of the theory of
(i)
Rasas
ments
to
Now there
are excellences
171
Notes
ii.
275
inherent in the
**
karas,
and of
(iii)
evil in
it.
explain
why
certain gqs or
3T^Rs
was made
afford
to
pleasure
than others.
classification
li.
2'5'5
Kavyadaria
17t
etc.
^rrcR
^
(in Actor)
J\
'
\i
jJI/-in Audience
*
33 sq^m^rf^S
l^
to the nine
^i^vrr^s
^^
to >2^^
^3c^
^T^ to |TWT
^^
(iv)
to
^m
^^
Dandin
theory (cp.
to ^l?
i.
'mm^
aware
is
51,
to Ct^
to
ii.
280,
of
iii.
^3:^T to
^]W^
ft^^
to
^^
f?i% to
^T?ef
^s
^fl^?n^ proper.
(v)
The
grammarians.
If poetry
consists
173
Notes
ii.
27S
are cases where the o^^^i is ^f^^^^c^q^q where the statement as a whole brings in a subtle suggestion without
;
word
under the
or
words
it
and
as resulting from
all
^^s could
ar^^s^sh^oAJW^-
the
s^ni^l
He
says
^xfij f|
o^r^^^^^T^i^vi^f^-
call
1?TTo
^^ = ^,
which
3TT^*
^=^^Tf^
as being the
^m%
of
which the
^^
(to
53^^
(to
W^ sense is subordinate).
ii.
275
Kavyadaria
l74
(vii) If 5T5^ (or ^^rf) be the body and gws the lifebreaths of poetry, the question what is the soul of
poetry which is naturally suggested by the metaphor
is answered (i) by Varaana (I. ii. 6) as ^fcf^Tc^rr ^fs^r^^T;
and
(ii) by the ^"^f^ school (^^R^rR^r 1) as ^Ts^T^q^TfT
^:
(iii)
function of ^^,
frf^
or
'^
in poetry.
How
its
pp. 101-111,
and Rasagahgadhara
pp. 22-31.
it.
Thus
in the
175
I ii.
Notes
example given
(ii.
293-4), to allow
owing
it
to
an enemy hemned
in battle to depart
does
what
is
is
Notes to
the
278
of
given by
is
the
The
37.
ii.
last verse
difficult to ascertain
work
of
Bhamaha
Dandin
The example
or of
predecessor of both.
of
f%^
for
^^'m and
also of
or of an
unknown
illustrates the
5(tl%
are mentioned in
Rock
name
^y^^\'^
consists of 8
qfrls
(in-
cluding the visarga) while the Kerala kings, even adopting their ancient local name of 'Cheraladan' do not
give the required number of varnas. In the present
state of our
to have
and the
temptation
to
ii.
279
KavyadaHa
176
u^f%f^
and he
is
Hiuen
Tsang who
p.
90-92).
A. D. 640
during the reign of Narasirhhavarman I (630-668)
affords some testimony for the triumph of Saivism
visited
Kaiiohi
in
at the time.
(ii)
this
we have
the testi-
mony
of the Ms, of 3rqRT5?^c{^srmT^ (Report of the Peripatetic Party of the Government Or. Mss. Library,
Madras, for the years 1916-19, Ms. No. 194) which
ggkj^f^^i^.
II
'
177
Notes
^^^yr^
^t
^r^t^TR^^r =^
^^K
trqf
srg^^r^
^^^T
^m
ii.
279
^T^r
?rwm^ f^r
5%^mR 52m^f%J^R?Iri;
^ ^T^
^ f^^
^^7?r^r
aj^^
3Trr|5T: %rr[tr?r
II
=^Tfq oij^3^,i
^^^^r
5RTP^tq5[^
ii
11
We
( iii )
need not of course take all the gossiping
tales in the 3T^%?^^2rr as sober history; but the pre-
cessorsMahendravarman I (600-630) and Narasimhavarman I (630-668), the first of whom is famous as the
king under whose orders were constructed the remark-
quoted
23
Ik
[Kavyadarsa]
ii.
279
Kavyadarsa
178
Kanohl in the
first
And
as the
identify,
(iv)
V
of manifestation
mentioned
i^
ii.
II. 280-281
(i) Dandin is now going to give in
succession the illustrations for ^^^, a separate one for
Notes to
each
^^.
( ii) Our Ms. N., in a different hand, gives the marginal note identifying ajq?^ with qi^R^rlT. Vasavadatta
An
Dandin
is
179]
Note,s
[ii.
286
aT^F{q^fTr%fs^
^^^rr%
cTcT
(?)
^2H: f^ ^^
^feRtT%
^rr^ ikwif^
^R^
9=^?^"^^
From
this
appears that this particular play made use of a playwithin-the-play in the denouement. There is also a
newly discovered play called Vinavasavadatta (?)
affording analogy in construction with the Bhasa plays.
