·Kävyādarsa of Daudin
NOTES
PARICHCHHEDA II

·(FORA NO 212.)
ALLAHABAD UNIVERS Y LIBRARY.
Date Table
Access1011 No
Section No.
This book should return on or before the date
last marked below:

·PARICHCHHEDA II Notes to II. 1-(1) Compare Note (1) to i 10 Kāvya, 8ccording to Dandin, is-sarjaallegat 4619ct; that is to say, he gives more prominence to the word element in poetry as compared with the sense-element. This does not mean that the Gunas which are the sine qua non of poetry, and the Alamkāras which serve as decoration, must belong to the word-element, the y, exclusively; for, the fears, the subordinate elements of the Body, have also their own decorations. Thus there is no inconsistency in Dandin's having defined Kāvya as he has done and then having divided the Alamkaras (and impliedly the Gunas also-op. Note (1) to i. 41) into those belonging to word and those belonging to sense. Modern Alamkārikas such as Mammata, having once subordinated both the word as well as the sense to Rasa, are constrained to regard the Gunas as well as the Alamkāras as belonging to Rasa, the angin. For a criticism of this view see our Note (1il) to i 41 and the Sanskrit Commentary to the present stanza. (ii) The distinct function of the Gunas and the Alamkáras is brought out by Dandin by calling the former the life-breaths and the latter the ornaments of poetry. The Gunas abide in poetry warra while the Alamkāras TETT, there is between them a distinction in kind,-a distinction which later became one of degree, as with arhe (iii. 1 1-2) or with state ECTS (p. 17)-गुणा खलु काव्यशोभाहेतवो धर्माः । येषां तु गुणोपजनितशोभे काव्ये शोभातिशयहेतुत्वं तेलंकारा । Compare however the followirg from 34TEREK, p. 20– LEUCT अलंकृतमपि श्रव्यं न काव्यं गुणवर्जितम् । गुणयोगस्ततो मुख्यो गुणालंकारयोगयो । अलंकारसह किं गुणो यदि न विद्यते । विक्रीयन्ते न घण्टाभिर्गाव क्षीरविवर्जिता 4 AUCK Compare also (Agnipurāna, 346 11- अलंकृतमपि प्रीत्यै न काव्यं निर्गुणं भवेत् । ALLAHAB वपुष्यललिते स्त्रीणा हारो भारायते परम् ।। Mammata's अनलंकृती पुनः कापि implies the same thing.

·ii, 1-1 Kavyadaria [ 68 (iii) The progressive development in the theory, and with it in the number, of the Alamkāras forms an interesting chapter in the history of Sanskrit Rhetoric. The subject is too large, however, to be adequately discussed in a pote. Our Introduction has attempted a rapid review of the main stages reached during the process, to which the reader is therefore referred. It would be noted in this place that Dandin must have lived at a time when the development of the Alamkāras in the way of progressive division and subdivision was in full swing; and he seems to have been anxious rather to give an epitomized statement of the principal results arrived at than to add his own quota to the process of amplification. In fact he has even bad to reject some of the Alamkäras recognised by his predecessors (op. ii. 358-359 and notes thereon). Notes to II. 2-(1) The fundamenta divisionis of the Alamkāras have been variously stated in different texts. The simplest division into regata and perfora, even after the addition of a third class of hea, proved quite inadequate. It is however given by the stagem, 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, lokavyavahāra ; Rasa, Rhetoric, Technicality. these were some of the principles of classification accepted. Compare, for instance, the Alamkārasarvasve, and particularly the following list based upon the Prataparudriya (pp. 338– 339) (wherein the Alamkāras not recognised by Dandin are shown in square brackets - रूपक, [परिणाम, संदेह, भ्रान्तिमत्, उल्लेख.] अपहृति,- based on अभेदप्रधान- दीपक, तुल्ययोगिता, [दृष्टान्त,] निदर्शना, [प्रतिवस्तूपमा,] सहोक्ति, [प्रतीप, व्यतिरेक,-based on भेदप्रधान- FrR; उपमा, [अनन्वय, उपमेयोपमा, स्मरण,]-based on भेदाभेदसाधारण- 3 ·69 ] Notes [-11.2 . . उत्प्रेक्षा, अतिशयोक्ति,-based on अध्यवसाय, विभावना, विशेषोक्ति, [विषम, चित्र, असगति, अन्योन्य, व्याघात, अतद्गुण,] भाविक, [विशेप,]--based on विरोध, यथासंख्या, [ परिसंख्या, अर्थापत्ति, विकरप, समुच्चय, ]-based on वाक्यन्याय: परिवृत्ति, [प्रत्यनीक, तद्गुण,] समाधि( = समाहित), [सम,] स्वभावोक्ति, उदात्त, [विनोक्ति,]-basd on लोकव्यवहार; [काव्यलिङ्ग, अनुमान,] अर्थान्तरन्यास,-based on तर्कन्याय; [ कारणमाला, एकावली, मालादीपक, सार,]-based on शृङ्खलावैचित्र्य; [व्याजोक्ति, वक्रोक्ति, मीलन,]-based on अपह्नव; and समासोक्ति, [परिकर,]-based on विशेषणवैचित्र्य It became soon obvious that any such classificatory principle or principles, would gradually tend to become inadequate, as there would always remain some Alamkāras recognised by rhetoricians and falling outside their scope Thus of the 35 or rather 34 Alamkāras recognised by Dandın the following 14 are not included in the above list -आवृत्ति, आक्षेप, हेतु, सूक्ष्म, लेश, प्रेयस् , रस- वत् , ऊर्जस्विन, पर्यायोक्त, श्लिष्ट, विरोध, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, व्याजस्तुति, and आशी (not to mention सकीर्ण) Some of these, e.g, प्रेयस्, रसवत् , ऊर्जस्विन् , are sometimes classed as रसमूलक ; while आक्षेप, पर्यायोक्त, अप्रस्तुतप्रशसा, व्याजस्तुति and आशीः will have to be classed as नाट्यालकारs, 1e, merely as effective modes of expression, such as those enumerated by Bharata in the beginning of the 16th chapter of the Nātyaśāstra. The tendency towards & wanton increase merely in the number of the Alamkāras (and of subdivisions within an Alamkāra), which marked the latest phase in the history of the Alamkāraśāstra, made any attempt to trace the Alamkāras to their such as Dandin contemplatesman altogether hopeless task (11) But already in some quarters, as in the case of the Gunas,-see note (11) to i 41-a revolt against this gratuitous multiplication of entities had begun to assert itself. Thus Hemachandra rejects परिकर, यथासंख्य, विनोक्ति, भाविक, उदात्त, रसवत् , प्रेयस्, ऊर्जस्विन् , भाव, समाहित, आशीः, and seasite as distinct Alamkāras-and some of them, it will be seen, are recognised even by Dandin and Bhāmaha. Udbhata's Kāvyālamkārasärasamgraha is ·ii. 2-) Kavyādarsa [ 70 likewise moderate in its enumeration of Alamkāras, while even so late a text as the Alamkārasekhara of Keśavamiśra (which is believed to have utilised the Sūtras of Sauddhodanı) lays down with emphasis (p 29-å Frelsarrange a a7 i stating further (p 38) that he has justified the position he has taken in his rencata, a work which apparently has not come down to us Dandın, it will be noted, holds a middle position between the two extremes of needless amplification and unwarrantable curtailment (1i1) Who the aeraris are that Dandın had in his mind it is difficult to decide. As the treatment of the Alamkāras in Bharata, or in the Agnipuräna for the matter of that, is very meagre these cannot have been intended by him, and as to Bhämaha, since his list of Alamkāras (cp li 4, 11 66, ii 86, 11. 88, ii 93, 111 1-4), made up of detached and successive lists as it is, agrees in general statement and even in the order in which the Alamkāras are mentioned with that of Dandin, it is doubtful if Dandin would regard Bhāmaha-even though he be his predecessoras one of the gaiaris referred to in the present stanza. On this point see further our Introduction It seems that a large mass of literature known to Dandin is now lost to us. Cp note (11) to 1 2. The Commentary staigyneft enumerates, amongst Dandin's predecessors, 144, ब्रह्मदत्त, and नन्दिस्वामि, names otherwise almost unknown. Notes to II. 3-(i) Dandin here admits that as regards the Alamkāras there is no difference of practice between the Vaidarbhas and the Gaudas (साधारणमलकारजातम्) but this is rather unexpected That craving for simplicity and directness in the one and hyperabole and ornateness in the other which led them to cultivate distinctive agus is bound to make itself felt even in their choice of the Alamkāras and their frequency ; although this fact, it is obvious, would not make any difference in the definitions of the Alamkāras as such.

·71 ) Notes [-ii. 5 Notes to II. 4-(i) We are not quite certain as to the genuineness of this list of Alamkāras (stanzas 4-7), although all the Mss give it It is the practice of some of the later Alamkārikas to preface their treatment of the Alamkāras by a few mnemonic verses of their own composition, but some writers, eg Mammaţa, have not obliged their would-be students in this manner; and just as in the case of Mammata & commentator has added a versified enumeration at the beginning of the tenth Ullāsa (although never as a part of Mammata's own work), so, it seems to us, must have been the case with Dandin It is only on some such supposition that we can account for the ungrammatical दीपकावृती (or the unmetrical दीपकावृत्ती), and also for the further fact that in this enumeration some figures (e g 39, 3454egara) appear under strange, and others (eg विशेष for विशेषोक्ति) under misleading, names. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that Āobārya Dandin could not have avoided such solecisms and ambiguities if he had meant it (11) Vibhāvana is often rendered as Presumption, --but that is a name that we must reserve for zertyfe, which ist and others recognise as a distinct figure-ofspeech-or as Peculiar Causation. It is rather an imagining or a guessing or a divining of a novel cause to account for the effect that has already taken place. Possibly 'Unmotivated Effect' will explain the idea of the figure and would serve to distinguish it from * Non-operative Cause', by which term we could render the figure faztetan as it is ordinarily defined. Dandin's account of the figure is however a little bit different. See below. (11) The latter half of this stanza is identical with Bhāmaha 11 66, first half Notes to II. 5-(i) The second half of this staza is identical with Bhamaha iii. 1, first half We have already commented upon the name 'Lava' Later Alamkarikas make a distinction between the figure called ·ii. 5-1 Kavyādarsa [ 72 समाधि (which is the same as Dandin's समाहित) and the figure समाहित which is a रसमूल Alamkara Compare Ruyyaka, pp 163, 185, Visvanātha, pp. 568, 576; Visvešvara in the Alamkārakaustubha, pp 372, 416. Bhoja gives the two figures, but what he calles fa approaches the hilêrgut / cp note (11) to 1 93-92), while he does not at all recognise the The Alamkāra called ममाहित in other texts Bhoja, however, agrees with Dandin in calling by the name while the figure named समाधि by मम्मट and others. Notes to II. 6-(1) We have already commented upon the use of the abbreviated name विशेष for विशेषोक्ति. Visesha as a figure distinct from fastalih is recognised, amongst others, by Rudrata, Ruyyaka, Mammata, Visvanatha, and Jagannātha. Notes to II. 7-(i) The figure 3ft recognised by Dandın is recognised by no other Alamkārıka except Bhämaha and Vāgbhata the author of the Kāvyānušāsana. It should be noted, however, that the name amongst the 36 effective literary devices mentioned by Bharata in the beginning of the 16th Chapter. Bhavika usually translated by Vision' will have to be rendered, consistently with Dandin's explanation of the term, by some such expression as Sustained. Intuition. Notes to II. 8-(1) Besides the two names for this figure given by Dandin the figure is also called Farha (erasa कारशेखर, P 35) and स्वरूप (अग्निपुराण 344. 3); while रुद्रट groups this figure along with a number of others under the head of aire figures, i e., those that have the portrayal of the thing-as-it-is as their object. Compare (viii. 10-12) वास्तवमिति तज्ज्ञेयं क्रियते वस्तुस्वरूपकथन यत् । पुष्टार्थमविपरीतं निरुपममनतिशयमश्वेषम् ॥