Besides there are the BTT^^rrfws dealing with the story of
Vasavadatta which were probably known even to the
author of Vyakaranamahabhashya (see Kielhorn*s ed.,
vol. ii, p. 284), which however could not have contained a verse like the one given by Dandin. Seeing that
Bhasa's Svapnavasavadatta does not contain the present verse, it is perhaps possible that Dandin is here
it
alluding to the
unknown play
by Abhinavagupta, or
(iii)
P,
to
of Subandhu referred to
some other unknown work.
B-.tlP^T
^r^
Rn ;"
q^:
^qjfl
^fo^^TT ^qT(^^T
?)^^R^^5)-4:q\^
Notes to II, 282-285 (i) The stanzas ii. 282, and ii. 284
are apparently of Dandin's own composition and the
same explanation !night have been available in the case
;
of
ii.
Notes to
280 also.
II.
cent of
reminis-
ii.
287
Knvyadarsa
180
287-291(i)
Notes to
II.
the point of
ii.
290.
Notes to II.
ii )
This
is
Notes to
II.
in conformity
with the
vii. 98.
defines
gj^f^
(p.51)-
A good
example of
it is
^cTT5R??^^: 5^2rr%
Malatimadhava
iii.
12
^^
for a distinct
alarhkara not
re-
(iii.
8)
181
'Notefi
Udbhata
Rudrata
Bhoja
(p.
(vii.
42)
80)
(iv.
Ruyyaka
51)
(p. iii)
Mammata
(Ullasa
Vagbhata
(iv.
Vagbhata
(p.
36)
(p.
Prataparudriya
(viii.
828)
108)
Hemachandra
Ekavali
x. p.
263)
(p.
446)
29)
Sahityadarpana
(x.
Kuvalayananda
(67)
and Jagannatha
(p.
61)
409)
ii.
297
ii.
297
Kavyndar^a
182
of the definitions (except those of Bhaor Bhoja) contemplate the necessity of distinguishing an ordinary case of oi\^^ from q^ff^TTj. Thus
(ii)
Most
maha
.is
qr^^^fT^
o2fW^2rrr5o2ff3t
the^passage
?r
^qt^??^
:5T5T ^w\
Compare
o^^^\^'.
5i^[q on
^TM^^-qi ^ ^^\\^i ^^^
also the
step further.
cognised
by Jagannatha.
dhara
415) 3t4
(p.
=^r^^R:
Compare
WS^ %R^^
the
T^3^1%^:
(iv)
183
Notes
ii.29^
others the
^of^r.
Bhoja gives
w^
f%9xf;r
qqi^ftTfj
(p.
457)
srf^ ^w^\
^[^^p^mm^ m^mi
'
ii.
variety.
298-299 (i)
235.
BhaAgnipuraua, Bhamaha, Ubdhata, Rudrata and
Hemachandra do not recognise the alamkara at all.
Ruyyaka, Mammata, Bhoja, Visvanatha and Jagan-
Notes
to. II.
See Note
(ii)
to
ii.
rata,
natha designate it as
defined by Udbhata (p.
Bhamaha's
to a
illustration
^^[^^,
52)
making
^;?Tf|rT
from Rajamitra
bimilar concep^tion
a f^qjR,
as
of
the
(iii.
alamkara.
10) points
VamSna
il.
299
184
Kavyadarsa
it (iv. 3.
as 3?^^!?^
29)
in as
much
as
it
^ ^^^
^^^
thing.
%^^wrf%:
(ii) The
figure-of-speech
known
as
^^^
(not re-
cognised by Dandin) involves also a number of cooperating causes, and the distinction between ^5^^
and ^nrrf^ (i. e ^HTTIIcT) is thus formulated in the Alamkarasarvasva (p. 161) [^r^] |[^^ ^\^ 5fT% ^^ W^(^^
^|7Tlfl"rriK^5iT4
natha
(p.
'4^*+i''5
^^^'
To
490) ^qrwT
the
f| TT%fT
m^f^ ^m^
same
^T^
^ ^^^
effect also
Jagan-
ffr^q^JTi%^#TT^j^JT^HTq^cTr
I^T|j?fte^r ^q^rf^
^n^
5%^.
3Tr^f^;icfJ^
%^^
Notes to
II, dOO-SOS
(i)
Most writers who recognise
are agreed in giving two varieties of it similar to
those of Dandin. For instance,
^^\t[
Bhamaha
Udbhata
(iii.
(p.
11-13)
53)
185
Notes
Ruyyaka
(x.
Some
ff.)
94 f.)-
5f5C5FT^3?rw"
Mm "^^
writers
refuse
^^Tfq
(ii)
831
(x. p.
Visvanatha
ii. 304
183-184)
(p.
Mammata
'^
to
(p.
293)^^ 5
^f^*T^3-
if^f^qq^:
It will be
serves
(p.
54)
iT
qf [!y5#f^rt ^^^^T?Hr=J^*N^^fr3^r^
'^r^q^r
T>;riP?i^5iTT^^ =^^^i^^^siT[Hq%ifrqT2WcT^?TrT^vrrqqT?it'?R^r^T-
^flT^Tc^l^^^^d ^m'^
W^
9-J3.
(iii)
cp.
Note
(iii)
to
ii.
is f^i^'^^'jf^n^ is
but this last is understood by Dandin in quite a distinct sense ( cp. ii. 364 ff.). The words of Ruyyaka are
these (p. 18 5f)-f^iqlr Mm% ^ ^T'^rq^^^q^l ^%q^^iT
Agnipurana
Bhamaha
(345. 18)
(iii.
20)
snf f^wtsr
same
and Udbhata
Kavyadarsa
(p.
=^ T'^f^'^^rT^T^fiq^TT
24
as Dandin.
ftsp^:
f^^^
59)
p:
II
Udbhata].
ii.
304
Kavyadaria
Kudrata
(viii.
Vamana
(iv.
Bhoja
57)
3.5)
41)
(iv.
Ruyyaka
50)
(p.
Mammata
(x, p.
735)
<i
Vagbhata
(p.
Vagbhata
(iv.
39)
86)
NO
Ke^avamisra
(p.
Hemachandra
34)
(p.
281)
5[^?TT5i|Rcfr2Tt
a^iqwiqtqff^:
Vidyadhara
(p.
380)
Visvanatha
(x.
38f.)
5If^
(p.
5r%?q'-:3n^3T^5Tfq5t
qf^ W^TT^T^rr
Jagannatha
^[^|f^:
^r^q"^ ^fF^^:
278)
^^2T^R^^5[cn^^Hr^TmRTI%5p^o^?TT^.-?ITrmgqqM
Visvesvara
(p,
235)
and Achutaraya
(viii.
131)
3TI^3mT'JT%f5rdr^N ^^T^q^%:
11
186
Oil
( ii.
Notes
305
Bhoja, as
(iii)
we have
consult Note
and
Notes to
upon a
are based
So also are the
veyed and
STT^T
^^, %cT^, 5?Tr^, ^3: <!;{\m\, qR-^W, etc. More important is the six-fold division given by the Kuvalayananda (stanzas 25-30), viz. ^^, I5, q^^^, '-bfT'^T, &^, and%^.
Of these the first variety is a normal case of Apahnuti
which can be made to include both the varieties recogft^, 15^,
is
an
3TT^f 3Tqff^.
His
^5IPciTq|frR?2T^
rirn
^IfRt ^rf^cP^R^
^% %i^ ^m\ f% ^ wk
^q|fcTC5=^^2r
^TfTrT^^^i%
^jr:
ii
308
ii.
kavyadaria
188
Notes to
II.
(ii)
to
ii.
94-95.
As we
34 (5n%WNJ7T
36 (cTr^r^^saw there ^t^ can mean
In view of the difference
ii. 95 (^r^qf^^^).
), ii.
ii.
^qirr), or
Note
(ii)
to
ii.
Notes to
II.
name
310
It is rather
(i)
a Guna and an
For the nature of the guna see Note (iii)
The alamkara has nothing to do with the
Alaihkara.
to
i.
43.
guna.
(ii) That Slesha involves the use of paronomastic
words, or words conveying more than one sense, is
conceded by
is as to whether
as a <K4 !<**!< only or an^r^iff^^ only
or partly the one and partly the other.
There are
writers holding all these views with more or less show
of reason. As so much depends in a Slesha upon the
all.
we should regard
it
189
Notes
ii.
310
cl^TP^rf^R'rjfRuirfi:
ft
^^3^^^w ^3 am
^"^ ffWI2Vr?T:
^o^r^'^^rf^
II
^vmw^^K'
3T?^2T5q-|%^T4:2rt
i
^^ 3 ^imjA '^wm^i^W^
commentator explains it.
^s^Tfc^rqj^
f^^r^cfn'^ ^i^:
Ix, p.
f^vim-
as a
(ill) Others try to get out of the difficulty by recognising a distinct variety of ^^%q and of 3t4w. Thus
Bhoja gives six varieties of ?^|5^>dq[ ( ii. 68ff ) viz. 5f^,
5r^2r, f^{%, q=^, q^, and ^^^\.
Man^mata adds two more
varieties to the list ^^ and T%i^, while Bhoja includes
:
sides the
IL
310
ttavyndaria
190
see Note
t^otes to II.
is
non-commital.
comments upon
it (p.
465) ar^fRrg^^fJTR^T^jn
m^^ |^
313- (i) Paronomasia constitutes the ingredient of so many figures that a question has been started
as to whether in these several cases the alamkara is
Notes to
II.
(ii.
87), 3Tr%q
or mixture !of
(ii.
159), o^rfrf^
Jagannatha
words 3T3f
(p.
(p. 393ff.)
^\^m]i:
(ii.
185),etc.], or a
The discussion
both.
Udbhata's statement
(ii.
is
28),
^[^
started by
54)
gives a resume of
mmm\iFm^
it in these
fk^^^f^R'm^^ ^^ ]%^m
191
I ii.316
Notes
^T7^5[[v^rT
^^tmh{\^\V'
5rfcf^rfnTT5iT%%
^^^
tTcT^iq^
m^f^
?BWt Wl%^A
%q'-
?T^^^T|qJrrf^ST%^:qfTT?3:
^iT^
5{g^
iir^
m^
^^\\i
^m ^ mm^,
q^tq^i^^^rr ^^ifRr^t
^^^\ %?^:
5T
^q^^
siRt^r.