·73] Notes [-1.8 तस्य सहक्तिसमुच्चयजातियथासख्यभावपर्याया । विषमानुमानदीपकपरिकरपरिवृत्तिपरिसख्या । हेतु कारणमाला व्यतिरेकोन्योन्यमुत्तर सारम् । सूक्ष्म लेशोवसरो मीलितमेकावली भेदाः ॥ The first question that has to be deterinined in re. gard to this figure is whether a mere photographic faithfulness to the object under description is what is demanded Can we for instance regard the following from भामह (1194)- आक्रोशन्नाह्वयन्नन्यानाधावन् मण्डलै रुढन् । गा वारयति दण्डेन डिम्भ सस्यावतारणी ॥ as a valid example of FirelitiOn this point opinion seems to have been divided at any iate, some of the earlier writers did not think it necessary to speci. fically formulate the requirements of this figure, although it must have been all along assumed that वैचित्र्य, strikingness, that sine qua non of all अलंकारs, would be demanded in the case of this 3707r also. When the question was actually asked, there was no doubt as to the answer to be given Thus Ruyyaka says (p. 177)-इह वस्तुस्वभाववर्णनमानं नालंकार' । तत्त्वे सति सर्वे काव्यमलंकार' स्यात् । न हि तत् काव्यमस्ति यत्र न वस्तुस्वभाववर्णनम् । It was the कविप्रतिभामात्रगम्यं सूक्ष्मवस्तु that alone came legitimately under the province of this Alamkāra Hence the साहित्यदर्पण says (x. 93)-स्वभावोक्तिर्दुहार्थस्वक्रियारूपवर्णनम् । (ii) Bhoja finds it necessary to distinguish this figure from the [Artha-lguna called अर्थव्यक्ति, which he understands in a sense different from that of Dandin (compare our Sanskrit Commentary to i 73, p 83). But his distinction अर्थव्यक्तेरिया-जाति भेदमियता प्रतिपद्यते । जायमानमियं वक्ति रूपं सा सार्वकालिकम् ॥ is not always observed, and Mammata was perhaps justified in regarding the अर्थव्यक्तिगुण defined as वस्तुस्वभाव- स्फुटत्वम् as comprehended under the figure स्वभावोक्ति. 10 Kavyadarsa) ·ii. 9-) Kavyādarsa [ 74 Notes to II. 9-13—(1) Besides the classification given by Dandın, which has for its basis the fourfolds 97 of words recognised by the grammarians (of gett regrar प्रवृत्ति । जातिशब्दा गुणशब्दा क्रियागदा यदृच्छाशब्दाश्च । Mahābhāshya I. 19), Svabhāvoktı can also be differentiated into varlous sorts according to its आश्रय, स्वरूप, and हेतु The आश्रय is the theme , and this can be अर्भक, तिर्यक्, मुग्धाङ्गना, and the like Svarūpa indicates the particular aspect which is chosen for description, and this can be (A) बुद्धिपूर्वक शरीरावयवसंनिवेश or सस्थान, (B) अबुद्धिकारित. शरीरावयवस- निवेश or अवस्थान, (C) वेप, and (D) व्यापार By हेतु are meant the particular conditions of देश, काल, शक्ति, etc. which are adduced to lend probability to the theme under description For details see Bhoja in 6-8 and the examples there given. (11) The tendency of most writers is to make short shrift with this figure, which is rather a pity , for, apart from simile and other embellishments, there is a considerable skill involved in the process of 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 lıke Scott such fascinating reading. Not that there is no nature-description in Sanskrit poetry ; poets like Kālidāsa and Bhavabhūtı- 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 Svabh.- vokti (iii) There are two figures more or less allied to Svabhāvokti that have to be distinguished from it. The figure GIT (below, ii. 300) aims also at a description, but its object is some exalted personage or extraordinary eminence of some sort, whereas it is dis- ·75 ] Votes [-ii.14 trnctly land down (Bhoja, 1 8)-मुग्धाङ्गनाकस्तियंडनीचपात्राणि चाश्रय । Further, as understood by later writers, the exalted theme in the case of the 36777 must always be brought in subordinately (उपलक्षणतया), although Dandin does not lay down this condition The other figure allied to Svabhāvokti is Bhāvika (11 364), taking it in the sense in which भामह, उद्भट, मम्मट and others understand it and not in the peculiar sense which Dandın assigns to it The difference between Svabhāvokti and Bhāvika is one of time The former deals with the actual present the latter is an attempt to rehabilitate the past or to visualise the future For further remarks on the subject compare our Notes to ॥ 364ff Notes to II. 14-(1) A few leading definitions of Upama given by other writers are- --- Bharata (Nātyaśāstra xvi. 42)- अत्किचित् काव्यबन्धेषु साहश्येनोपमीयते। उपमा नाम मा ज्ञेया गुणाकृनिसमाश्रया । Agnipurana (344 6)- उपमा नाम राा यस्यामुपमानोपमेययोः । सत्ता च न्तरमामान्ययोगित्वेपि(2) विवक्षितम् ।। किचिदादाय मारूग्यं लोकयात्रा प्रवर्तते । Udbhata in the Kavyalamkarasamgraha (P 16)- यच्चेतोहारि साधर्म्यमुपमानोपमेययो । मिथो विभिन्नकालादिशब्दयोरुपमा तु तत् ॥ Rudrata (Kīvgālamkāra, vii. 4)- उभयो समानमेकं गुणादि सिद्ध भवेद्ययैकत्र । अर्थन्यत्र तथा तत् साध्यत इति मोपमा द्वेधा ॥ Bhamaha (11 30)- विरुद्धेनोपमानेन देशकालक्रियादिभिः । उपमेयस्य यत् माम्य गुणलेशेन सोपमा । Vāmana (Kāvyālamkārasütrā, IV. ii 1- उपमानेनोपमेयस्य गुणलेशतः साम्यमुपमा । -- ·in 14-] Kavyādarta 176 Bhoja (Sarasvatikanthābharana, iv. 5)- प्रसिद्धरनुरोधेन य परस्परमर्थयो । भूयोवयवसामान्ययोग सेहोपमा मता ॥ Ruyyaka (P 25) उपमानोपमेययो साधम्र्ये भेदाभेदतुल्यत्वे उपमा । Mammata (x 1) साधर्म्यमुपमा भेदे । Vagbhatalamkara (1v.50)- उपमानेन सादृश्यमुपमेयस्य यत्र सा । प्रत्ययाव्ययतुल्यार्थसमासैरुपमा मता ॥ Vagbhata (Kavyanusasana, P 33)- चमत्कारिसाम्यमुपमा । सा प्रत्ययाव्ययतुल्यार्थसमासैश्चतुर्धा । Hema.chandra (Kavyanusasana, P. 239)- हृद्यं साधर्म्यमुपमा । Vidyadhara (Ekavali, VIll 2)- विलसति सति साधर्म्य स्यादुपमानोपमेययोरुपमा । Vidyānātha (Pratāparudriya, P. 351) स्वत सिद्धेन भिन्नेन समतेन च धर्मतः। साम्यमन्येन वर्णस्य वाच्यं चेदेकदोपमा ॥ Visvanātha (Sahityadarpana,x 14)- साम्य वाच्यमवैधर्म्य वाक्यैक्य उपमा द्वयोः । Appayyadikshita (Chitram mansa, P.6)-- उपमानोपमेयत्वयोग्ययोरर्थयोईयो । हृद्यं साधर्म्यमुपमेत्युच्यते काव्यवेदिभिः ॥ Jagannātha (Rasagangādhara, P. 157) सादृश्य सुन्दर वाक्यार्थोपस्कारकमुपमालंकृति । Visvesvara (Alamkārakaustubha, P. 4)- एकवाक्यवाच्य सादृश्य भिन्नयोरुपमा । (11) It will be noticed that all these definitions of the Alamkarikas agree in the main. The यथाकथंचित् in Dandın's definition, which has its analogue in the definitions of the Nātyaśāstra and the Agnipurāna, implies that the similarity is largely affect and that it may hold in respect of any conceivable aspect or aspects of the two things to be compared. This neces- ·771 Notes [-11.14 sarily requires that the objects be two in reality, and it is this implication that has been expressly brought out by qualifications such as मिथो विभिन्नदेशकालादिशब्दयो., द्वयो', भेदे or भिन्नयो । The word उद्भूतम् is represented in other definitions by चेतोहारि, चमत्कारि, हृद्यम् or सुन्दरम् The specific mention of the technical terms उपमान and उपमेय in the definitions and the substitution of the word साधर्म्यम् (समानो धर्मों ययोस्तौ सधर्माणौ तयोर्भाव.) for the simpler सादृश्य, as also some late qualifications like, एकवाक्यवाच्य (उपमेयोपमाया वाक्यद्वयम् तदतिव्याप्तिवारणाय), उपमानोपमेयत्वयोग्ययो., etc. serve to exclude from the sphere of 39HT such varieties as अन्योन्योपमा, अद्भुतोपमा, मोहोपमा, सशयोपमा, निर्णयोपमा, प्रतिषेधोपमा, असाधारणोपमा, प्रतिवस्तूपमा, and तुल्ययोगोपमा which Dandin embraces under the general term 541 but which later Alamkārikas raised to the dignity of independent figures Dandin's conception of उपमा, and of सादृदय which is its basis, is thus very wide and general (111) We have already given above (Note (i) to il. 2) Vidyānātha's list of figures based on similarly, and the extracts in our Commentary (P 129) sufficiently illustrate this point The fundamental importance of the relation of semblance was indeed very early perceived The Agnipurāna for instance divides HRH (defined as धर्मसामान्यम् ) into उपमा, रूपक, महोक्ति and अर्थान्तरन्यास and रुद्रट similarly defines औपम्यम् as (viil 1)- सम्यक् प्रतिपादयितु स्वरूपतो वस्तु तत्समानमिति । वस्त्वन्तरमभिद याद्वक्ता यस्मिस्तौपम्यम् ॥ and enumerates the following figures as based upon that relation- उपमोत्प्रेक्षारूपक अपहृति. सशय' समासोक्ति । मतमुत्तरमन्योक्ति प्रतीपमर्थान्तरन्यास ॥ उभयन्यासभ्रान्तिमदाक्षेपप्रत्सनीकदृष्टान्ताः। पूर्वमहोक्तिसमुच्चयसाम्यस्मरणानि तद्भेदा ॥ The justification for the enumeration of these (and others) as distinct figures (and not mere varieties of उपमा) should consist in the circumstance that the साट्य- मूलकवैचित्र्य in these figures is subordinated to some other वैचित्र्य (of identity, doubt, error, contrast, etc) Dandin at least, as we will presently see, brought in this ·. ii. 14-0 Kavyādursa [78 other fast as the basis for a distinctive figure none too frequently, and hence it is that Dandın has been able to get on with fewer figures but with larger subvarieties urder each figure than most writers (10) Upamā has played a very large rôle even outside the Alamkārasāstra It is usual to derive the word उपमा from उप + /मा, to measure, in the sense of what approximates another in measure, dimension, quality, etc, but in the Rigveda the word seems to have been connected with the adjective 34 in the sense of the highest • ep -दधो यत् केतुमुपमं समत्सु (vii 30 3), or preeminent ep,युषीणामुपमा शश्व॑तीनाम् (1. 113 15). The two words, it is probable, are quite distinct, but the influence of the one in determining the evolution of the meaning of the other is undeniable The Satapatha. brāhmana was already familiar with the later use of of the word cp तदप्युपमास्ति (xil 5 1 5). (v) The Niruktakāra Yāska bas an elaborate note on the use of 3471 in the Rigveda. After pointing out (1.4, ll 15f) that the निपातs इव, न, चित् , and a as also यथा, था, आ वत् are under certain circumstances used उपमाथें he says (111 13ff)-यदतत् तत्सदृशमिति गार्ग्य । तदासा कर्म । ज्यायमा वा गुणेन प्रख्याततमेन वा कनीयासं वाप्रख्यातं वोपमिमीते। अथापि STAT TITA! Then he gives the following varieties of JTFT with their illustrations- कर्मोपमा-यथा वातो यथा वनं या समुद्र एजति ( V 78.8), भूतोपमा-मेषो भूतो भियन्नय. ( Vil 2.40), रूपोपमा-- हिरण्यरूप स हिरण्यसंदृक् ( 11 35 10 ), सिद्धोपमा अगिरस्वन्महित प्रस्कण्वस्य श्रुधी हवम् (i 45-3); and लुप्तोपमा अर्थोपमा-सिह (पूजायाम् ), काक' (कुत्मायाम् ). He has also elsewhere pointed out the influence of sumile in the building up of the languageकाक इति शब्दानु- कृति । तदिद शकुनिषु बहुलम्, 111 18, दुन्दुभिरिति शब्दानुकरणम् , Ix 12); in the formation of technical terms (उष्णीषिणी वेत्यौपमिकम् , vii. 12, पिपीलिकमध्येत्यौपमिकम् , vil 13); and upon the growth of Vedic mythology in general (अपा च ज्योतिषश्च मिश्रीभावकर्मणो वर्षकर्म जायते तत्रोपमार्थेन युद्धवर्णा भवन्ति, ii. 16). .

·79 ] Notes | ii. 14 (vi) Only two of these varieties recognised by Yāska deserve a particular attention What he calls लुप्तोपम is the set of the Alamkārikas, and Dandin's definition of that figure is suggestive in that connection była तिरोभूतभेदा रूपकमुच्यते। The degree of this तिरोधान upon which the later distinction between रूपक and अतिशयोक्ति is made to depend is equally ignored by Yāska as well as Dandin Next, the FGTHT of Yāska is what might be called a well-known or lawyer analogy. Compare in this connection the definition of a quoted above This THT contained in it the germ of what are known as quififatti or popular ris which, as we saw, were made the basis or aist of a number of Alamkāras Interpreted more scientifically the fH 14HT eventually became a regular 347called Syria which is a process of analogical knowledge from the known and the familiar to the unknown and the unfamiliar. Bhoja who recognises a distinct figure of speech corresponding to each of the several Pramā pas of the Mimäñsakas (FACEITOT He ahat, nii. 3) defines the alamkāra called 3 Hry as follows.- सदृशात् सदृशज्ञानमुपमानं द्विधेह तत् । स्यादेकमनुभूतेर्थेननुभूते द्वितीयकम ॥ His example is ता रोहिणी विजानीहि ज्योतिषामत्र मण्डले । समूहस्तारकाणा या कटाकारमाश्रित ॥ Most people would probably fail to see any figure in the example or at least any valid ground for regarding it as a new figure (vii) Having defined 3471 Dandin next gives us a number of sub-varieties of it-some 32 or 33 in number which do not seem to have been based upon any principle of division And some of the sub-varieties mentioned by him have so little distinctive about them that अभिनवगुप्त in his commentary on the नाव्यशास्त्र (Madras Govt ms fol 390) observes :-Perastu efUESTETGIV FECIT उपमाभेदास्तत्र यो भेदकोश' आचिख्यासासंशयनिर्णयादिरर्थ स तादृक् पृथगलं. FITCRIT TUGI: I Bhāmaha's criticism (11.37 f.) is in the same rein, no matter whether it is directed against Dandin or some other writer ·. ii. 14-] Kavyjādarga [80 यदुक्त त्रिप्रकारत्वं तस्याः कैश्चिन्महात्मभि । निन्दाप्रगंमाचिव्यासाभेदादत्राभिधीयते ॥ मामान्यगुणनिर्देशात् त्रयमप्युदित ननु । मालोपमादि सवोपि न ज्यायान् विस्तरो मुधा ॥ It has to be noted however that the Agnipurāna gives a classification of the stars analogous to that of Dandin [ viz -धर्म, वस्तु, परस्पर, विपरीत, नियम, अनियम, समुच्चय, व्यतिरेक, वहु, माला, विक्रिया, अद्भुत, मोह, संशय, निश्चय, वाक्यार्थ, गमन ( रशना ?), प्रशंसा, निन्दा, कल्पिता, सदृशी, and असदृशी], besides giv. ing another classification into 18 sub-varieties similar to those of Mammata ( 344 7-9) समासेनासमासेन सा द्विधा प्रतियोगिन ॥ विग्रहादभिधानस्य मसमासान्यथोत्तरा । उपमा द्योतपकदेनोपमेयपदेन च ॥ ताभ्या च विग्रहात् त्रेधा ससमासान्तिमा त्रिधा । विशिष्यमाणा उपमा भवन्त्यष्टादश स्फुटा ॥ The varieties called निन्दा and प्रशसा are even mentioned and illustrated by Bharata himself ( xvi 48 ff.), though neither Bharata nor the Agnipurāna mentions the आचिख्यामोपमा, the main butt of attack. The author of the Alamkārasekhara gives the following ten subvarieties of उपमा (xi.3)- वाक्यार्थातिशयश्लेषनिन्दाभूतविपर्यया' । सशयो नियम स्व च विक्रियेत्युपमा दश ॥ But no other writer whose work is extant divides 34HT in the manner adopted by Dandın Dandin's olassi. fication is primitive and, so far as any principle underlies the division, it is just the sense intended by the speaker (अर्थानुरोधेन विभागः) (vi) We can here advantageously consider some other classifications of syHT that have been advanced. There is one in particular which might be styled grammatical classification (व्याकरणप्रयोगानुरोधेन) which has been adopted by उद्भट (p 16), रुद्रट ( Vill.5ff ), मम्मट and most other later writers But it seems to be not unknown to the author of the Agnipuräna (cp 344. 8-9) who gives, as just mentioned, 18 varieties based on this principle as against Mammata's 25. These last we will now exhibit in a tabular form- ·उपमा, 25 Kinds 81 ] 11 Kavyadarsa] qui, 6 Kinds लुप्ता, 19 Kinds श्रौती 3 Kintis । आर्थी, 3Kinds १ वाक्ये । २ समासे ३ तद्धिते ४ वाक्ये ५ समासे ६ तद्धिते द्विलुप्ता,5Kinds एकलप्ता, 13 Kinds त्रिविाचकधर्मोपमानालुप्ता, 1 Kand वर्मलप्ता, 5 Kinds . लुप्ता, 2 Kinds २५ समास वाचकलुप्ता, 6 Kinds (all आधी) । १२ आथी गस्ये १३ आर्थी समासे वाक्ये ममागे ११ तद्धिते (आर्थी) । ७ श्रीती ८ आर्थी ६५ १० आर्था Notes १४ समासे १६ आधारक्यचि १७ क्याड १८ कर्मणमुलि १९ कर्तृणमुलि प्ता, 2 Kinds धर्मोपमानलुप्ता, 2 Kinds वाचकोपमेयलुप्ता, 1 Kum । २१ समासगा २० विपना -1.14 २३ वाक्ये २२ समाये २४ क्याच ·। li.14-1 Kavyā daría [82 Later writers have introduced further subtle complexities in this classification which is in the first place made to contain i more varieties, 3 under quf and 4 under and in the next place there is introduced afurther principle of five-foldsub-classification: इयं चैर्व- भदोपमा वस्त्वलंझाररसरूपाणा प्रधानन्यायाना वस्त्वलंकारयोर्वाच्ययोश्चोपस्कारक- तमा पञ्चधा । इतश्चान्येपि प्रभेदा. कुशाग्रीयधिषणैः स्वयमुद्भावनीया । तत्र दगम्येव धर्मः । ऋचिच्च केवलं बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभावमापन्न । कचिदुभयम्। कचिवस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभावेन करम्वितं निम्बप्रतिविम्बभावम् । क्वचिदसन्नायुपचरितः । क्वचिच्च केवलशब्दान्मक । एभिभेदै प्रागुक्ताना सधर्नाणा भेदाना यथासभर्व गुणने बहुतरा भेदा भवन्ति ( रसगङ्गाधर, p 173 fi ) (1x) Another principle of division is suggested by Bharata (xvi 43 )- एकस्यैकेन सा कार्या एकस्य बहुभिस्तथा । अनेकेषा तथैकेन बहूना बहुभिस्तथा ॥ For illustrations see अलंकारकौस्तुभ p. 141 f The varieties known as मालोपमा and रशनोपमा are sub-varieties under the second division of Bharata Upamā, like Rūpaka, can also be divided as follows.-उपमा द्विविधा निरवयवा सावयवा च । निरवयवा द्विधा शुद्धा मालारूपा च । सावयवापि द्विधा समस्तवस्तु- विषया एकदेशविवर्तिनी च । For details see Bhoja (1v 20 ff.) (x) Our Sanskrit Commentary on p 129 quotes & passage from Chitramimāñsā illustrating how an example like चन्द्र इव मुखम् , by a slight phrasing, can be turned into a number of other Alamkāras, As an Alamkāra Upamā is to be kept distinct from 64% where the सादृश्य (usually defined as तद्भिनत्वे सति तद्तभूयो- धर्मवत्त्व) is तिरोभूत; and from उत्प्रेक्षा wherein, in spite of the occasional presence of words like a, the matter of the similarity is not a but purely a creation of the poet's imagination Compare यदायमुपमानांशो लोकत सिद्धिमृच्छति । तदोपमैव येनेवशब्द सादृश्यवाचक ॥ यदा पुनरयं लोकादसिद्ध कविकल्पित । तदोत्प्रेक्षैव येनेवशब्द संभावनापरः ॥ (xi) The fourfold requirement of an उपमा, viz. उपमेय, उपमान, साधारणधर्म, and वाचकशब्द is not always present to Dandin's mind As Visvesvara observes (p. 19) दण्डिनस्तु साक्ष्यस्य प्रतीयमानतामात्राभिप्रायेणोपमाव्यवहारः। He has in fact - ·831 Notes |-11, 16 given many a variety where no वाचकपद is given and where the सादृश्य is only तात्पर्यपालोचनया गम्यम् , ep 1 25, 26, 27 etc Dandin's whole conception of 34T and his attempted classification of it is very crude and uncritical. Nor is there any attempt to present a systematic grouping of the varieties given - Notes to II. 15-(1) This and the next variety have been thus defined in the Agnipu rāna (344 10)- यत्र साधारणो धर्मः कथ्यते गम्यतेथवा। ते धर्मवस्तुप्राधान्याद्धर्मवस्तूपमे उभे ॥ The point of distinction between the two seems to be the fact that while in the first the 34475 is summoned up merely to bring out the nature of the उपमेयगतधर्म, in the second the 34 as a whole is compared with the 34ty as a whole, the two being regarded as entirely alike (11) The intended FRUTTA can be expressed in various ways • by a simple word as in ll 15 (आताम्रम्), by free epithets which are TEGURELIFTH as in 11. 28 (see Com.), or by लिष्ट epithets which are शब्दपरिवृत्त्यसह as in ii. 29 (सालकानन) Again the साधारणधर्म may be made the theme of a solitary sentence as in FACH अम्भोरुहमिव आताम्रम् or of compound or coordinate sentences as in यथा करतलम् आतानं तथा अम्भोरुहमाताम्रम् or करतलम् आताम्रम् अस्ति अम्भोरुहं च आताम्रम् अस्ति । In the latter case we sometimes have what is called the वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव (एकस्यैव धर्मस्य पृथक्छब्दाभ्यामुपादानम्) as in करतलमातानं रक्तिमोद्भासित चाम्भोरुहम् or the बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव ( वस्तुतो भिन्नयोधर्मयो परस्परसादृश्यादभित्रयो. पृथगुपादानम् ) as in-अम्भोरुह भ्रमद्भग लोलनेत्रं मुखं तव where नेत्र and भृड are related to each other as बिम्ब and प्रतिबिम्ब although the लोलत्व of the one and the भ्रमण of the other being practically one have between them the वस्तुप्रतिवस्तु relation. Jagannatha would call this वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभावकर- म्बितबिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव Notes to II. 16-(1) The first line gives two separte examples of वस्तूपमा. If we were to read the line-राजीव इव ·ii. 16-] Kavyadarsa [84 ते वक्त्रे (Loc. case) नेत्रे मधुकराविव it would be the second kind of PATCHT Illustrated in 11 45. Notes to II, 17-(1) This is recognised as distinct Alamkāra by रुद्रट, मध्यक, मम्मट, विश्वनाथ, जगन्नाथ and most other modern writers. The Sahityadarpana defines it as (x.87)- प्रसिद्धस्योपमानस्योपमेयत्वप्रकल्पनम् । निष्फलत्वाभिधानं वा प्रतीपमिति कथ्यते ॥ Dandin's enumeration of it as a variety of 3447 has been thus criticised by Jayaratha, in his Alamkārasarvasva-Vimarsini (p 165)-उपमाप्रकारत्व चानयोन वाच्यम् । उपमानम्याक्षेपादुपमेयकल्पनाच्च । न हि तत्र तदस्तीति ततोनयो (प्रतीपप्रकारयो.) सुप्रत्यय एव भेद । This in effect means that the प्रतीप has aवचित्र्य which does not necessarily go to the formation of the real essence of an उपमा But as Dandın began by making his definition of 34T rather very wide, he had no option but to regard the same as a sub-variety of उपमा. It is so recognised by Bhoja (iv. 23) and by the Agnipurana (344. 12) where it is called विपरीतोपमा. (11) This faqat taht is to be distinguished from facich (11 30) and प्रतिषेधोपमा (ii 34 ) from the circumstance that the degradation of the प्रमिद्धोपमान is only implied in विपर्यासोपमा but is explicitly brought out in the other two varieties, stating points of inferiority in the THE Notes to II. 18-(1) Agood example of this variety would be हास प्रसूनमिव हास इव प्रसून पाणि प्रवाल इव पाणिरिव प्रवाल । केशो द्विरेफ इव केश इव द्विरफ. सा भाति वीरुदिव सेव विभाति वीरुत् ॥ It is recognised by the Agnipurāna and thus defined (344 11 )-तुल्यमेवोपमीयेते यत्रान्योन्येन धर्मिणौ । परस्परोपमा सा स्यात् । In the examples of this variety given above the common quality is not stated; but it has got to be the same, being conveyed by the same word or by synonymous expressions Hence the example सविता विधवति विधुरपि सवितरति तथा दिनन्ति यामिन्य । यामिनयन्ति दिनानि च सुखदुःखवशीकृते मनसि ॥