=^^^7r^F^dq^R-
>^^N^5qq^
qtfjftSrftfcT
i)
be laid down.
Notes to
II.
what
314-315
peculiar.
fvmf^-5Tf^f^^5
Dandin's classification
Bhamaha,
f^mqjT<qi-3Tf^v{qjr^.
(iii.
14)
ws
after de-
as
involving
^Itfrfi,
^Hqrrr,
and
JTIT^^
^TJFprf^
50),
first
^\^^ *icT%
fJT'feRT
has greatest
il
affinity
with
ii.
(ii.
is
%q^;^
28),
^gq^TT
while the
316.
ii,
317
Notes to
Katyyadaria
II.
JT-^:
(p.
T%^q?^
^r:
1^"
thus
^1
fT^^BoST:
Notes to II. 318 (i) Here as also in ii. 322 below we have
a combination of %qSf%52T with the '^^^ of f%<R as
exemplified in ii. 334. For tho distinction of this from
^^^cTT
Notes to
II.
see Notes to
ii.
319-320 Most
330 below.
of,
called
^if^fp^
ff
\^'i^
The Sahityadarpana
An
ex-
Compare Note
(ii)
(i)
to
ii.
87 and Note
(i)
to
ii.
318
above.
Notes to
II.
distinctive definitions
shokti are
of Vise-
193
Notes^
Bhamaha
Udbhata
3133
58)
c^r
Varaana
-ii
22)
(iii.
(p.
(IV.
^^
f|''^T
c5#
^S^^Trt
v5T%cn?^^:
II
23)
iii.
Ruyyaka
(p.
Mammata
126)
(x. p.
and Jagannatha
flp^:
800)
(p.
437)
J}%^ ^^^^
m ?^d4
^^'^^CTf^^) it mus!;
be admitted that
much as it
does not bring the causal relation prominently to the
fore, is a development from a root conception of the
It is rather
figure quite allied to that of Vamana.
difficult to accurately distinguish this figure from
^T^r%q
(ii.
131), 5HFft%q
Compare Note
(ii)
to
ii.
(ii.
133),
and
131-132, Note
f^^TRffT
(i)
to
(ii.
ii.
199).
133-134,
Notes (i) and (ii) to ii. 199, and Note (ii) to ii. 235.
Keeping ourselves strictly to the conceptions of these
figures as Dandin gives them, we can say that whil^
in a normal case of cause producing effect we have the
125
[KSvyadarsa]
ii.
323
KSvyadaria
IH
presence of (i) principal cause, (ii) presence of accessory causes, (iii) presence of extraordinary circumstances favouring the production of the cause, (iv)
presence of agreeable natural conditions, and (v)
absence of special hindrances, all co-operating to
IN
we have
*HH^
-Effect absent ; *
KIND
IN f^-^TT^RT 1ST
Principal cause absent
Effect present
2nd kind
Effect present
IN
Q^ H ia
Effect present
^
> through greatness
*
^^ cause ;
J
IN 3ftf (Bhoja
Principal cause present
iii.
18)
1
>
[
9T?2
unpropitious ?
II.
^^^'
Effect absent*
in
reads
each case
(p.
431)
is
the item
f^TcIW^
for
i%-
is~3Tpf dr^u)H|chdl^
ttotes
Notes to
II.
325
Notes to
II.
326 (i)
Notes to
II.
(i)
327-
On
this
iL 33d
^^ ^-
(i)
^*\<^^'
330-332 (i)
We
Notes to
II.
Kuvalayananda
ftcTffl^
5^cf^-
46)
fm^TcSRW ^c^I^f^
and Jagannatha
(ii)
(43, 45,
(p.
317)
of this figure
is
11
ii.
330,
Itavyadaria
1^^
own way,
(ii.
46),
(ii.
%^fT
(ii.
|[c??3it5TtqTTT
310
(ii.
ff.),
48), <Cn^
3T5r'^^5Rl^T
(ii.
(ii.
To begin with,
348).
97),
^mT^>^
340), 5J[t:5T^%
(ii.
343)
(ii.
205),
and
illustration in
ii.
erior or
g'JTl^c^
is
joined
in
absent in
is
direct,
jrfrf^^fjT.
In
inferior relation
out.
is
gq?Tr
variety.
(iv)
Consider the
sftq^B
illustrations in
ii.
99,
and
100.
^^f^r is quite
obvious.
Wj
[ ii.338
UoteB
Though
the illustration of a
offer points of
Aprastutaprasamsa as Dandin conceives it inif not 5^fcr or f^^, but there is an absence
of arf^r^^ relation, and an implication of sr^cf through
*ra^^ statement, in place of the direct statement of the
two found in a ^^^tfrRTT.
(vii)
volves
^^,
(viii)
it is
Vyajastuti
(ii.
And
feigned.
343) involves
it is
a ^T%
made
^5%
(or
f^^) but
of a certain thing
simile.
ge^Rtf^^T is
based
necessarily
else in
upon a
two things.
m^
m^
Notes to II. 333-339 (i) All writers except Bharata admit f^^^ as a distinct figure. A few leading definitions are given below
:
Agnipurana
Bhamaha
28)
(344.
(iii.
24)
and Udbbata
(p.
59)
Rudrata
(ix.
Vamana
(IV.
^^]
[v.
1.
w^-.]
30)
[v.l
iii.
12)
and Ruyyaka
(p.
121)
a^^lll
ii.
i39
knvyndaria
Bhoja
(iii.
24)
Mammata
Vagbhata
(X.
807)
p.
121)
(iv.
5T5^4^cWRrfcr
Vagbhata
Kesavamisra
f^^:
(p.
35)
3T2T^
Hemachandra
fq^mmm ^^^1%
(viii.
Vidyanatha
(p.
416)
Visvanatba
(x.
68)
Kuvalayananda
(p.
(p.
A.cbyutaraya
33)
(st.
f^lft ^f^
269)
(p.
Vidyadhara
Visvesvara
W^ q^
38)
(p.
Jagannatba
^ f^^:
75)
^I^
^^^ ^^ flfw
427)
321)
(viii.
202)
II
II
IM
199
Notes
The
(ii)
figure is said to be
w^^ when
word
ii.
like
339
a^
The ten-fold division of the figure given bymost writers is, like that of ^q^NiRh or ^q^, based
upon the four-fold 4%^ of words recognised by grammarians. Jagannatha (p. 428) rightly calls this classification 3^,
Bhoja gives four kinds, viz. 3T^Fr%,
JT^^, 9Tf^* and ^^^. Rudrata gives 13 varieties,
denying the validity of ^JilldJ^o^f%d'<^, and adding 4 addi^N^tji*.
while figures like r^tt^t or certain varieon ultimate analysis, special kinds of
Cp. the list of fq^^^rg^^ figures on p. 69
109), etc.,
fq^^ only.
above, as also Note (iii) to ii. 199. Hemachandra in
ir^ =^ fw^^TTf^ttqhRwrfcrfact even observes (p. 272)
ftf#^rT^
ftf^cf:
(v)
tr^
-^
^
I
^^^^ f^^cr^JTrfq
^d^JRr^ 3
f^rf^
^KT:
f^
^^ specially
this.
^r
jrfrifw^-
31%^...
in putting
^^-
ii.
SS9
Kavyadaria
(vi)
In
ii.
worth noting.
improve the original.
etc.
Notes to
It
is
340-342
II.
(i)
200
for f^^^^3?H
a deliberate attempt to
^i^TRT^frJR^ etc.
is
in
case alone.
The
for 'latter*.
figure are
Bhamaha
TJdbhata
(p.
Vamana
(IV.
Bhoja
(iv.
28)
(iii.
iii.
4)
and Vagbhata
Mammata
36)
(p.
52)
f^ l^t^mr
Ruyyaka
(p.
^rft%
m^ fq^ 51^ ^
^^^
3T5R3cT5r^^ ^Trri|:
?^ fll^
f^^:
(p.
^ %%
%^1
=^
^W{\
^^^fi ^^r
^1t
=^ ^sr^qfci
II
II
II
^% ^RRR^2ftl%^:
II
402)
II
750)
^^^^[^
^^r^m
Vagbhata (iv. 134)
Jagannatha
^^
104)
(x, p.
=^ 5{^^T52rT =^
^m^ ^
^TM<:4dM<(kT,
qr-^feTir^fij^
^ 5
adding in explana-
^:
(ii)
8T5l^^T^?f
5l^^q<fe5[^ftl%: is
writers
3W^^^
to Daijidin
8T5l5gci5Rf5B^ SI^rrf^T^OTcftf^: is 3T5n^cI5RteT.
This has saved Dandin from the necessity (i) of distinguishing this figure from ^nTT^^i%, SfM^<1<Wil, ^, etc
and (ii) of explaining the circumstances which make
possible for the 3T5R|[cI to suggest 5f^. These oiroumstances give the several varitrties of the figure at
admitted by subsequent writers. In order to show how
very complicated the whole business of classification
has become at the hands of these later writers w
give below a tabular statement based on the Kavyait
prakftfr
r (i)
I
s?5I^dM!fl
(ii)
^Rqrfw^
^^ 5(^3^ ^Fiqffw^q;
(iii)
^m^ ^^ f^tt^fw^^
(iv)
\^ 5T^^ ^mT^=?nfw^i^
Mv) 3^
Variety
5i?Eg^
5R3^ 3??TRRifvnin^
A.
Use of f^
words for
B.
f%^rqiJI+f|^
Through s^t^^kN
as in
C.
simple
(with
5af;Tr^frl%
Or again, independently,
Through
m^m
into
!
Ai.
TJ?w!n^i^
Bhoja gives
tion into ^['^!^\ and
(iii)
Bi.
26
Kavyaiwrva
9^w=-2n^i^
his
Ci.
ar^i^^^ui
ii.