·5] Notes [-11.18 cannot constitute an अन्योन्योपमा, as the साधारणधर्म in मविता विधवति 1s शीतलत्व and that in विधुरपि सवितरति the दाहकत्व (11) This variety is raised to the dignity of a distinct figure called J4HTHT by later Alamkārikas It has been defined by उद्भट as (p.67)- अन्योन्यमेव यत्र स्यादुपमानोपमेयता। उपमेयोपमामाहुस्ता पक्षान्तरहानिगाम् ॥ Regarding the qualification TTELTENITH in the above definition प्रतीहारेन्दुराज observes-नात्र उपमानोपमेयभावे तात्पर्य किंतु एतदेव द्वयमवविध विद्यते नवन्यदेतयो महशं वस्त्वन्तर विद्यते इति । अतश्च एत. पक्षद्वितयव्यतिरिक्तस्य पक्षान्तरस्यात्र हानेर्विवक्षितत्वात् परस्परमपमानोपमेयभावो न दुष्यति । It is doubtful however whether Dandin is here thinking of the नृतीयसाव्यवच्छेद as much as of the heightening of their mutual excellence - Parasit. This implies that both the उपमेय and the उपमान must be प्रकृत, as nobody would spend any effort in showing forth to advantage the charm of what is not the theme on hand. Compare the examples given by हेमचन्द्र and आप- यदीक्षित as quoted in our Sanskrit Commentary Bhoja (Iv.23) calls this उभयोपमा. (um) In नियमोपमा (11. 19) the नृतीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद is express. ly made Here it is implied only. The implication is to be explained as follows चन्द्र इव मुखमिति मुखे चन्द्रसाम्ये वर्णिते चन्द्रेपि मुखसादृश्यमयंत. सिभ्यति माधारणधर्मस्योभयानुगामित्वात् । तत्र चन्द्रे मुखसाम्ये शब्दतो वर्ण्यमाने मुखचन्द्रयो परस्परमेव माम्य न वन्येनेति सदृशान्तरव्यवच्छेद फलति ( अलकारकौस्तुभ, p 176). (17) Bhānaha recognises 34H2114H1 as a distinct figure and it is worth observing that Dandın does not feel the necessity of criticising the recognition of the उपमे- H as a distinct figure as he has done for instance in the case of अनन्वय, ससदेह, उपमारूपक, and उत्प्रेक्षावयव (1358- 359 ) all of which are figures admitted by Bhāmaha. Nor does Bhāmaha for his part offer any justification for regarding 34#211471 as a distinct figure As for as this circumstance goes therefore we cannot establish any conclusion either way regarding the chronological relation between दण्डिन् and भामह .

·ii. 19-] Kdvijadarsa [ 86 Notes to II. 19-20-(1) In अनियमोपमा the तृतीयमहशव्यवच्छेद is made highly probable but is not fateta In Hat it is openly asserted In 1141, as we saw, it was left to be inferred Both these varieties are recognised by the Agnipurana. The अलकारशेखर defines नियमोपमा as-यत्र इतरव्यावृत्त्या साम्यलाभ' । Notes to II. 21-(i) In Tim there is only a single common quality sought to be expressed , in the present variety & large number of these are mentioned ; in 34TRITTCHT, the next variety, their number is so overwhelming that the poet contents himself by stating just the one solitary aspect or quality which is not common Again, In समुच्चयोपमा more than one साधारणधर्म is brought in; in बहूपमा ( 11 40) more than one उपमान is adduced The result is that while in the former between the 3472 and the a number of distinct common qualities are sought to be conveyed, in thelatter it is the intensity of the one self-same quality that stands out prominently The variety is recognised by the Agnipurāna. Notes to II. 22-(1) See Note (1) to ii 21. This variety fails to produce the impression of an identity between the 4t and the He because the # is not entirely fact, as happens in a 540% ( see 11 66, below). At the same time it must be remembered that the solitary between the 3447 and the 3Thnt which is put forward is not meant to suggest the superiority or the inferiority of the one over the other, as is the case, for instance, in निन्दोपमा, प्रतिषेधोपमा, and the Alamkara called una (ii. 180) (ii) This variety is not recognised by the Agnipuräna, unless we choose to identify it with what the Purāna styles arent which is thus defined (345 13 ) बहोर्धर्मस्य साम्येपि वैलक्षण्यं विवक्षितम् । यदुच्यतेतिरिक्तत्वं व्यतिरेकोपमा तु सा ॥ The Agnipurāna, be it noted in passing, does not re. oognise that as a distinct figure-of-speech, whereas ·87 ) Notes ii. 24 Dandin who does it can only be supposed to have distinguished between अतिशयोपमा and व्यतिरेक in the manner above indicated. A good example of this variety is given by the अलकारशेखर (p. 30)- कल्पद्रमो न जानाति न ददाति बृहस्पति' । अयं च जगतीजानिर्जानाति च ददाति च ॥ In a Notes to II. 23-Dandin seems to have been alone in recognising graft as a sub-variety of Upamā. We have already indicated in a general way (op Note (x) to i 14 ) the distinction between 3991 and 32. Utprekshā 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 regular Utprekshā it is the actual HIPT between the 544 and the 3446-or some aspect connected with it -that is poetically conceived. In the variety before us there is an u, but it has nothing to do with the HPL between ge and at which is the immediate subject of assertion The Cave comes in only secondarily : the poetic fact of the stanza could have been expressed without bringing in the 'bragging of the Moon': for instance-अस्या मुखश्री' न केवलमिन्दावेव अपि तु पद्मपि सा अस्न्येव । The introduction of the bragging Moon lends an added surprise-element which is not disagreeable. Hence this is not a regular 3de but merely an Beate THICHT The Com श्रुतानुपालिनी however explains-यस्यकस्यचिदन्य- थावस्थिताया वृत्तेरन्यथाकथनमुत्प्रेक्षा । अत्रापि मुखश्रिय चन्द्रे निरस्य पझेपि तदुत्प्रे- क्षाकथनात् उत्प्रेक्षितोपमेति । Notes to II. 24—(1) T4, as the more difficult reading and also the one intrinsically more poetic, seems to be the genuine reading which got ousted by the more familiar word 93. (ii) This variety has been admitted by the Agnipurāna and is thus defined (344. 16) - त्रैलोक्यासंभवि किमप्यारोप्य प्रतियोगिनि । कविनोपमीयते या प्रथते साद्भुतोपमा ॥

·ii 24- Kavyadarsa 88 To assert that the प्रतियोगिन् (= उपमान) resembles or can resemble the Ta TTT only under conditions impossible of fulfilment is in effect to say that the hell is without a peer As the conditions are अद्भुत or त्रैलोक्यासंभवि the variety is called 34,514h1, the 31.5 at consisting not in the component elements ( उद्गतभृकुटिन्व, विभ्रान्तलोचनत्व etc.) taken by themselves, but in the peculiar combination of them that is demanded अद्भुतोपमाया सिद्धस्य धर्मिणो धय॑न्तरा- वयवैर्योग अद्भुत as Ca remarks The Alamkārasekhara calls this same variety sha14HT ( defined, p 30, as-471- ससृष्टजानेन संसर्गमारोप्य साम्यप्रसजन सा ), a name which Dandin has reserved for another distinct variety (see 11 38, below.) (ii) Adbhutopamā is to be distinguished from Abhū. topamā and from Asambhavitopamā, and the distinction is rather subtle In अभूतोपमा the presumptive उपमान is not a fasqVITTzard wherein the arquis cannot coexist with the fast, but rather a single simple ato which is nowhere to be met with in nature, as for 10- stance the concentrated essence of the charms of all lotuses, cp उपमानस्य वस्तुन उपमेयेसभाव्यमानस्य कथनादभूतत्वेनाभू- तोपमामिति (श्रु पा , p 36) In असंभावितोपमा it is not the धर्म of a new artist which is ascribed to the searaH and which is inconsistent with it (as happens in the 37.65t- पमा), but the प्रस्तुतधर्मिन् Is itself said tc have a quality which it can never have Or, looking at it from another point of view, for effecting the comparison between the उपमेय and the उपमान, in an अभूतोपमा a non-existent उपमान is postulated and in an 31:54h an existing and wellknown 34475 Is associated with impossible fan quis brought over from another für The ultimate result is that the grey remains without peer Such is not the case in an THTAGIHT where the point of comparison is just the fact of the incompatibility of the hs that the attit ( the 39419 ) is expected to possess; and the comparison does become possible in that respect (iii) The FaceFit HT as recognised by an and the Agnipurāna (which merely quotes Hea) comes most near to 21541481. Bharata thus illustrates at (x1 51)- ·89] Notes 1-11 25 क्षरन्तो दानसलिल लीलामन्यरगामिन । मतङ्गजा विगजन्ते जगमा इव पर्वता ॥ Here जगमताविशिष्टपर्वतs or moving mountains is an अद्भत phenomenon. What a calls it is no other than this 31,611441 Bhoja's illustration is the verse SHTE al etc; regarding which he remarks (p 352)-377194 नार्थमुत्पाद्योपमेयेन प्रतीयमानमभिधीयमान च मादृश्यमभिहितमिति सेयमुत्पाद्यो- 4H11 Hemachandra (p 247) unsuccessfully attempts to make a sort of a distinction between उत्पाद्योपमा and कल्पि- 14h, but the most clear presentation of that view is to be seen in Rudrata vill 13-16 Mammata regards Dandin's अद्भुतोपमा as a subvariety of अतिशयोक्ति 3 Notes to II, 25-(1) Mohopamā springs from the close similarity between the 24h and the 39419, so close that a rational being would go to the length of actually mistaking the one for the other This variety is accordingly not only a step in advance of 1971 (where the element of difference was consciously realised) bat in advance of 544, where the is completely submerged, though it is there at the back of one's consciousness so that an actual blunder cannot arise (ii) In FRP114HT (11. 26) the person is struck by the close similarity but is still doubting If he perceives the उपमान as उपमान the result would be निर्णयोपमा (ii. 27), but if he perceives the 34414 as 372, the result would be #1481. Again, if after a temporary but actual error the person corrects himself and perceives the thing as it is, the result would be graterTAT(11 36) As between निर्णयोपमा and तत्त्वाख्यानोपमा it is to be noticed that while in both the ultimate perception is a real perception, in the former it is preceded by a moment of doubt or hesitation, in the latter by one of actual blunder (m) All the four varieties of 341 Just considered must be based upon सादृश्य If the doubting or the blundering is the result of normal causes mentioned in- कामशोकभयोन्मादचौरस्वप्नायुपप्लुता । अभूतानपि पश्यन्ति पुरतोवस्थितानिव ।। 12 Kāvyādarśa ] *** ·i1.25-1 Kūryüdarsa [ 90 the result cannot be an ATT It goes without saying also that the साध्य ought to be कविप्रतिभानिर्मित. (11) The Tattor of Dandin has given rise to two independents.amras of tator writers: भ्रान्तिमान् and Uliekia .:'t be said to be a मालाभ्रान्ति and is tnus de ined by जगन्नाथ (p. 270)-एकस्य वस्तुनो निमित्तवशाद्यदने- कहोतृभिरनेकप्रकारकं ग्रहणं तदुल्लेख । The common property between the उपमेय and the उपमान which has been the source of the error is not stated in the example ; but it can be stat i also , compare- नीलोत्पलमिति प्रान्त्या विकासितविलोचनम् । अनुधावति मुग्धाक्षि पश्य मुग्धो मधुव्रतः । And this circumstance makes it possible for us to include under मोहोपमा the figures of speech called मीलित, मामान्य, ard तद्ग, for definitions of which and for their mutual distinctions see particularly साहित्यदर्पणx.89-90. - Notes to II. 26-27-(1) This and the next variety of 341 hve given rise to an independent Alamkāra called मंगय, मदेह or समदेह with its sub-varieties of शुद्ध, निश्चयगर्भ, and निश्चयान्त. Suddha is an ordinary सशयोपमा a good example of which is furnished by Rudrata (vill. 60) किमिदं लीनालिकुलं कमल कि वा मुखं सुनीलकचम् । इति मगेने लोकस्त्वयि मुतनु सरोवतीर्णायाम् ॥ while निश्चयान्त 15 निर्णयोपमा Of निश्चयगर्भ the stock example Is- अय मार्तण्डः कि स खलु तुरगैः सप्तभिरित कृशानु किं साक्षात् प्रसरति दिशो नेष नियतम् । कृतान्त किं साक्षान्महिषवह्नोसाविति चिरात् समालाक्याजो त्वा विदधति विकल्पान् प्रतिभटाः।। Visvanātha's निश्चयालकार (39) illustrated in- वदनमिदं न सरोज नयने नेन्दीवरे एते। इह सविधे मुग्धशो भ्रमर मुधा किं परिभ्रमसि ॥ is slightly different from निर्णयोपमा or निश्चयान्तससंदेह As Visvanātha himself remarks-न घय निश्चयान्त. सदेहः । तत्र सशनिश्चययोरेकाश्रयत्वेनावस्थानात् । अत्र तु भ्रमरादेः संशय नायकादेनिश्चयः। (u) From ii. 358 below it seems clear that some predecessors of Bhämaha did regard THE as an inde- ·91 ] Notes -il 30 pendent figure. Now Bhāmaha thus defines and illustrates the figure (141, 42-43) उपमानेन तत्त्वं च भेदं च वदत' पुन.। ससंदेहं वचः स्तुत्यै ससंदेहं विदुयथा ॥ किमयं शशी न म दिवा विराजते कुसुमायुधो न धनुरस्य कौमुमम् । इति विस्मयाद्विमृगतोपि मे] मति- स्त्वयि वीक्षितेन लभतेर्थनिश्चयम् ॥ But we do not have merely in that fact any certain indication that Dandın could have meant no other writer but Bhāmaha. Notes t II. 28-29-(i) These two varieties differ from ETHIOPIT (ii. 15) only in the added circumstance that the Truth is here expressed by paronomastic words, the being 3rf in the former and are in the latter ( food खलु अर्थवशेन साम्यम् अत्र शब्दवशेन) The two varieties can therefore both of them in a sense be called 19AT, as has been done by the author of the 37. The who gives the joint example (p. 30)- तमालपत्राभरणा राजते विलसद्वयाः। बालेवोद्यानमालेयं सालकाननशोभिनी ॥ (ii) The variants सरूपोपमा and संदानोपमा for समानोपमा are worth noting The first is an attempt to bring the first word of the definition into the #FIT, while the second (which has the high authority of J and N and which therefore we might have adopted) implies that the 34- Hy and the 3THFT are in this variety tied together (like miscellaneous cattle in a cowpen) to one and the same rope in the form of similarly-sounding words, and resemble each other only in that accidental circumstance, Notes to II. 30-31-(i) A normal 3471 contains the common quality in a more pronounced degree than a normal 39; and this is the reason why in a face falat (1i 17) the mere reversal of that relation anplied the lowering of the 3469 in respect of that common quality. The ·ii. 30- Kavyādarśa [99 fight for superiority between the 34715T and the 3472 about pre-eminence in this quality is represented as still undecided in विरोधोपमा (ii.33) In निन्दोपमा the claim of the 3477 is allowed in regard to the common quality, but certain extraneous facts are adduced (e.g. as, epuae.ca, etc) which should lower it and consequently the उपमेय also in our estimation. In प्रति- TECHT (11 34) the 34H15 is represented as fighting a forlorn fight for regaining its normal pre-eminence in res. pect of the common quality. All these varieties there fore can be regarded as 34HT varieties, because underlying them all is the presupposition that the 347777 and the he have a certain specific quality in common; and the question at issue merely is, who has the quality to a greater or less degree The figure-of-speech called una (11. 180) has also to be distinguished from these 3471 varieties, in regard to which see our Notes to ii. 180. (ii) As observed before, HG and the author of the Agnipurāna mention these two varieties of 34HT, and their recognition is criticised by Bhāmaha (see Note (vii) to ii 14, above). The illustrations for them given by Bharata are (xvi. 49-50) प्रशंसाया यथा- दृष्ट्वा तु ता विशालाक्षी तुतोष मनुजाधिपः । मुनिभिः साधितां कृच्छात् सिद्धिं मूर्तिमतीमिव ॥ farct YT सा तं सर्वगुणहीनं सस्वजे कर्कशच्छविम् । वानक नकिनं [ ? वने कण्टकिन ] वल्ली दवदग्धमिव द्रुमम् । From these it would seem that Vāmana is probably right when he says (19. 2.7, hat for ralen ATEIT spitata 1 What is intended by this three-fold divi. sion is therefore उपमानमात्रस्य विषयप्रदर्शनम् as the कामधेनु observes. Dandin however seems to have taken a different view of the case. Whether he was the first to do so is however difficult to decide. The factuHT 88 defined and illustrated in the Alamkârasekhara comes near to the SAINETHT (ii 34); for there the definition ·93] Notes [-il. 37 15 यत्रोपमानस्य निन्दया प्रतिक्षेप, मा निन्दोपमा, and the illustration- नागेन्द्रहस्तास्त्वचि कर्कशत्वादेकान्तशैत्यात् कदली विशेषा । लब्ध्वापि लोके परिणाहि रूपं जातास्तदूर्वोरुपमानबाह्या ॥ Notes to II. 32-See note (vii) to ii. 14 above. Because no other Alamkāra writer known to us (except Vamana) mentions 31 EET and because Bhāmaha criticises the recognition of this variety, it would be perhaps unfair to conclude that Bhāmaha must have meant Dandin alone, seeing that a vast amount of literature known to Bhamaha and even mentioned by him by name is no longer available to us. Notes to II. 33–34.See Note (i) to il 30 above. The variety called stat It must be admitted comes nearest to the bufact, we can possibly distinguish them from each other by supposing that in sırad7471 the point at issue is the degree of कान्ति or आह्लादकत्व (the common quality) of the जडत्वकलड्कित्वविशिष्ट इन्दु and the मुख Both possess it and the moon is declared to be not a match to the face as far as the possession of this quality goes. In fars some quality or qualities are stated wherein the 54Hrs and the 3447 are declared to be equal to one another, but at the same time another distinct quality possessed by the 34ty and denied to the 6 is adduced which serves to establish the superiority of the उपमेय over the उपमान considered as a whole Notes to II, 35-36_-The name =471 has nothing very distinctive or appropriate about it. For the distinction between fauth and avaient See Note (i) to ii. 25 Notes to II. 37-Dandin uses both & (i. 53,95 ) and in the sense of area, region, boundary-line, province, equality, similarity, etc The reading wallah (which our Sanskrit Commentary explains) seems to be merely an ·ii.37-] Kavyadarsa [ 94 easier substitute for कक्ष्याम् The word daar is Vedio, regarding which see Nirukta il. 2 (ii) As Dandin himself tells us (il. 358), this variety was regarded by others as constituting a distinct alamkara called अनन्वय Bhāmaha thus defines and illustrates it (11 44-45) यत्र तेनैव तस्य स्यादुपम्गनोपमेयता। असादृश्यविवक्षातस्तमित्याहुरनन्वयम् ॥ ताम्बूलरागवलय स्फुरदृशनदीधिति । इन्दीवराभनयनं तवेव वदनं तव ॥ The stock example of this alamkāra is the one given by Vamana (iv.3.14.)- गगनं गगनाकारं सागर सागरोपमः। रामरावणयोर्युद्धं रामरावणयोरिव ॥ (iii) As अन्योन्योपमा results in तृतीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद 50 असाधारणो- पमा results in द्वितीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद In the अन्योन्योपमा example in in 18 आनन is both उपमान and उपमेय, but in different sentences; whereas in hirvih in one and the same sentence the face becomes both उपमान and उपमेय It must be distinctly understood, however, that if yesterday's face is compared with to-day's face of the same lady that becomes an ordinary GTHT pure and simple. In other words, between मुख the उपमेय and मुख the उपमान in the example under discussion there must be only कल्पितभेद and not देशकालदशाविशेषादिकृतभेद In the same way the verse- एतावति प्रपञ्चे सुन्दरमहिलासहस्रभरितेपि । अनुहरति मुभग तस्या वामाई दक्षिणार्धस्य । does not contain an असाधारणोपमा, but is merely a वस्तूपमा. Nor again does the verse given by Dandin later (11.276)- अद्य या मम गोविन्द जाता त्वयि गृहागते । कालेनैषा भवेत् प्रीतिस्तवैवागमनात् पुनः ॥ regarding which अप्पय्यदीक्षित observes (चि० मी. p.42)- अत्र गृहागतं श्रीकृष्णं प्रति विदुरवाक्ये इयं त्वदागमनप्रभवा प्रीतिर्बहुकालव्यवहितेन पुनरपि त्वदागमनेनैव भवेत् नान्येनेत्युक्तिभङ्गया त्वदागमनप्रभवप्रीते' सैव सदृशी न वितरप्रभवेति व्यज्यते constitute an example of this Variety. - ·95 ] Notes [-1.40 (17) In असाधारणोपमा although the face is declared to be without a peer the form of the assertion is conceived outwardly in the manner of an उपमा Where however even this outward form is not preserved that is recognised by जगन्नाथ as a distinct figure called असम As he says (p. 210f.)-सर्वथैवोपमानिषेधोसमाख्योलकारः । यथा- भुवनत्रितयेपि मानवैः परिपूर्णे विबुधैश्च दानवै । न भविष्यति नास्ति नाभवन्नृप यस्ते भजते तुलापदम् ॥ अत्र सर्वथैवोपमाननिषेधेन सादृश्यम्याप्रतिष्ठानान्नोपमागन्धोपि। This however is over-subtlety for which Jagannātha has been taken to task by the author of the Alamkāra-kaustubha (p 174) Notes to II. 38-39-See Note (11) to il 24 above In regard to the illustration given for असंभावितोपमा It has been well observed (aneant the ruling that उपमान must be लोकप्रसिद्ध while चन्दनप्रभवविष is not लोकप्रसिद्ध )-अत्र चन्द्रप्रभवविषादेर्वा- गुपमाया अविवक्षितत्वात् कितु यथा चन्द्रबिम्बाद्विषमसभावितं तथा त्वन्मुखात् पुरुषा वाग् इत्युपमास्वीकारात् । एवं च असभावितोपमा इत्यस्य असभावितोपमा- नकत्वं नार्थ किंतु असंभावितन्वं तदुपमाया साधारणधर्म इत्येव । - . Notes to II. 40-(i) Compare Note (i) to ii. 21 above. Bharata already tells us (xvi 43) एकस्यैकेन सा कार्या एकस्य बहुभिस्तथा। अनेकेषा तथैकेन बहूनां बहुभिस्तथा ॥ And his examples in order are-तुल्यं ते शशिना वक्त्रम् , शशा- वत् प्रकाशन्ते ज्योतींषि, श्येनबर्हिणभासाना तुल्याक्षः and घना इव गजाः । Here of course, in its most primitive form, the distinction is made to depend upon whether the 34479 or the उपमेय or both are in the singular or the plural gender Now मालोपमा (in 42) is एकस्य बहुभिः उपमा, and in Dandin's statement the distinction between बहूपमा and मालोपमा is this. In बहपमा a number of उपमानs are adduced in the hope that in their cumulative effect at least. would approximately convey the extent of the common quality possessed by the 3474, which they are unable to do singly In 1914H1 on the other band any one of the several उपमानs 1s conceived as being adequate by Homments Semester anowriminine Haraminimelawan m ·ii. 40-] Kavyadarsa [ 96 itself to bring out the common quality, and the wealth of illustration serves merely to show off the poet's प्रतिभा. Notes to II. 41-(1) The Alamkārasekhara thus defines and illustrates this variety (p 31)-यत्रोपमेयमुपमानविकारतयो- च्यते सा विक्रियोपमा यथा- हरिणादथ तनयनादथ पद्मात् पद्मपत्राच । आहृत्य कान्तिसारं विधिरसृजत् सुभ्रुवो दृष्टिम् ॥ Notes toII. 42-See Note (1) to ii.40 above. The illustration in the text is based upon identical साधारणधर्म, but this is not essential With fathrerUTTE good example of मालोपमा is the familiar stanza- मातेव रक्षति पितेव हिते नियुक्त कान्तेव चाभिरमयत्यपनीय खेदम् । कीर्ति च दिक्षु वितनोति तनोति कीर्ति कि कि न साधयति कल्पलतेव विद्या ।। The अलंकारकौस्तुभ gives also the following example- अलक्षितगतागतैः कुलवधूकटाक्षरिव क्षणानुनयशीतलै प्रणयकेलिकोपैरिव । मुवृत्तममृणोन्नतैमूंगशामुरोजैरिव त्वदीयतुरगोत्तमैर्धरणिचक्रमाकम्पते ।। Apparently it is a series based upon FHTERUTH which alone is recognised as HISTTHT by the author of the Agnipurana. Compare (344. 14-15)- यत्रोपमा स्याहुभिः सदृशै सा बहूपमा धर्मा प्रत्युपमानं चेदन्या मालोपमैव सा ॥ (ii) Dandin does not recognise what is known as रशनोपमा defined by the Agnipurana (344. 20) as- उपमेय यदन्यस्य तदन्यस्योपमा मता। यद्युत्तरोत्तरं याति तदासौ गमनो(? रशनो)पमा ।। and thus illustrated by रुद्रट (vii. 28)- नभ इव विमलं सलिल सलिलमिवानन्दकारि शशिबिम्बम् । शशिबिम्बमिव लसद्दयुति तरुणीवदनं शरत् कुरुते ॥ For other varieties see रसगङ्गाधर pp 181 ff, and अलंकार- कौस्तुभ pp. 146 ff ·97] Notes [-ii.45 Notes toII.43-45-(i) By वाक्य Dandin seems to have meant a complete utterance of a thought setting forth all its Fit relations: in other words a picture with all appropriate details and back-ground The face, the eyes, and the teeth form one set as against which is placed the lotus, the bees, and the pollen in the first example ; and similar corresponding sets are present in the second example. And when in this manner an अवयवसंपन्न अवयविन् is compared with another similar अवयविन्-with the trifling subsidiary distinction of the presence or absence of an additional independent वाचक for each 37927-the result is a PT91441. Hence it 18 that after dividing 34HTS as shown below उपमा निरवयवा सावयवा परपरिता शुध्दा मालारूपा समस्तवस्तुविषया एकदेशविवर्तिनी श्लिष्टा आश्लिष्टाभेदे शुन्दा मालारूपा शुध्दा मालारूपा the author of the Alamkārakaustubha cites stanza ii. 45 as an example of भेदे परंपरिता, the comparison between one pair of उपमान and उपमेय leading on to and depending upon the next pair. (ii) In the two examples of वाक्यार्थीपमा given by Dandin the समानधर्म between the various pairs of उपमानः and suites in each is clearly felt although not actually expressed. But it is not absolutely necessary that there should be this सादृश्यापेक्षता everywhere. The अलंकार- शेखर cites the following where there is प्रत्येकं सादृश्यानपेक्षा- कामिनीनयनकजलपङ्कादुत्थितो मदनमत्तवराहः । कामिमानसवनान्तरचारी कन्दमुत्खनति मानलतायाः ॥ 13 Kavyadarka] 4 ·ti.45-] Kavyādarta 198 (111) It is perhaps necessary to draw attention to the fact that वाक्योपमा is different from वाक्यार्थोपमा We have just seen what वाक्यार्थोपमा 1s The nature of वाक्योपमा becomes evident from the circumstance that it is distinguished from what is called समासोपमा and प्रत्ययोपमा (following Rudrata) or from वृत्त्युपमा (following Hemachandra) वृत्ति being समासतद्धितनामधातुभेदेन त्रिविधा The stock example of arrih given by Vāmana is- पाण्डयोयमंसार्पितलम्बहारः क्लप्ताङ्गरागो हरिचन्दनेन । आभाति बालातपरक्तसानु सनिझरोदार इवाद्रिराज ॥ Notes to II. 46-47-Although in this variety the hip is always implied and never actually expressed, there being no 34Hrareproe present, Dandin is perhaps justified, in view of his own general conception of 3471, in not regarding acaravar as & distinct Alamkāra. It is not recognised as such by भोज, भामह, and रुद्रट The further subsidiary difference as to the manner of imply. ing the माम्य (by वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव or by बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव, regarding which see Note (11) to il 15 above) upon which the distinction between प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त turns is also not of consequence enough to give rise to a new alamkāra, and Jagannātha practically concedes this (pp. 337-8)-अस्य चालंकारस्य प्रतिवस्तूपमाभेदकमेतदेव यत् तस्यां धर्मों न प्रतिबिम्बितः किंतु शुद्धसामान्यात्मनैव स्थितः इह तु प्रतिबिम्बित' । .........। एकस्यैवालंकारस्य द्वौ भेदी प्रतिवस्तूपमा दृष्टान्तश्च । यच्चानयो किंचिद्वैलक्षण्यं तत् प्रभेदताया एव साधकम् नालंकारताया इति सुवचम् । Hence Dandin's प्रतिवस्तूपमा as an उपमा variety may be said to stand in the place of both प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त of later आलंकारिकs. (ii) The following quotation from sprey's Alamkāraservasvavimarsini (p 28) is illuminating as to the distinction between वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव, where the things are really one but two only in the phrasing, and largfalara. भाव, where the two things are really distinct but have to be temporarily identified-लोको हि दर्पणादौ बिम्बात् प्रति- बिम्बस्य भेदेपि मदीयमेवात्र वदनं संक्रान्तमित्यभेदेनाभिमन्यते। अन्यथा हि प्रति- ·991 Notes [-11.49 बिम्बदर्शने कृशोहं स्थूलोहमित्यायभिमानो नोदीयात् भूषणविन्यामादौ नायिका नाद्रियेरन् । (iii) Some remarks of the sigurist on this stanza are also worth quoting -प्रतिवस्तूपमा । प्रतिशब्दः सदृशार्थवाची तेन सदृशवस्तूपमेत्यर्थः । ननु इवादिरहितसइशोपन्यासः अर्थान्तरो नाम भवति । तथाहि- ज्ञेयः सोर्थान्तरन्यासो वस्तु प्रस्तुत्य किंचन । तत्साधनसमर्थस्य न्यासो योन्यस्य वस्तुनः ॥ इति वक्ष्यति (1 169)। अत्रापि-वस्तु किंचिदुपन्यस्य सदनं (v. 1 ) तत्सधर्मण इत्युक्तम् । तस्मादयमर्थान्तरन्यास एव कथमुपमेत्याह-साम्यप्रतीतिरस्तीति । सदृशप्रतिभानं विद्यते इत्युपमेत्युच्यते । एतदुक्तं भवति । इवाद्यभावे समानताप्रतीतिः उपमानवादिना (?) तद्दयोतनाय प्रयुक्ते । अर्थान्तरस्त्वलकारः असशस्योपन्यासेन वस्त्वन्तरसाधनमिति तत्साधनसमर्थस्येतिवचनात् न तत्सधर्मण इति । In other words-अर्थान्तरन्यासे समर्थ्यसमर्थकभावो विवक्षित अत्र पुनस्मानोपमेयभावः । (iv) In order to give adequate account of a number of devices other than 3441 and 54. for expressing similarity between two things Bhoja has invented a new alamkara called साम्य or सामान्य which he thus defines and divides (iv 34)- द्वयोर्यत्रोक्तिचातुर्यादौपम्यार्थोवगम्यते । उपमारूपकान्यत्वे साम्यमित्यामनन्ति तत् ।। तदानन्त्येन भेदानामसख्यं तस्य तूक्तयः। दृष्टान्तोक्तिः प्रपञ्चोक्तिः प्रतिवस्तूक्तिरेव च ॥ तत्रेवादेः प्रयोगेण दृष्टान्तोति प्रचक्षते । इवादेरप्रयोगेण प्रपञ्चोक्तिं मनीषिणः ॥ वस्तु किंचिदुपन्यस्य न्यसनात् तत्सधर्मणः । साम्यप्रतीतिरस्तीति प्रतिवस्तूक्तिरुच्यते ॥ This alamkara. accordingly would do duty for प्रतिवस्तूपमा and 2 of the alamkārikas For the various subdivisions of afacer and the illustrations followed by Bhoja's illuminating critical remarks see Sarasva.- tīkanthābharana itself Sāmgā as an alamkāra is recognised by Rudrata also (viii. 105ff.). Notes to II. 48-49-i) How to distinguish this variety from the figure-of-speech called तुल्ययोगिता which Dandin defines and illustrates in ii. 330-332 is & rather subtle question. Both are attempts at tay between ·ii. 49-1 Kavyadarsa [ 100 two things one of which is distinctly superior (37 or guirna), and the common property adduced is some , which word includes both qualities and actions, as is evident from the examples given. The only express condition present in the definition of the figure Fritia and absent in the definition of the sub-variety तुल्ययोगोपमा Is स्तुतिनिन्दार्थम्; but it is not quite satisfactory to make the distinction turn upon this circumstance, for then gaat would come nearer to the varieties निन्दोपमा and प्रशंसोपमा (ii. 30-31) We can probably bring out the distinction by supposing that in the 34T variety the ata is consciously realised as the उपमेय or the प्रकृतवस्तु while in the figure तुल्ययोगिता the 3441-3474 relation, even though actually present (as in ii. 331), is deliberately set aside, the ret being only to or implied and not loc!47 as in the other case; and 'this agrees with the later definitions of तुल्ययोगिता like that of मम्मट (नियताना सकृद्धर्म । नियतानाम् = प्राकरforrada 2017 porebarea at). Udbhata is even more ex. plicit (p. 60) उपमानोपमेयोक्तिशून्यैरप्रस्तुतैर्वचः । साम्याभिधायि प्रस्तावमाग्भिर्वा तुल्ययोगिता ॥ (ii) If this statement of the difference between तुल्ययोगोपमा and तुल्ययोगिता is correct it follows that Dandin's teritht approaches the figure-of-speech called दीपक as it is defined by मम्मट-सकृवृत्तिस्तु धर्मस्य प्रकृताप्रकृतात्मनाम्- for there the common property exists between things consciously realised as 3472 and 3477. Compare Foto (p 71)-प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुतयोर्व्यस्तत्वे तुल्ययोगिता समस्तत्वे दीपकम् । From Dandin's view of the case however the distinction between दीपक and तुल्ययोगोपमा is clear. In तुल्ययोगोपमा there is an attempted समीकरण between अधिक and हीन things; this is absent in the ciues of HATE At the same time the 214requires the im to be expressed only once for all; in gelin it may be repeated. Dandin is thus looking to the etymology of the name all along, while there is a tendency in later writers to ignore that altogether. It would be noted in passing that the 219 here spoken of is not the 149 as Dandin de- ·101 1 Notes [-il.50 - fines It (ii. 97ff.) which is more a शब्दालंकार than an अर्थालकार. See Notes to the figure in question. (iii) We have so far attempted to set forth the distinction that Dandin probably must have made between तुल्ययोगोपमा and तुल्ययोगिता; but writers who do not admit this उपमा variety have defined तुल्ययोगिता in terms that Dandin might have reserved for तुल्ययोगोपमा. The definition of Bhamaha is (iii. 26)- न्यूनस्यापि विशिष्टेन गुण्यसाम्यविवक्षया । तुल्यकार्यक्रियायोगादित्युक्ता तुल्ययोगिता ॥ That of Ruyyaka (p 70)- औपम्यस्य गम्यत्वे पदार्थगतत्वे नप्रस्तुतानामप्रस्तुतानां वा समानधर्मा- भिसंबन्धे तुल्ययोगिता। That of Vamana (iv 326)- विशिष्टेन साम्यार्थमेककालक्रियायोगस्तुल्ययोगिता। Bhoja, finally, while giving for pret a definition identical with that of Dandin, further adds (iv. 55)- अन्ये सुखनिमित्ते च दु खहेतो च वस्तुनि । स्तुतिनिन्दार्थमेवाहुस्तुल्यत्वे तुल्ययोगिताम् ॥ for which his illustration is आहूतस्याभिषेकाय विसृष्टस्य वनाय च । न मया लक्षितस्तस्य स्वल्पोप्याकारविभ्रमः॥ (iv) The distinction between प्रशंसोपमा (131) and तुल्ययोगोपमा seems to be the circumstance that in the former some extraneous facts not germain to the intended साम्य (e.g. शम्भुशिरोधृतत्व) are adduced for heightening the value of the उपमान while in तुल्ययोगोपमा the superiority is based upon the degree or intensity of the self-same ir as measured by marked difference in results achieved, difficulties encountered, sto In other respects the two varieties seem allied We do not think that the fact of the सादृश्य being वाच्य in the one (ती तुल्यौ) and व्यङ्गय in the other would have been adduced by Dandin as the additional distinctive feature. Notes to II. 50-(1) An ordinary उपमा-अम्भोरुहमिवातानं करतलम् can be put in the form of a ya in this manner:

·ni. 50m) Kavyadarsa ( 102 करतलमातानत्वेन अम्भोल्हमनुकरोति In समुच्चयोपमा (ii. 21) we had & similar presentation of the similarity; only there a number of gs were adduced to bring out the ARI between the same 37 and 3476; while in the example before us a number of us are adduced to bring out the Alps between one and the same 3444 and a series of 34Hits with which it is to be compared - As in 4 (ii 40) or HEIHT (11. 42) a series of successive उपमानs are here given but that वैचित्र्य upon which this variety primarily turns is the presentation of the HIRI in the form of a gIt is perhaps not essential that the हेतुs (and the उपमानs) in a हेतूपमा be always more than one. Notes to II. 51-56-(i) Like us the atas have been most elaborately treated by Indian Alamkārikas They have been named and classified according as they belong to syllables, words, sentences, sense, sentiments, and alamkāras A detailed treatment of these is given in the Sāhityadarpana vii, or Kā vyaprakāśa vii. Dandin affords a treatment of them in this place and later in iii 125-185 In regard to the Upamādoshas our Sanskrit Commentary supplies the needful supplementary information from Vāmana, Bhoja, and other writers. (11) The extra line in il. 56 which we have enclosed in square brackets, like a number of other lines and verses, is clearly an interpolation ; but having been once accepted in the editio princeps of Premachandra and 80 passed on into works of reference it would have been most inconvenient to omit them and so change the subsequent verse-numbering In one place (11. 158-163) where a transposition of stanzas was felt by us to be on critical grounds absolutely called for we have for the same reason transposed the stanzas and yet retained their original verse-numbering, believing that nobody would grudge us giving credit for being able to count the numbers from 158 to 163 correctly.

·103 1 Notes [-il. 66 Notes to II. 57-65–(i) Dandin's list of HET words is helpful and is in any case borrowed from him by most subsequent writers, and naturally with variations and attempts at completion. Thus the अलंकारकौस्तुभ supplies words like सुहृद् चौर, सोदर, and their synonyms, and even the Mss variants add one or two more As the matter is not very vital we did not think it necessary to go into all these later lists with & view to determine the text of Dandin's list, especially as it would have been necessary not only to refer to the printed editions but even the Ms material of these other alamkāra works. (iii) The colophon 14777367 (and other similar colophons to mark the conclusion of the treatment of an alamkāra with a number of subdivisions) is generally given in Mss. with omission of spa and substitution of synonyms like nga etc. for 9 and other small variants We have ignored the variants and have generally followed best Ms. authority in giving the colophons or omitting them. Notes to II. 66-(1) The name of this figure is thus explained-यदा तु विषयी (उपमानमप्रकृतम् ) विषयं (प्रकृतमुपमेयम् । रूपवन्तं करोति तदा अन्वर्थाभिधान रूपकम् । Rupaka has to be carefully distinguished from 3471 (especially the varieties of it called अतिशयोपमा and मोहोपमा), from समासोक्ति (in 205), from अतिशयोक्ति (ii. 214), from उत्प्रेक्षा (ii. 221), and from अपहृति (11 304)-amongst alamkāras recognised by Dandin; and from परिणाम, ससंदेह, भ्रान्तिमान् and उल्लेख-amongst alamkåras not recognised by Dandin The various definitions of 649 given by alamkārikas (we quote a few of the more important of them below) are an attempt merely to sharpen the outline of the figure with a view to this differentiation. Thus Bharata (xvi. 57) defines the figure as under स्वविकल्पैर्विरचितं तुल्यावयवलक्षणम् । किंचित्साक्ष्यसंपन्नं यद्रूपं रूपकं तु तत् ॥ Bbāmaha (ii. 21) उपमानेन यत् तत्त्वमुपमेयस्य रूप्यते। गुणानां समता दृष्टया रूपकं नाम तद्विदुः ।।