341 paraphrased
ii.
S4^
ICavyUdaria
illustrates
MWt ^5=^^J^f?t ^ ^t
W^ ^
Notes to
II.
^JTf^
343-347
(i)
by
3fTfe ^psfi
q^
f^ ^irf^ ^sfepTT ^
A few
representative definitions
Bhamaha
30)
(iii.
Udbhata
(p.
61)
Rudrata
(x.
11)
Vamana
(IV.
^*n5?Tj%f$i^cbijU<yii Ri'^T
Bhoja
56)
(iv.
Ruyyaka
(p.
Mammata
112)
(x, p. 815)
Hemachandra
(p.
Vidyadhara
(viii.
Vidyanatha
(p.
276)
30)
443)
and Jagannatha
2fT^^:
^r
^f^: si^fr^
i.
24)
iii.
(p.
202
416)
^^^ 33Tr3j^f^:
Notes
(ii)
It will be
noted that
all
ii.
34?
^^ %^
3431
figures,
ii.
268.
^^
""^^
ii.
348
Notes to
of
Kavyadarsa
f^JT
A few
348-350 (i)
II.
%^r
or
are here
not recognised by
representative definitions
The
assembled.
Bhamaha
Udbhata
(iii.
32)
62)
(p.
^qjiRtq^R^ ^ji%
Vimana
Bhoia
(IV.
iii.
II
20)
^t^i^j?^ cT^
Ruyyaka
w %?kT
31)
(iii.
Mammata
Vidyadhara
(viii.
Vidyfinatha
(p.
II
19)
433)
^Rr^j^feqi
^r^r
^^Er^
744 ff.)
(x, p.
Visvanatha
^^ ^
76)
(p.
(x.
TR^
f^4^i#4.ic4
3|^:
^T^r
^ ^iRi4<{Mi
^vT^^^r
f^'^^l'ii
(st. 52fif.)
^Mai
^ ^5^<'h^|;dl
^^
Jitc5r^f3F5FFf<^^1^!i^ '^T^
^f\^ 5rT|: l^j^^l^c^^^Jqt:
3n?[f
ii
51)
Kuvalayananda
figure is
Rrf,
2Q4
II
II
ii
and
S05
Notes
Jagannatha
It will
ii.
350
339)
(p.
and Visvesvara
(ii)
(p.
262)
be observed
Dandin,
that
BhSmaha,
known
of the figure.
of
The
karasarvasva
(iv)
one
Bhoja
left
to be
(p. 299ff.)
minor principles of
or two
similarity
(p. 77).
is
sub-division.
The
inferred.
jThe former
is
the
latter,
ii
350
KSvyadaria
206
Notes to
351-354 (i)
II.
figure are
Anipurana
Bhamaha
(344. 23)--
(iii.
38)
^c^RJT^
'^^JT
Rudrata(viii.
Vamana
Bhoja
and Udbhata
(p.
f^ ^ ^k:^iMim\^
^^ 'H^Rh: ^
67)
[^Rlf^
?T?TT 3T5irT
99f)
(iv. 3.
28)
57 ff.)
(iv.
f^%tR^ ^1%
Ruyyaka
(p.
Mammata
^%: ^ RTT^
f^fqrffT
^nfq
W^
11
II
81)
(x, p. 817)
(iv.
119)
V. 1.1
[^cTTl^V.
1.]
tWl
^oUii
VagbhaU
38)
(p.
Kesavamisra
(p. 36)
Hemachandra
Vidyanttha
Visvanatha
(p.
273)
(p.
400)
(x. 55)
and Jagannatha
(ii)
[-ii.354
(p.
357)
The statement
of
^w ^^Mld:
is
ftcTT.
which constitutes
orfcRT^Ttfrfi^^iS^.
'-^
'
(p.
3T^^"^^RT^ '^^m^f^sTT
^J
Ruy-
^ 9m^^]'
81)
Ruyyaka
fp.
331)
observes ?HT2f^^^:
^ ?l^T
f^f^5l%[
= =^c5BR]R^tiM^^1^rri:
The
relation
ti.
354
kSvylSdaria
as
we have
tM
seen
(Notes, p. 146-47),
illustrated
'iffcl^i^Rh,
is
by Ruyyaka as ^^(rh
regards
it
Notes to
in
ii.
are
355-356(i) The
II.
Bhamaha
(iii.
40)
3<^l'd<'^Wcf<^
Udbhata
(p.
^R^frK^
69)
Rudrata
(vii.
77)
Vamana
(IV.
iii.
16)
Bhoia(iii. 29f.)
Ruyyaka
(p.
152)--
and Jagannatha
(p.
481)
spur u
209
Notes
Two
(ii)
ought
ii.
357
The barter
and charming. An actual comtransaction howsoever noteworthy cannot
to be ^[^chf^^
mercial
be an instance of this figure. Secondly, there ought
to be a regular sales-agent in the transaction. Accordingly a case like R)ftr4Mli:2fT^q^TR ^t^ v?^ c^r qwj^^
^^*^^ or
there
is
rlRfR^rr^
qf^ JJ^[
^^K
stjit^ where
f%f%^T^wrT^ cannot
in the normal acceptance of the term
be a regular
q%%
^wi^jj'Jii
c^T^c^
or reside in one
Notes to
is
II.