·it.66-1 Kavyādarsa [ 104 Udbhata (p 9) श्रुत्या सबन्धविरहाद्यत् पदेन पदान्तरम् । गुणवृत्ति प्रधानेन युज्यते रूपकं तु तत् ॥ Rudrata (viii. 38, 40)- यत्र गुणाना साम्ये सत्युपमानोपमेययोरभिदा । अविवक्षितसामान्या कल्प्यत इति रूपक प्रथमम् ॥ उपसर्जनोपमेयं कृत्वा तु समासमेतयोरुभयो । यत्तु प्रयुज्यते तद्रूपकमन्यत् समासोक्तम् ॥ Vāmana (1v. 36).- उपमानेनोपमेयस्य गुणसाम्यात् तत्त्वारोपो रूपकम् । Bhoja (iv. 24) यदोपमानशब्दाना गौणवृत्तिव्यपाश्रयात् । उपमेये भवेत्तिस्तदा तद्रूपकं विदुः ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 34) अभेदप्राधान्ये आरोपे आरोपविषयानपह्नवे रूपकम् । Vidyanatha (p 371) आरोपविषयस्य स्यादतिरोहितरूपिणः । उपरञ्जकमारोप्यमाणं तद्रूपकं मतम् ॥ We have already quoted the definition of Jagannāther in the Sanskrit Commentary. (ii) The distinction of 4 from 34H1 Dandin has given in his very definition of 696 by the qualification तिरोभूतभेदा The distinction between उपमान and उपमेय (for the साम्य between them always presupposes a भेद) can be made to disappear when, in spite of the difference, one asserts their identity either because he erroneously believes in their identity (cp #ETH and the remarks made in our Notes to ii. 25 regarding भ्रान्तिमान् and me); or because he wants purposely (poetically speaking) to deceive some one (e. g in अपहृति, ep. our Notes to il. 95 also); or because he is himself in doubt (eg. संशयोपमा and the figures ससदेह etc); or because, in a poetic fancy, he imagines them to be identical (as happens in an उत्प्रेक्षा). It may also happen when, for purposes of poetic effect and with a view to bring out the extreme similarity of the उपमान and the उपमेय, the उपमान is made not only to lend its रूप to the उपमेय but actually to usurp its place so that only one word and ·105] Notes [-1.66 one name-that of the उपमान-is used instead of two. As the प्रतापरुद्रीय (p 371) trenchantly remarks-संदेहालंकारे विषयस्य संदिह्यमानतया तिरोधानम् । भ्रान्तिमदलंकारे भ्रान्त्या विषयतिरोधानम् । अपहृत्यलंकारे अपह्नवेनारोपविषयतिरोधानम् । -to which we might add-उत्प्रेक्षायां कविसभावनया विषयविषयिणोरभेदाध्यवसायः । अतिशयोक्ती कविप्रौढोक्तया विषयस्य विषयिणा निगरणात्मकोध्यवसायः । Regarding our last statement it will be noted that Dandin's conception of sifarihi is somewhat different from the one given above after the manner of HHTE; but on this point see our Notes to ii. 214 (iii) As to the rest, it may be observed that while रूपक involves an आरोप or superimposition of the उपमान upon the उपमेय, that आरोप has to be based upon similarity and not upon कार्यकारण relation as in आयुर्घतम् ; but the ground of the आरोप-the common property-can never be expressed as such in the Rapaka (अविवक्षितसा- HTRI &s Rudrata says: see below, Note ix) and there 18 also an absence, naturally, of the सादृश्यवाचकशब्द रूपक in its simplest form therefore comes nearer to the धर्म- वादिलुप्ता उपमा and if the example बाहुलता is taken as बाहुः लता इव it would be not a रूपक at all. Where such a confusion is likely to result there must always be something in the sentence which is either रूपकसाधक or उपमा- बाधक, regarding which, besides the remarks in our Commentary, compare the following from the काव्यप्रकाश (pp 927ff.)-तत्र सौभाग्य वितनोति वक्त्रशशिनो ज्योत्स्नेव हासद्युतिः । इत्यत्र मुख्यतया अवगम्यमाना हासद्युतिर्वक्त्रे एवानुकूल्यं भजते इत्युपमायाः साधकम् शशिनि तु न तथा प्रतिकूलेति रूपकं प्रति तस्या अबाधकता । वक्त्रेन्दौ तव सत्ययं यदपरः शीताशुरभ्युद्यतः। इत्यत्र अपरत्वमिन्दोरनुगुणं न तु वक्त्रस्य प्रतिकूलमिति रूपकस्य साधकतां प्रति- पद्यते न तूपमाया बाधकताम् । राजनारायणं लक्ष्मीस्त्वामालिङ्गति निर्भरम् । इत्यत्र पुनरालिङ्गनमुपमा निरस्यति सदृशं प्रति परप्रेयसीप्रयुकस्य आलिङ्गनस्या- संभवात् । पादाम्बुजं भवतु नो विजयाय मजु- मञ्जीरशिजितमनोहरमम्बिकायाः। 14 Kavyadarial ·( 106 ii. 66.com ] Kavyadarsa इत्यत्र मञ्जीरशिजितम् अम्बुजे प्रतिकूलमसंभवादिति रूपकस्य बाधकम् नतु पादेनु- कूलमित्युपमाया साधकमभिधीयते विध्युपमर्दिनो बाधकस्य तदपेक्षया उत्कटत्वेन प्रतिपत्ते । एवमन्यत्रापि सुधीभि परीक्ष्यम् । (10) A FATHIA (see in 205, below) involves an assertion about the years which suggests a corresponding assertion about the yega, one assertion being made to do duty for both on the basis of an implied 37:14 of the 31314gn upon the seat based upon ERT However, in a thi the sea is not actually expressed as in a रूपक, and it is because the व्यवहार predicated of the अप्रस्तुत resembles the व्यवहार of theप्रस्तुत which is intended to be described that the segastaiia results by way of an implication. In Rūpaka, on the other hand, the tega in its entirety (E4, 96T, and all) is identified with the STEG but, at the same time, the basis of this identification or superimposition is not actually expressed Cp. on the point साहित्यदर्पण (p 534)-रूपके अप्रकृतम् आत्मस्वरूप- सनिवेशेन प्रकृतस्य रूपमवच्छादयति । इह तु स्वावस्थासमारोपेणावच्छादितस्वरूपमेव तं पूर्वावस्थातो विशेषयति । अत एवात्र व्यवहारसमारोपो न तु स्वरूपसमारोप TIE: 1 For further remarks see our Notes to 11 205. (v) The figure called font, which not only our author but even ## does not recognise and regarding which, even between those that recognise it-Frih, विश्वनाथ, विद्याधर, जगन्नाथ and अप्पय्यदीक्षित-there seems to be a slight difference of opinion, is in our opinion & matter of over-subtlety. In the line-a rota arata मदिरेक्षणा If गन्ज Is regarded as a रूपक the lotus or अब्ज must transfer its y completely to the eye or 5. The eye, in other words, must lose all its character as an eye and take upon itself the character of the lotus. Accordingly it can bloom but cannot see. This is not a E14 therefore It cannot also be an उपमा, for वीक्षते or प्रसन्नत्व cannot become a common property residing more prominently on the 3446 lotus and less prominently on the suhe eye. We must hence invent a new figure in which the between the 3r and the उपमेय is तिरोभूत, but the result is not that उपमान has transferred its रूप to the उपमेय, but rather उपमान has itself assumed the 4 of the so that the lotus can ·107 ] Notes [-1166 see This therefore is the figure called TUTH Compare the Chitramimansa (p. 59)-रूपके प्रकृतमप्रकृतरूपापन्नं भवात परिणामे तु अप्रकृत प्रकृतरूपापन्नं भवति। In this connection it has to be observed that न्यायपञ्चानन (as quoted by the अलंकार- कौस्तुभ, p. 161) regards दृगब्ज in the line in question as an उपमा based upon a common property like रमणीयत्व, and this seems to be the best solution of the difficulty. (vi) We will consider one little point about this figure before we pass on to a consideration of its subdivisions. Rupaka as we saw is an आरोप of the उपमान upon the उपमेय based upon सादृश्य, and the question is, is the iria primarily of the word upon the word, or of the thing-denoted-by-the-word upon the thing-denotedby-the-word, or of both simultaneously. Says Prati harendurāja (p. 11)-तत्र त्रयो दर्शनभेदा । केचिदत्र शब्दारोपपूर्वकम- रोपं ब्रवते अपरे त्वारोपपूर्वकं शब्दारोपम् । अन्यैस्तु शब्दारोपार्थारोपयोयौंग- पद्यमभिधीयते । अयमेव च पक्षो युक्त इव दृश्यते । तदाहुः- शब्दोपचारात् तद्रूपं रूपके कैश्चिदुच्यते । ताद्रूप्यारोपतश्चान्यैः शब्दारोपोत्र कथ्यते ॥ उपमानगुणैस्तुल्यानुपमेयगतान् गुणान् । पश्यता तु सकृद्भाति तत्र तच्छब्दरूपता ॥ तत्रेति उपमेये इत्यर्थः तच्छब्दरूपतेति उपमानशब्दारोप उपमानशब्दारोपश्च । (vii) As Dandin himself observes (ii. 96) Rupaka, like Upamā, is capable of infinite divisions made more or less on the same basis. There is first of all the merely grammatical aspect of it which gives the first three varieties of Dandin : समस्त, असमस्त and समस्तव्यस्त, as also the सविशेषणरूपक (ii. 82). Next, there is what might be called the rhetorical aspect, which accounts for the varieties called आक्षेपरूपक (ii. 91), समाधानरूपक (ii. 92), and तत्त्वापह्नवरूपक (ii. 95), as well as for विरुद्धरूपक (in 84), हेतुरूपक (ii. 86), उपमारूपक (ii. 89), and व्यतिरेकरूपक (11 90), where it will be seen that Rūpaka proper is associated with some other additional rhetorical device. The usual divisions of 549 given in the Texts are the same as those exhibited in the tree given under Note (i) to ii. 43-45 above. Dandin's सकलरूपक is the same as साङ्गसमस्तवस्तुविषयरूपक while his अवयव, अवयविन्, and ·1i. 66-) Kavyādarśa ( 108 एकाङ्गरूपकs (with the further sub-divisions of युक्त, अयुक्त and विषम) may roughly correspond to एकदेशविवर्तिरूपक What is known as qrufatete with its two sub-divisions of Baskets and qua are practically one with Dandın's 1496476 (ii 93) and frozen (11. 87), while the subdivisions based on simple or serial arrangement Dandin does not recognise at all. (viii) The Alamkārakaustubha observes (p. 228) that some attempt to make out a variety of 64 called वाक्यार्थरूपक on the analogy of the वाक्यार्थोपमा described in ii 43ff.-वाक्याथै विषये वाक्यार्थोन्तरारोपः वाक्यार्थरूपकम् । यथा विशिष्टो- पमाया विशेषणानामुपमानोपमेयभावोर्थगम्यस्तथात्रापि वाक्यार्थघटकपदार्थाना रूपकमर्थगम्यम् । तद्यथा- आत्मनोस्य तपोदानैर्निर्मलीकरणं हि यत् । क्षालनं भास्करस्येदं सारसैः सलिलोत्करैः॥ This however is regarded by the majority of Alamkārikas as façatar. Compare the familiar example of it- त्वत्पादनखरत्नानां यदलक्तकमार्जनम् । इदं श्रीखण्डलेपेन पाण्डुरीकरणं विधो ॥ After a long and technical discussion the अलंकारकौस्तुभ- • कार decides against the acceptance of वाक्यार्थरूपक, the instances quoted for it being merely those of निदर्शना. See further our Notes to ii 348. (ix) We have said above (Note rii) that in a Rūpaka the common property can never be expressed as a common property, For & common thing has to be shared by more than one while in a 597 the 3476 and 34ter are conceived as but one thing. All the same there is always a common property implied as the very basis of the आरोप required for रूपक, and if this धर्म is expressed as belonging to 3477T alone, or primarily to the 347 and secondarily in a sort of a reflex fashion to 344, that does not violate the requirements of the figure Consider for example the illustration in ii 87. The compound word quest is to be dissolved here in & manner so as to give more prominence to stays (i. e. ang according to Pānini II. i 72) and therefore the adieofives राजहसोपभोगाई and भ्रमरप्रार्थ्यसौरभम् must be ·109 ] Notes [ -ii. 72 primarily predicable of alone, which they are, seeing that the senses of राजहस and भ्रमर that suit वक्त्र are only secondarily suggested and that too after an effort. With this important condition governing the expression of the common property, therefore, we can obtain for 944 the various sub-varieties that turn upon the manner of expressing the common property. Says Jagannatha (p. 243)-साधारणधर्मश्चात्राप्युपमायामिद क्वचिदनुगामी क्वचिद्विम्वप्रतिबिम्बभावमापन्नः क्वचिदुपचारितः क्वचिच्च केवलशब्दात्मा । सोपि क्वचिच्छब्देनोपात्तः क्वचित् प्रतीयमानतया नोपात्तः। For the corresponding examples see THTETETT itself. Notes to II. 67-68-(1) The TETE thus versifies Dandin's examples of 451649.- तस्या बाहुलता पाणिपद्मं चरणपल्लवम् । मुखेन्दुरक्षिभ्रमरौ सर्वस्वं पुष्पधन्वन ॥ It will be noted that the illustration in ii. 67 is also a 19263647, but it is adduced merely to illustrate the nature of the Metaphor-out-of-Compound Notes to II. 69-70-(1) The compound der Spill should rather have been dissolved as-अङ्गुलिरेव दलम् अङ्गुलिदलम् । ताम्र च तत् अङ्गुलिदल च ताम्राङ्गुलिदलम् । ताम्राङ्गुलिदलाना श्रेणयः यस्मिन् तत् ताम्राङ्गुलिदलश्रोणि। This mode connects ताम्र primarily with the 34HT Compare Note (ix) to ii. 66 above.- Similarly the common property between put and - foru-is to be so understood as being applicable primarily to the lotus and secondarily to the foot. This is what Dandin intends to imply by तद्योग्यस्थानविन्यासात् in ii. 70. Notes to II. 71-72-(1) In the example given it will be noted of course that that, the adjective qualifying Art:, involves just an ordinary Upamā. What object the poet intended to superimpose upon ure does not clearly appear. It cannot be s as we do nataste ciate wa and Herts with it ·ii. 73-] Kavyādarsa [ 110 Notes to II.73-74-(1) The compound वदनपङ्कजम् can be dissolved so as to result in 34T as well as in 542 If the other adjectives (वल्गितभ्र, गलद्धर्मजलम् , आलोहितेक्षणम् ) as well as the predicate ( मदावस्था विवृणोति) had been such as to apply primarily to y and only secondarıly to वदन that would have been रुपकसाधक As it is, unless we accept Premachandra's proposed emendation into वदनमम्बुजम् , it would be very hard to establish a रूपक here. Appearances point towards 34HT based upon an extraneous साम्य such as आह्लादकत्व (see our Note (v) to 11 66); and if an extraneous Hip has to be after all brought in why not imagine it to be, say, फुल or विकसित, which would go primarily with पङ्कज and so make वदनपङ्कज a रूपक (निरङ्गरूपक as it would be called) in accordance with Dandin's intentions? Notes to II. 75-76 (1) The divisions intended can be thus exhibited- रूपक having आरोप upon अवयविन्+ अवयविन alone अवयवs alone =अवयविरूपक, अवयविन्+ some अवall अवयव 3D % 3D -सकलरूपक, 11 70 11. 74 यवs alone , -विषमरूपक, il.79. all अवयव some अवयवs alone = एकाङ्गरूपक, ii 76 अवयवरूपक, ii 72. युक्तरूपक ii. 77 अयुक्तरूपक ii. 78. (u) The word अत्र in i1.76 cannot refer to एकाङ्गरूपक seeing that in the examples given all the sagas or constituent parts have the आरोप; it can refer to constituent parts, and the divisions into युक्त and अयुक्त are divisions of 64 involving 3T74 on (some or all) ·111 ] Notes -ii. 86 अवयवs. They cannot be divisions of रूपक according to a fresh fundamentum divisionis seeing that we can have incompatibility between अवयवs and अवयवs, and between the अवयविन् and some of its अवयवs, but never between the अवयविन् and all its अवयवs; the अवयविन् cannot in fact be called race at all in that case. asti Notes to II. 79-80-(1) In the example given the facha! consists in the fact that while ytos and are the अवयवs of मुख the उपमेय, इन्दु the उपमान has only some अवयवेs corresponding to it that are actually stated (or are suggested) but not all. For instance, to suggests the stellige reddened at moon-rise, but as set cannot be associated with the moon the 27 should in this ex. ample have been conceived of as the power. In spite of this circumstance the general impression is that of the superimposition of the 3447 along with its अवयवs upon the उपमेय along with its अवयवs, although the correspondenc does not exist in all the details as in a सकलरूपक. Notes to II, 81-82-(i) This Alaqu64% can be distinguished from 1964 et by reason of the circumstance that in the latter it is possible to have the Brity on the अवयविन् (eg. चरणे पङ्कजत्वम् ) independently of the अवयवारोपs, which merely serve to heighten the charm of the अवयव्यारोप In the present variety the आरोप of ध्वजत्व upon 47 the fact becomes meaningless taken by itself. It can become plausible only if yg as well as the east are taken as विशेषणविशिष्ट The विशेषणविशेष्यभाव 1s a more intimate relation than the अवयवावयविभाव Notes to II, 83-84-(i) The fara would have been more pointedly brought out if for the word ge in the illustration had been substituted the synonym STE. Notes to II. 85-86-(i) The distinction between g 64% and YHT (il-50) is of course sufficiently obvious.

·ii. 874 ) Καυγάdarέα [ 112 Notes to II. 87-(i) See note (ix) to 11 66 The stanza is omitted by M. The usual explanatory stanza is lacking in this case, regarding which the Targuifsa observes-- स्पष्टत्वात् [श्लिष्टरूपकं] शास्त्रकृता न व्याख्यातम् । This might seem to raise a suspicion about the genuineness of 11. 87, but it is given by the best Mss. Compare also ii 313, Notes to II. 88-90-(1) Our Sanskrit Commentary follows प्रेमचन्द्र But प्रेमचन्द्र has not been able to explain the varieties satisfactorily and had to give a new example of his own to suit his own explanation of the definition in ii. 88 A better explanation perhaps would be to take गौण = the secondary or आरोपित (moon) and मुख्य = the actual moon. As in both the varieties illustrated in il 89 and ii 90 the yeqHT: is compared (or contrasted) with the actual moon it is evident that such a comparison can only take place if and after the presa is superimposed upon the face. The 64 must therefore already exist, and all that is done in adāition is to bring out the similarity of the gacent: (and impliedly but not expressedly of the gre ) with the actual moon in an 3441976Y and the dissimilarity between them in a व्यतिरेकरूपक The श्रुतानुपालिनी apparently so interprets these varieties, for it says-गौणोप्रधान मुख्य प्रधान.। मुख- चन्द्रस्य साक्षाचन्द्रस्य चेति । And we can accordingly take प्रतिगर्जति-आह्वानं करोति तेन सदृश इत्यर्थ following again the same commentary For a similar use of गौण and मुख्य compare ii 160 (ii) In the second line of ii. 90 the reading of M is decidedly superior, but all other Mss. are against it. (iii) Bhāmaha alone amongst extant ālamkārikas accepts उपमारूपक as a distinct alamkāra He thus defines and illustrates it (iii. 34-35) उपमानेन तद्भावमुपमेयस्य साधयत् । या वदत्युपमामेतदुपमारूपकं यथा ॥ समग्रगगनायाममानदण्डो रथानिण.। पादो जयति सिद्धस्त्रीमुखेन्दुनवदर्पण ॥ Here Vishnu's foot is declared to be a novel mirror, The conceipt is quite out of the common; and while ·113 ) Notes [ _i1, 92 the आरोप of दर्पणत्व upon पाद does gave rise to the Rūpaka, yet in so far as the qu 18 said to be a new or strange qui, the full force of the 54% does not show itself, being thwarted by a possible 344T standing out in the back-ground. This is probably the purport of Bhāmaha's definition Dandin's definition of the figure is so differently worded from that of Bhämaha that it would be hazardous to imagine that there is some kind of a connection between the two in spite of the fact that Dandin and Bhämaha are the only two. writers extent who have anything to say of उपमारूपक. Bhāmaha accepts it as an independent figure, Dandin (op ii 358) turns it into a sub-variety of Rūpaka: but there 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 are following independent traditions in regard to their explanation of this figure (iv) The tenth canto of the Bhattıkāvya 18 composed to illustrate figures of speech Amongst them 3477949 18 illustrated by X. 60- गिरिपरिगतचञ्चलाएगान्त जलनिवहं दधत मनोभिरामम् । गलितमिव भुवो विलोक्य राम घरणिधरस्तनशुक्लपहचीनम् ॥ Here the foaming river-mouths 88 they fell into the ocean, are compared to the dropped upper-garment (मलितं पश्चीनमिव ) from the mountain-breasts (घरभिधरतन) of the earth at the sight of her lord Rama The comparison of the streams with the garment is based upon the site of Uk on the mountains; and so this is उपसारूपकम्-उपमासहित रूपकमित्यर्थः-as the commentator PREHR says. It would be difficult to apply Dandin's definition to the present example. Motos to Q. 91-92-(i) The distinotion between te nad far is safioiently obvious. Premachandra underskende ti. 91 all wrong, and Bohtlingk follows Premachandra An 18 an are following up·ii. 92-1 Kavyādarta | 114 on a 64% and serving to weaken the full effect of the आरोग required for the रूपक, while a समाधानरूपक is, so to say, an आक्षेप of an आक्षेपरूपक Thus in ii 91 the re, while calling the face the moon, suggests that in as much as the face is NAU19FL while the real moon is शीतल, the चन्द्रत्वारोप made upon the मुख is not com. pletely justified. The AHTST/649 adds to all this a further remark to the effect that possibly the face-moon might be tinta in reality (and so the Strì might be fully justified): only his own ill luck comes in the way of his realising the शीतलत्व or the आह्वादकत्व of the face moon. Premachandra (perhaps under the influence of the ideas in the two earlier stanzas) thinks that in ii. 91 the area wishes to say that the grecarity is derogatory to the मुखचन्द्र because the real moon is अन्योपतापिन् while the face-moon is not so Any G reader would at once perceive that such an interpretation murders all the delicate suggestions of the stanza Notes to II, 93-(i) Regarding the designation of the figure the following extract from the YEYTISSET is quite explicit-अत्र मुखस्य पङ्कजत्वेन रूपितस्य पुना रङ्गत्वेन रूपणात् ध्रुवोलतात्वेन रूपितयो. नर्तकीत्वेन रूपणात् रूपकरूपकमिति संज्ञा । It will be observed however that रङ्ग is not an अवयव of the नर्तकी 8s दल was of the 4t in ii. 69, the example for Hota 49 The aber is helped by, and is only rendered possible by the harita, hence this variety comes nearer to the quay of later writers, which has been defined as (साहित्यदर्पण, x. 29) यत्र कस्यचिदारोपः परारोपणकारणम् । Whether, however, Dandin intended to make every 4564 & pifc7646 as thus explained we have no definite grounds to assert. Seeing however that the rig upon the face and the Kart on the eye-brows are not based upon any definite araply that would help the principal arity in the verse, it is possible that Dandin wants us to understand स्पकरूपक as रूपकेण रूपकम् i. e. रूपकानुप्राणितरूपकम् । or refast and that the subordinate 3gs of the and Sara do not vitally affect the character of this Rūpaka'variety.