3Tr?^:
(p.
(iii.
54) is
Hemachandra
(p.
294)
the passage.
Vi
K5vy5dar6a
ii.
357
Kavyadaria
210
ed from one another by malicious and mendacious gobetweens, perceive their error, and one of them calls
upon the other to join hands again. On this Hema-
^^"^RR^T^
3T5r
STRTI^rrR^^
in the second
(see our Com. ii. 357*^"^^). Hemachandra points out that the hostile cities have already been
vanquished. Hence, ^snmr^it ^^rjiTTfi'Jlt ^^^Tim stth^t^cT^tt^35R% The illustration given by Dandin is of course
And the same is the case with
3T5lTH5ITBt'^3Tftqvr 3TRft:
example also
Vagbhata,
358-359ab. (i) Before winding up his treatment of the regular alaihkaras and passing on to a
consideration of the mixed alamkaras (ii. 360), Dandin
Notes to
II.
211
Notes
ii.
358
a regular figure.
ii.
p.
ii.
Compare
also
ii.
309.
See note
(ii)
to
'
'
88.
(ii) The alarhkaras 3^;^^ and^^%, though not separately given by Dandin, are treated as independent
alarhkaras by almost all other writers, including
Bhamaha.
The
figures ^Mfll^M*
and
^^|fcfJ-|4
are
how-
Bhamaha
As
writers is concerned.
to ^fflT^^f^, in as
much
as
way
of
it
^^^.
in his ^qR[T^t?F#^ (p. 41) discusses Bhamaha's illustration for ^^TR??^ and regards it as a regular variety of
(iii) That a very large number of alarhkaras recognised by modern writers are absent in Dandin's book
is no impeachment of it.
Science must grow.
ii.
359
ICavyadaria
ii.
remembered that
It will be
^4
^12
^^
for
a distinction between these terms, reserving
for preponderaco-ordinating or W{^^ mixture and
ing mixture or mixture with the 9TWn%^R relation.
Although Dandin is aware of this two-fold method of
mixture he has not deemed it necessary to appropriate
a distinct name for each. Bhamaha, Rudrata, Vamana,
Bhoja, Hemachandra, and the two Vagbhatas have
likewise contented themselves with just one name
Bhamaha, Vamana, and Bhoja choosing ^?jfe the
%^
upon w^-
The
later
alamkarikas
including W^> 'TWTH, ^^^^rrsr, and others clearly distinguish between ^^fe and ^\^ some adding also a
third category of ^^f or arf^^f^r.
(ii) The more important statements of these &lamkarikas are here assembled for easy reference
Bhamaha
(iii. 48)^
Vamana
(IV.
Rudrata
(x.
Bhoja
(iv.
iii.
30f.)
25)
88 ff.)
^^f^ftfe
f%^\
5Tmr55iFRg*^^:
f^^l^'J^^JfJi^JfRT^^R^f^
II
Hemachandra
(p.
289)
11
213
i)otes
Pratlharenduraja
Mammata
(x, p.
(x.
ii.
360
(p. 66)
915 ff,)
^rf^^cT:
11
98 f.)
^^
(iv)
Should we admit
figure-of-speech at all
^^^
or ^^^ as an independent
This question is analogous to
a 361
Notes to
II.
an
V 214
Kavyadaria
Jsq^TT
some commentators.
Dandin has not apparently given an illustration
The stanza ii. 362 (cp. ii. 226^^) sup5OT^g^T.
plies the deficit.
But it is omitted in most Mss. and
Cb quotes the stanza with the remark
^^TOj^^qr
(ii)
for
gfqf
ST'^^Tl^'iR^pr
^sqj^
It
may
Notes to
II.
363. (i) Of
tained in
is
ii.
perhaps
QT^^^^n^ and
that between
^s^m; but
is
number
of figures, with
215
Notes
ii.
363
the
is artificial
and
Paronomasia
(ii)
It is
is
Dandin*s
^m^'^T q^T%5
qm^r.
^T^if^f:
3^t^t^^ ^%i
We
should in this
I
or as another puts
it,
a q^J^r#mMT%:
Compare
also
ii.
863 ]
gupta's
Kavyadaria
comment
^s^^
^^T
f|
sff^l^^T^
^Wq^Mftc^2T^^l^Nci*K^l^chi<|r^K^lTq:)
=^
(i.
216
^^^ ^Wrff^
^.
30)- gxff
that
thel^ style,
in spite of its
srtt^,
^cTT, or
?stJf^c^,
^^
(v.
1.
q^tf%?:^T^
f^vrrsq^
which, coming as it does in connection with his treatment of 3lfeRt%, leads to the equation arfrRI^f^f = ^^tf%r
which Mammata (x. p. 906) and Hemachandra (p. 267)
^^frRRtf^i^ 5[T'Jlc^Hmfdycl
^
Other
testimony to this extended
ft^T Ml^yJI^^K^I^itTT^
application of the term q^% is Alarhkarasarvasva (p.S)distinctly lay
down ^i^
aW^tl^ V^ -AY^^MV'
>dmKi=i5hcni%ft:
^w# ^^^f^q^:
52T^%^1 And again (p. 177) ^n%;^l^^^j^jR^nTn'2I^^To the same effect also srf^P^SH in
i|]^l^*l<ft?t^ ^f%T:
his xir^l<A)ch^N q (p. 208) 2nfciWf%i^f^ %^
q^tfiff:
cSt^?^ iwi^q: I^T^Rtf^:
3i^^l<M4>K ^'
Compare also Kavyadarsa ii. 220.
^c|1<Agh ^l*<l-^q^l
this earlier conception of q^tf%f (or
against
As
(iv)
by
Bhamaha, Dandin, Kuntaka and
given
3ifiRI^t%)
have
the
subsequent restriction of it to a
others? we
defined by Ruyyaka (p. 175)
speech
specific figure-ofI
assi-qifl^h^
4WW
^JlfS^^T^rm:^^ tPSRi^
and
illus-
trated by
(ii 14-17),
Mammata (ix,
p. 593),
Hemachandra (p.
234),
217
Notes
Vidyanatha
ii.
363
(x. 9)
called
^.^<?q.
(v)
of
cfcpifTf:,
3tM%^ ^^^m^ e.
^R^Tci:
^fl^R^:
e.
g.
"^'^^^^Tci: e. g.
and,
it
mode
(a case of
^m ^:
q^T%)
ff^qf^^^t ^4:
Ti^% ^^ ^^^^^J^.
thus, according to
is
Vamana, a metaphori-
as any striking
now
the
T%2rRITnri: e. g.
Vakrokti
cal
^e^iiT,
g. #.^-'^JT^-^W;
f^T ^\^^^^
e. g.
ways
recall that to
mode
Dandin regarded
of poetic expression.
Vamana
all
If
we
figures-of-speech are
^HMTfraq^
At
the
same
comparing Kavyadarsa
example for ^#ii%f, viz.
time,
RjfRS^
Bharata
like
q^n% and
an
ST^.^PR.
Samadhi
is
declared,
(ii.
100) of
poetry
and it is difficult to talk of more than one
thing in the superlative and yet maintain a distinction
between them, especially if we remember that with
Vamana the boundary-line between Gunas and alamkaras was very vague indeed (cp. II. 3. 172 ^c5!^t*IR1:
;
23
[Kavyadarsa]
ii.
363--
Kavyadarka
2iB
be
made
(vii)
to turn
upon
their
^n%.
account of
^i% as
a ^c^r^i^^
Notes to
II.
^<^iM
%^fi
'f\\^^^^ T^?5Tm
n^^^
For a future incident anticipatorily glimpsed Ruyyaka (p. 182) gives the instance^
(ii)
figure
viT^T
^n^\
This etymology
219
I il.
Notes
366
however
sT^^T^Tf
^^
^fci
^^ I3 5f=^#
But Dandin's requirements for the figure as enumeii. 365-366 seem to be peculiar to him, as also
his whole conception of the same, wherein he is
probably following a tradition distinct from that of
Bhamaha. Bhoja's conception of Bhavika (which he
identifies with ^:^.5;, iv. 85-86) is so very far removed
from the two conceptions discussed hiiherto that it
rated in
The Bhavika
(iii)
from the
jut
called
of later writers
51^1^,
\^J^
574f.)--^
<
-^ 3?^ri?T?^?]T 5^:
=^i?;i|^r
i^'
distinguishable
the i^
is
all,
f^^^ ^mi^
Hcivm^^: Sf^^r^Tffm^
\^^K
'
^W
^ =^f^^^i%^^)^:
^^ 3 ^3^-
Hemachan^^^iq^TMc^^r %'^^%f#^^'rm
dra however refuses to admit this figure. He says
(p.
293)^!^ g
(iv) Confining our attention to Dandin's own conception of iif^?fj it will be observed that Dandin's
treatment of it is quite in place, coming as it does
after his treatment of q^rf%; whereas, it is not quite
clear why Bhamaha should have called his ^r%f> a
Sf^^^l^^fqj^iJT.
Bhavika is the quality belonging to a
poem taken as a whole, and it suggests the formula*
tion of questions like, Is there a meaning to the
whole
Is
it
Is there a
a clear and
These are questions of higher
theme
of parts
Is
it
ii.
367
Kavyadaiia
criticism;
and
it is
creditable. to
220
made room
Notes to
II.
the point of
explicit.
(ii) Here again, as at the end of the first Parichcheda, Dandin emphasises, for an aspiring poet, the
necessity of constant
practice.
Repetitio mater
studiorum.
-^andin
Dandn.n's Kavyadarsa
.
PLEASE
CARDS OR
DO NOT REMOVE
SLIPS
UNIVERSITY
FROM
THIS
OF TORONTO
LIBRARY