·115 ) Notes 1-il. 95 Notes to II. 94-95-(i) Compare the nature of ATEYTTFT (ii. 36). There, subsequent to an erroneous judgment (whether of the nature of hlc or of a the author does not indicate: but both are possible) based upon सादृश्य between the उपमेय and the उपमान, the real nature of the 34ty was finally determined upon. In the present Rūpaka variety there is just an opposite process of the mind from reality to error-only the error is not faller but is a conscious poetic device which can deceive neither the speaker nor anybody else. In so far however as there is an attempt to conceal facts the name of the variety explains itself. (ii) Dandin admits an independent figure of speech called stata (il. 304-309). In ii. 309 he alludes to what is called stafa by which he presumably means a sub-variety of 3471_but there is none with this name amongst the given 3 varieties--and in the present stanzas he mentions & 791469847 It is rather difficult to determine in the first instance whether these are three independent alamkāras and in the next place what is the exact distinction between them as Dandin sees it. Now some hold that by 34414fa Dapdin means तत्त्वापहवरूपक-उपमारूण्कयोरनतिभेदात् as Ca pots it Cp. ii. 96 also. Ob thinks that by Hafa is meant अपहृतोपमा or लुप्तोपमा, adding शशाङ्कवदने इत्यत्र द्योतकसामान्यलोपः दृष्ट pa Premachandra explains Hregla: by welfa: -सादृश्यापहवपूर्वकसादृश्यातिशयस्थापनरूपेत्यर्थः-and thinks that प्रति- ICT (ii. 34) is what Dandin intends in ii. 309. Cs also agrees in this. Now in view of the fact that in outward form at least the 3ml variety exemplified in ii. 36 bears an unmistakable resemblance to any ordinary case of 469, and in view further of the fact that the atapon may be a judgment subsequent to & CAT64645 (as also to & HIS), it is not impossible that in ii. 309 Dandin might be equally plausibly thinking of ii. 36. And in any case we can regard the उपमापति as separate from तत्त्वापहवरूपक- If उपमापहुति - IL 36 we have already-Note (i) above-shown its diskination from तत्त्वाहपापक; while it उपमापति = il. 34, as ·il 95- 2 Kūvjārtarša ( 116 प्रतिषेधोपमा and तत्त्वापहवरूपक are quite distinct on the very face of them no attempt need be made to distinguish the one from the other (uit) But we must learn to clearly distinguish arat- पह्नवरूपक from the figure अपह्नुति as Dandin defines it. To later writers the two are undistinguishable Some think that in the Rūpaka variety one dharmin as & whole is negated and another asserted in its place, while in the alamkāra called there there is the negation of a certain dharma of the dharmin and the assertion of another instead This, however, will not hold in the case of Formafa (1i 308) A better differentia would be what is supplied by the adjective 561faguilat in the definition, which suggests that the negated (प्रकृत, उपमेय) and the asserted (अप्रकृत, उपमान) things ought to have a similarity between them This is not the case in the figure 314@ia where anything can be negated and another asserted in its place. cp. 379664 किंचिदन्यार्थदर्शनम् । Notes to II. 96-(i) Regarding the sub-divisions of Rūpaka Bhamaha says (ii. 22)-समस्तवस्तुविषयमेकदेशविवर्ति च । द्विधा EUPHOSH i Consequently when Dandin mentions innumerable varieties of Rūpaka as being current he must have had others than Bhāmaha in his mind. Notes to II. 97-(i) In the various definitions of Dipaka that are in the field two or three issues have been raised. In the first place, is it necessary that 14% be based upon similarity? Bharata, Dandin, Bhāmaha, Bhoja, the author of Vāgbhatālamkāra, and Viśvanātha are quite silent on the point. Rudrata regards Dipaka as a matter-of-fact (aifa) figure and not an औपम्य figure Udbhata explicitly demands साम्य (p 14)- आदिमध्यान्तविषय प्राधान्येतरयोगिनः । अन्तर्गतोपमाधर्मा यत्र तद्दीपकं विदुः॥ while Vāmana (iv. 3. 18–34HF4Hartbelt FT), Ruyyaka (p. 71), Mammata (p. 775-BEITER MICH- ·117 ] Notes -ii. 97 नाम्), and Jagannatha (p 322--प्रकृतानामप्रकृतानां चैकसाधारणधर्मा- न्वयो दीपकम्), do the same thing; though Mammata, for instance, admits a variety of दीपक (the so-called कारक- दीपक) where the साम्य Is not in evidence. In 8s much 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 HIPI, and so we need not make much of the condition about the 31147 being pp, as Ruyyaka puts it The next issue raised is about the has that are said to possess the pit common . Most writers insist that the धर्मिन्s be partly प्रकृत and partly अप्रकृत but they must not be all either on alone or 3799 alone. This last, according to them is a case of तुल्ययोगिता (see Note (i) to ii 48, above). Now Dandin is not particular on this point his examples suggest that he admits all प्रकृतs (e.g ii 100), all अप्रकृतs (e g. ii 101), and some प्रकृतs and some अप्रकृतs (e.g. ii 99) Regarding the distinction between दीपक and तुल्ययोगिता the following extract from the अलंकारकौस्तुभ (p 296-297) may be said to be the last word on the controversy अत्र वदन्ति-दीपकमपि तुल्ययोगितायामेवान्तर्भवति धर्मस्य सकदृत्तेरुभयत्रा- विशेषात् प्रकृताप्रकृतत्वादिविशेषस्य चावान्तरभेदसाधकत्वेपि अलंकारान्तरताया- मसाधकत्वात् । अन्यथा श्लेषस्य तद्भेदयोरपि भिन्नालकारत्वापत्ते.। तस्मात् प्रकृतानामेव प्रकृताप्रकृताना चैकधर्मान्वय इति तुल्ययोगिताया एव त्रयो मेदा वक्तुमुचिताः । तस्माद्दीपकस्य तुल्ययोगिताया भेदं वदतां प्राचीनानां दुराग्रह इति तच्चिन्त्यम् । नानाधिकरणस्थाना शब्दाना संप्रदीपकः। एकवाक्येन संयोगो यस्तु दीपकमुच्यते॥ यथा- सरासि हंसै. कुसुमैश्च वृक्षा मतद्विरेफैश्च सरोरुहाणि । गोष्ठीभिरुयानवनानि चैव यस्मिन्नशून्यानि सदा क्रियन्ते ।। इति भगवता भरतमुनिना (xvi, 55-56) दीपकस्यातीकारात् तत्रैव तुल्ययोगि- तान्तर्भावस्यौचित्यादिति दिक् । (ii) A large number of varieties of Dipaka are conceivable. Dandin first gives a four-fold distinction based upon the same principle as in ii. 13 and then gives three sub-varieties under each according to the position of the common word. Regarding this last principle of sub-division Jagannātha remarks (p 327) - ·ii.97-] Kavyādarsa [ 118 वस्तुतस्तु धर्मस्यादिम यान्तगतत्वेपि चमत्कारवैलक्षण्याभावात् त्रैविभ्योकिरापातमा- त्रात् । अन्यथा धर्मस्य उपायुपमभ्योपान्त्यगतत्वे ततोपि किंचिन्यूनाधिकदेशवृत्तित्वे AGATESAFIO 1 -Mammata and others, as before observed, admit a variety called stareaC19 defined in the अलंकारकौस्तुभ (p. 291) as-यत्रैकमेव कारकमन्वयमेति क्रियासु बहीषु and illustrated by विश्वनाथ (p 520) as- दूरं समागतवति त्वयि जीवनाथे भिन्ना मनोभवशरेण तपस्विनी सा। उत्तिष्ठति स्वपिति वासगृहं त्वदीय- मायाति याति हसति श्वसति क्षणेन । In connection with this variety another similar gratuitous principle of sub-division (not enunciated by Dandin) turns upon the case of the common कारक, and so we have Dipakas of कर्तृ, कर्म, करण, सप्रदान, अपादान, संबन्धिन् , and अधिकरण -all severally illustrated in the अलंकारकौस्तुभ pp. 292 ff Regarding frienc14 Jayaratha remarks (p73)-अत्र. क्रियाणां प्रस्तुतानामेकाधारगतत्वेन समुच्चीयमानत्वाच्च समुच्चयालं. कारो न तु कारकदीपकम् । तद्धि प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुताना क्रियाणामौपम्यसद्भावे भवति । Similar remarks are also passed by Jagannatha (pp.324-325). The varieties illustrated by our author in ii 109, ii. 111, ii. 113 are an attempt to combine the दीपकवैचित्र्य with the वैचित्र्य of some other figure or mode of expression; while the ATS variety and other chainvarieties can always be superadded to almost every figure-of-speech. This alamkara is liable to लिङ्गवचन- भेददोष (illustrated by Jagannatha, p. 328 f.) which makes the syntactical relation rather difficult to establish. Notes to II. 98-102-(i) The first line of ii. 99 seems to have been misunderstood by Böhtlingk The elephants are of course the king's war-elephants and not 'die welt tragenden Elephanten." Notes to II. 103-106-(i) The distinction between the Dipaka variety illustrated in ii. 106 and the figure called सहोक्ति illustrated in il 352-354 consists in the fact that while he has to be supplied severally in the ·119 ) Notes 1-ii. 119 various statements in ii 106, no such necessity exists in the wel illustrations. The omission of ZHAT THE would have been an improvement. Notes to II, 107-115—(1) As Dandın says distinctly, the instance in ii. 107 contains an icine. Since the word is the common word it follows that in an ilety it is enough if it occurs somewhere in the first sentence and not necessarily in the very beginning of that sentence. (ii) The variety illustrated in ii 111 is distinct from the so-called 149 of the moderners. See above Note (ii) to il. 97. The emendation suggested by Premachandra is good but not backed up by any manuscripts. (1ii) The statement in ii. 115 testifies to the existence before Dandin's day of writers who gave a still larger number of Dipaka varieties. Bhāmaha (ii. 25) gives just three Notes to II. 116-(i) Dandin distinctly says that every आवृत्ति is an amplified दीपक; the one can therefore always be turned into the other. Consequently, regarding the necessity of a basic Ft, and the requirement that the things adduced be all is alone, or 375lents alone, or both together, the remarks made in Note (1) to ii 97 hold true of this figure also. This figure is not recognised as a distinot figure by any other writer except Jayadeva the author of the Chandrāloka (stanza 45) who calls it le 14. Bhoja (iv, 78) regards it as a sub-variety of Dipaka. Notes to II. 117-i) The figure called arisiq$ illustrated in ii. 111 also employed synonyms; but they were connected with one word; here the synonyms family etc. are connected with separate words. Notes to II, 118-119–(i) The Ser called * also has words or syllabic groups repeated; but there the .

·ii. 119-1 Kavyadarsa [ 120 repetitions cannot be dispensed with, while in an SENA the sense of the passage does not suffer by doing away with the repetitions. In other words, आवृत्ति can be turned into a दीपक while यमक cannot be so trans. formed. Notes to II. 120-(i) Different views about the nature of Akshepa are current and naturally the definitions of this figure differ from writer to writer. Dandin's definition-प्रतिषेधोक्तिराक्षेप is the simplest in the field and of widest application As Jegannātha (p. 424) remarks- इतरे तु निषेधमात्रमाक्षेप । चमत्कारित्व चालंकारसामान्यलक्षणप्राप्तमेव । तच्च व्यङ्गयार्थे सति सभवतीति सव्यङ्गयो निषेध सर्वोप्याक्षेपालंकारः। Others delimit the field of this alamkāra to the negation of the उपमान alone As Vamana (17327) says-उपमानाक्षेप- श्राक्षेप । तुल्यकार्यार्थस्य नैरर्थक्यविवक्षायामाक्षेपः, as he explains the Sūtra in his Vritti Vamana's example is- तस्याश्चेन्मुखमस्ति सौम्य सुभगं किं पार्वणेनेन्दुना सौन्दर्यस्य पद दृशौ यदि च ते किं नाम नीलोत्पलैः। किंवा कोमलकान्तिभि किसलयै सत्येव बिम्बाधरे हा धातु पुनरुक्तवस्तुरचनारम्भेष्वपूर्वो ग्रहः ॥ This is the same as stilrent which Mammata (p 894) thus defines and explains आक्षेप उपमानस्य प्रतीपमुपमेयता । तस्यैव यदि वा कल्प्या तिरस्कारनिबन्धनम् ॥ अस्य धुरं सुतरामुपमेयमेव वोढुं प्रौढमिति कैमर्सेन यत् उपमानमाक्षिप्यते यदपि तस्यैवोपमानतया प्रसिद्धस्य उपमानान्तरविवक्षया अनादरार्थमुपमेयभाव' कल्प्यते तत् उपमेयस्योपमानप्रतिकूलवर्तित्वात् उभयरूपं प्रतीपम्। As we have seen Mammata's second Pratipa is the same as Dandin's विपर्यासोपमा (ii. 17); while Dandin's प्रतिषेधोपमा (11 34) perhaps comes nearer to the first kind The प्रतिषेधालंकार recognised by the कुवलयानन्दकारिकाकार (stanza 164) is of course a different species altogether (in). Others introduce other delimiting conditions. They say for instance that while 3T14 is a great it ought not to be a real downright side. The thing intended ought to be conveyed (in an even more telling fashion) by the apparent denial of it. As the Alamkārasarvasva (p. 114 ) clearly puts it- ·121] Notes -ii.120 इह प्राकरणिकोर्थः प्राकरणिकत्वादेव वक्तुमिप्यते । तथाविधस्य विधानाहस्य निषेध कर्तुं न युज्यते । स कृत बाधितस्वरूपत्वात् निषेधायत इति निषेधाभासः संपन्नः । तस्यैतस्य करणं प्रकृतगतत्वेन विशेषप्रतिपत्त्यर्थम् । अन्यथा गजस्नानतुल्यं स्यात् । The definitions of most later writers are framed so as to include all these conditions. Thus- Mammata निषेधो वक्तुमिष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्मया । Visvanātha (x. 65) वस्तुनो वक्तुमिष्टस्य विशेषप्रतिपत्नये । निषेधाभास आक्षेप। Bhamaha (ii. 68) and Udbhata (p.29)- प्रतिषेव इवेष्टस्य यो विशेपाभिधित्सया । आक्षेप इति तं, सन्तः शंसन्ति द्विविधं (कवयः) यथा (सदा)॥ It will be seen that Dandin's example of quiet fits in with all these requirements and it would be a regular illustration for the figure as above defined (1) With regard to the Bay described in Note (ii) the negation of the इष्टप्राकरणिक theme is usually grounded on the fact of the thing being already too well known, or of the speaker's being powerless to do justice to it-वक्ष्यमाणविषये अशक्यवक्तव्यत्वम् उक्तविषये अतिप्रमिद्धत्वं चcommentator observes It is divided into four sub-varieties Compare Sahityadarpana (p 547)- । त्र वक्ष्यमाणविषये ऋचित् सर्वस्यापि सामान्यत सूचितस्य निषेध क्वचित् अशोक्तो अंशान्तरे निषेध इति द्वौ भेदौ । उक्तविषये च क्वचित् वस्तुस्वरूपस्य निषेध क्वचित् वस्तुकथनस्येति द्वौ । इत्याक्षेपस्य चत्वारो भेदाः। For illustrations see the work cited. Dendin is alone, amongst extant writers, to give a classification of this figure based upon आक्षेप्यभेद (iv) As the Akshepa described in Note (ii) was of the nature of an apparent negation of what is intended to be asserted, so on the same analogy we can have another variety of the nature of an apparent asser tion of what is sought to be negated Compare: Alamkārasarvasva (p 120)-यथा इष्टस्येष्टत्वादेव निषेधोनुपपन्नः एक्मनिष्टस्याप्यनिष्टत्वादेव विधान नोपपद्यते । तत् क्रियमाणं प्रस्खलद्रूपत्वानिषेधे पर्यवस्यति । ततश्च विधेमकरणीभूतो निषेध इति विधिनायं निषेधोनिष्टविशेष- पर्यवसाया। It will be seen that most of Dandin's exam- 16 [Kavyadarsa] as a - ·i1. 120- Karyādan sa | 122 ples ot Akshepa fall under this variety. The figureof-speech called fra is, as Bhoja says, (iv 64)- arizu पृथक् । Its nature 1s-क्रियासूद्योगिनां हेतुद्वारा उक्त्या युक्त्या च Faruri Some of our author's examples (e. g aflaret, il. 123) are primarily of the nature of Rodha as thus 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 faec of the theme under discussion. In Akshepa with the same intention there is a contradiction; but it is between the actual expression and the real intention of the speaker which is not expressed.-In an Apabnuti a certain thing (in some aspects of it or as regards its entire nature) is negated and another asserted in its place, the negated and the asserted things being both actually expressed in words Such is not the case in an Akshepa as we have just seen The distinction between some specific varieties of Akshepa and otber allied figures admitted by Dandin will be dealt with in our Notes to the stanzas concerned Notes to II. 121-126-(i) Yrittākshepa is the same as Uktavishaya Ākshepa of later writers The four-fold condition for this variety, in the words of the Alamkārasarvasva, is-एवं च आक्षेपे इष्टार्थः तस्य निषेधः निषेधस्यानुपपद्यमानत्वाद- सत्यत्वं विशेषप्रतिपादनं चेति चतुष्टयमुपयुज्यते। Here अनङ्गविजय is the theme intended to be described; that has been declared to be impossible; this declaration of course is not seriously intended; and ultimately the marvellous nature of the victory stands out most promiaently before the readers. Hence this is a regular example fulfilling all conditions. (ii) Vartamānākshepa is otherwise designated as Rodha Bhoja (p 422) however calls it a fanta and observes-अत्र कुतः कुवलयं कर्णे करोषि इत्यस्य निषेधवाक्यस्य ·1231 Noles (-ii. 132 किमपाङ्गमित्यादिना प्रश्नपरेणापि निषेधपर्यवमायिना वाक्येन समर्थनं क्रियत इत्ययं Jet mate9.1 -As to Bhavishyat Akshepa it is to be noted that it is not the same as the 267A variety of the other school, for in that variety 27tha Aga, whereas here it is the thing that might happen in future that is attempted to be averted by anticipation Notes to II 127-130-(i) Compare the illustration given in ii 127 with the illustration of Virodha in 11 337. Most modern writers would regard both as cases of Virodha It will however be observed that while the second line of ii. 127 is enough to make it an example of Virodha, it is the first line with its denial of 'tenderness that makes the verse an example of Akshepa (11) The principle underlying these two varieties is -the saine as that in ii. 15-16. Notes to II. 131-132-(i) The example is of the nature of an attempt to deny an actually existing fault and the consequent fear. The epithet 3792Ft is to be noted. Now in a Vibhāvanā (ii 199) there is a negation of the cause but an assertion of the effect, leading to a guessing of some subsidiary 'cause. Here there is a negation of the [57879 or principal] cause (ala), but likewise a negation of the effect (HH) In addition, there is an assertion of subordinate causes of fear such as IT etc together with a negation of their effect, viz. fear. Thus fear is an effect of दोष (प्रधानकारण) as well as of चक्षुराग (अप्रधानकारण), and if the principal cause is said to be lacking there is nothing unusual if the result does not follow irrespective of whether the subordinate causes are or are not present. Consequently Premachandra's attempt to distinguish this figure from Vibbāvanā (which is reproduced in our Sanskrit Commentary) is not very much oalled for. The main point of the illustration is the cool and unlilushing denial of his fault hy the lorer.

·ki, 132 ] Kavyādarsa ( 124 (11) We can more reasonably attempt to distinguish this variety from Višeshoktı (ii. 323), esp. the variety known as हेतुविशेषोक्ति (ii 328) Mammata defines for the as-अखण्डेषु कारणेषु फलावचः, and we have seen that in the illustration under discussion at least the subordinate TUIS are all there, but no effect ensues. But the gist of the illustration is in the epithet 3er. That is what makes this a प्रतिषेधोक्ति Notes to II, 133-134-(1) In ii, 131 the subordinate causes were present but as the principal cause was negated the effect was lacking Here in ii 133 the causes (all of them) are present and yet the expected result does not follow. This would accordingly be a case of fastanien as usually understood Only, Dandin's idea of Višeshokti appears to have been a little different from that of Mammata and others (see Notes to 11. 323). According to our author a fastafeti is intended aftageira. The idea of death, the expected result, does not imply any special faste belonging either to the frois or the alfeat that we can discover. Hence this is no fastenih in Dandin's acceptance of the terni. (ii) An Akshepa as understood by the writers quoted in Note (ii) to ii. 120 is also for faget ; compare- न निषेधमात्रमाक्षेपः किंतु यो निषेधो बाधितः सन्नर्थान्तरपर्यवासितः कचिद्विशेष- Hand 24: 1 But that is not Dandin's view of the matter, and while we are trying to read Dandin's work we must lay aside all extraneous ideas. Notes to II. 135-156-(i) In these verses Dandin shows how one identical theme--the hinderance of the lover's departure--can be poetically treated in various ways so as to form examples of different kinds of Akshepa. The verses are probably of Dandin's own authorship, which shows that he was not without some poetical powers. The verses have been much quoted in other writers : see the Appendix. on Parallelisms. The Alamkārakaustubha gives an ex- ·1251 Notes [-in. 156 ample of $4 which combines most of these prohibition-varieties and adds some more of its own (p. 309) मा याहीत्यपमङ्गलं व्रज पुनः स्नेहेन हीनं वच- स्तिष्ठेति प्रभुता यथारुचि कुरुष्वेवाप्युदानिता। नो जीवामि विना त्वयेति वचनं संभाव्यते वा न वा तत् कि शिक्षय नाथ यत् समुचितं वक्तुं त्वयि प्रस्थिते ।। Our readers are probably already familiar with the classical passage in this strain from the end of the Purvardha of Bana'sKadambari. (ii) Regarding the illustration of प्रभुत्वाक्षेप, (ii 137) Bhoja observes (p 427)--अत्र यद्यपि यात्रोद्यतः प्रियो रुध्यते तथापि प्रभूतार्थलाभादीना कारणाना गमनपरत्वमेव न निवारणपरत्वम् । अतोयं न रोधः कि तर्हि आक्षेप एव भवति । (III) Regarding the illustration of आशीर्वचनाक्षेप (in 142) Bhoja observes (p 421)-अत्र गच्छ इत्यस्य विधिवाक्यस्य ममाधि जन्म तत्रैव भूयात् इत्याशिषानुकुलतयेव मरणसूचनानिषेधः क्रियते इति शुद्धोय विन्याक्षेप । The Alamkarasarvasva asses the following comment on the same stanza (p 120)-अत्र कयाचित् कान्तस्य प्रस्थानमात्मनोनिष्टमप्यनिराकरणमुखेन विधीयते । न चास्य विधिर्युक्तः अनिष्ट- त्वात् । सोय प्रस्खलद्रपूत्वेन निषेधमागूरयति । फल चात्र अनिष्टस्य प्रस्थानस्यास- विज्ञानपदनिबन्धनमत्यन्तपरिहार्यत्वप्रतिपादनम् । एतच्च ममापि तत्रैवेत्याशी:प्रति- पादनेनानिष्टपर्यवसायिना व्यजितम् । (iv) Regarding the illustration of यत्नाक्षेप (1 147) Bhoya observes (p 424)-अत्र यथोक्तमुक्त्वा किं करोमि इत्यानुकूल्ये- नैवाह । अत्र किम प्रश्नार्थत्वेपि युक्त्या निषेधार्थत्वं गम्यते । सोयं योक्तोनुकूलथ विध्याक्षेपो रोध इत्युच्यते । अयमेव चास्या वैयात्योक्तिपक्षे यौक्त प्रतिकूलविध्या- क्षेपो रोधो भवति । (v) The two stanzas about मूर्छाक्षेप (ii. 155, 156) are probably interpolations. Our oldest Mss. J and N omit them, and the fact that the Madras edition takes them before the two stanzas dealing with TT&TT points to the same conclusion The interpolated stanza 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. 1571 Kavyādarsa [ 126 Notes to II. 157-158 and 161-162-(1) Even our oldest Mss J and N give in the first pāda of 11 158 the hypermetrical reading-371195aeea 1 The reading given by us is & conjectural emendation suggested by the variant given by V Our Ms N puts stanzas il 159, 160 after stanza ii. 162 and this fact we believe is not a pure accident. Probably this was Dandin's sequence. In any case this sequence can afford an explanation of the change of the original correct reading to the present hypermetrical reading which is clearly influenced by shagarte14. of ii. 162, which words were probably, in the original exemplar, written immediately underneath the words TITAT. or in such a position as to make the wandering of the eye from the one to the other quite easy.--Since all our Mss give the hypermetrical reading, it further ful lows that our present coples are traceable to one original copy, and that the variæ lectiones are accordingls subsequent to the date of J, our oldest extant copy Notes to II. 159-160-(1) While most of the preceding Varieties of Akshepa were based upon some psychological or other attendant of the prohibition, in the Varieties which follow Dandin as usual is attempting to combine the 3181999 with the art of some other figure. The examples are self-explaining. (11) In view of the use of the words yen and still in this stanza as applied to the actual and the figurative moon the explanation of the same words we gave in our Notes to ii. 83 gains additional plausibility. Notes to II, 163-164-(1) Compare ii. 26 and 27. It will be noticed that m संशयोपमा the पद्म was अप्रकृत and the मुख the gat; such a distinction is not intended between शारदम्भोद and हंसकदम्बक. Further in the BERTER of ii 163 there is only a removal of the doubt, not an assertion as in l. 27, second lme ·127 ] Mutes [-il. 169 Notos to II, 165-166-For Dandin's conception of stefato i see Note to 11 169 below. Notes to II. 167–168--(i) In ii 131 the party itself was negated ; here something else is negated on the strength of a कारण or हेतु adduced Generally a कारण 1s कारक or productive cause and a हेतु a नापक or probatory cause. See ii, 235. Notes to II. 169-(i) As in the case of Akshepa, Dandin's definition of Arthāntaranyāsa is also rather crude and wanting in the later pruning and refining with a view to make it more precise and to delimit its field from that of other alamkaras or sub-varieties of them. To begin with, Dandin speaks of वस्तु प्रस्तुत्य अन्यस्य वस्तुनः न्यास: and aty has been here taken to mean a theme or & complete statement, so that an ordinary ace of an art is naturally excluded. Compare Vāmana, Vritti on iv 3.21-चस्तुग्रहणात् पदार्थस्य हेतोय॑सनं नार्थान्तरन्यासः । The figures-of-speech known as HEAT or lorog (neither of which however our author admits) are in consequence differentiated from this figure. Between for and 37 the element of mutual distinction is the fact that in the former it is the कारकहेतु (e.g. वह्नि of धूम) while in the latter it is the ज्ञापकहेतु (e.g. धूम of वह्नि) that is set forth, and there is further the circumstance that in the figure-of-speech known as gar there is adduced the complete paraphernalia of a logical inference including the Ta Both the figures nevertheless agree in this that both वह्नि the कारकहेतु and धूम the ST4+are individual objects and not statements or afgs. (ii) Objections can be taken however to the above statement of the case on the ground that in an HTH the #REC is often a condensed and even complex statement, and in the fofos Mammata and others recognise a variety where the कारकहेतु is 8 वाक्यार्थ Hence a better differentia between अनुमान and कायलिङ्ग ·11, 169 ] Kāvyādarsa (128 on the one hand and 34travara on the other is furnished by the condition that while the relation between say afe and in first two figures is not of the nature of genus-to-species or species-to-genus, it is invariably that in the case of the समर्थ्यवस्तु and the समर्थकवस्तु occurring in the latter alamkåra. As Dandın does not lay down this condition and does not also recognise the figures Bar and Trio, the problem does not arise in his case at all. Dandin's rare however (11. 235) does duty for both Bar and Froufoss and in our Notes to that figure we shall attempt to distinguish it from the figure now under discussion. (iii) We will next draw attention to the word year in the definition of this figure. This means that in an अर्थान्तरन्यास it is always the प्रस्तुत or the प्राकरणिक that is sought to be corroborated by the tilega, both sega and ega being actually expressed, and that further the statement of the year should come first in order. Where the order of statements is reversed Bhoja recognises a distinct sub-variety. Compare (p 429)-- जो जस्स हिअअदइओ दुक्खं देन्तो वि सो मुहं देइ । दइअणहदूमिआणं वि वड्ढइत्थआणं रोमञ्चो । अत्र साधनसमर्थ वस्तु प्रथमत एवोपन्यस्य पश्चात् तत्साध्यमभिहितमिति विपर्यासा- hlavicent ATSTICSIKT I Similarly when an attempt is inade to suggest (and corroborate) the unexpressed प्रस्तुत by the expressed अप्रस्तुत or the unexpressed अप्रस्तुत by the expressed a there results the figure of speech called me (ii 205) that has to be dis. tingnished from अर्थान्तरन्यास, where both प्रस्तुत and अप्रस्तुत are expressed With reference to this distinction it inay be noted in passing that Dandin's Thietti embraces both समासोक्ति proper (प्राकरणिकेनाप्राकरणिकाक्षेप) and the अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा of Mammata and others (अप्राकरणिकेन प्राकरणि- Fay:), and that his account of 3HEDAYRİT ( ii. 340) is slightly different from the one usually current (see Notes to that figurel. (iv) If we compare Dandin's definition of stefa with his definition of sifarq4HT (ii, 46 ) we become conscious of a distinctive characteristic of this figure ·1291 Notes [-11.169 which must be carefully grasped In an अर्थान्तरन्याम there is always 472 HUF relation between the two वस्तुs, one being adduced in corroboration of the other. Jagannātha gives a clear exposition of corroboration' (p 471) समर्थनं च इदमेवम् इदमनेवं वा स्यादिति संशयस्य प्रतिबन्धक: इदमित्थमेवेति दृढप्रत्यय । In प्रतिवम्तूपमा ( and in Dandin's View this embraces the so-called E-compare Notes to 11 46 ) the two this are merely related by an element of similarity, upon which in fact the figure depends: cp mafifaciif in the definition The e or analogy, it is true, may be eventually used as a corroboration but that is not the primary and immediate object of the figure Compare प्रतीहारेन्दुराज (p. 35)-न खलु तस्य [दृष्टान्तस्य] समर्थ्यसमर्थकभावपुर सरीकारेण प्रवृत्ति. बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभावमात्रस्य शब्दस्पृष्टत्वात् । अर्थाद्धि तत्र समय॑समर्थकभावावसाय. । अर्थान्तरन्यासे तु समीसमर्थक भावमेवोपक्रमः। (v) The analogical semblance required for प्रतिवस्तपमा [and दृष्टान्त ] is more likely to be found between two general statements or between two particular statements, while corroboration is usually made of & particular by a general or of a general by a particular statement. Most later writers accordingly introduce the above circumstance into the very definition of अर्थान्तरन्यास which has been accordingly defined by Ruyyaka (viii. 79)- धर्मिणमर्थविशेष सामान्यं वाभिधाय तत्सिद्धये । यत्र सधर्मिकमितरं न्यस्येत् सोर्थान्तरन्यासः ॥ by Mammata (p 804)- सामान्यं वा विशेषो वा तदन्येन समर्थ्यते । यत् तु सोर्थान्तरन्यासः। and by Jagannatha (p. 471)- सामान्येन विशेषस्य विशेषेण सामान्यस्य वा यत् समर्थनं तदर्थान्तर- न्यास। author however does not regard this as essential and accordingly in ii. 175 he makes one particular corroborate another particular (see Notes to the stanza). Bhamaha (ii.1), Bhoja (iv.67), Vamana (iv. 3.21), and others give also non-commital defini- 17 [Kavyadarsa] ·ii. 169-] Kavyādarśa [ 130 . tions similar to that of Dandin. We give the first उपन्यसनमन्यस्य यदर्थस्योदिताइते । ज्ञेयः सोर्थान्तरन्यास पूर्वार्थानुगतो यथा ॥ and the last उक्तसिद्धयै वस्तुनोर्थान्तरस्यैव न्यसनमर्थान्तरन्यासः । (vi) Finally, अर्थान्तरन्यास has to be distinguished from निदर्शन (ii. 348). According to the अलंकारकौस्तुभ (p. 265) the two themes or statements brought together in a निदर्शना have an identical or very nearly identical purport (किचित् तत्सदृश फलम् ), while in an अर्थान्तरन्यास there is between the two & समर्थ्यसमर्थक-relation based upon सामान्यविशेषसबन्ध Compare (ibid.)-एवं च पूर्वोत्तरवाक्यार्थकार्यकारण- भावद्वये यत्र सामान्यविशेषरूपधर्मावच्छिन्नत्वं तत्रैवार्थान्तरन्यास इति फलितम् । (vii) As to the divisions of अर्थान्तरन्यास Dandin's classification stands alone by itself Other principles of division adopted are according to Bhoja (iv 68)- म उपन्यस्तवस्तूना साधयेण च कथ्यते । वैधर्मेण च विद्वद्भिर्वपरीत्येन कुत्रचित् ।। Udbhata (p 32) gives a further classification हिशब्दोक्त्या- न्यथापि वा। Alamkarasarvasva (p. 109), Sahityadarpana (x.62) and other works mention a third important sub-variety:-कार्य च कारणेनेदं कार्येण च समर्थ्यते। The majority of writers however refuse to recognise this sub.variety. Viśvanātha tries his best to establish its existence, while the last and one of the very best incisive comment on the same is by Jagannātha (p. 474). We refrain from going here into the controversy. (vii) A further varying upon the nature of this figure is responsible for the figures of speech known as विकस्वर, उभयन्यास, प्रत्यनीकन्यास, and प्रतीकन्यास. An illus. tration of विकस्वर is-स न जिग्ये महान्तो हि दुर्जयाः सागरा इव। regarding which the Alamkārakaustubha observes (p 320)-अत्र विशेषसमर्थनाय सामान्योपन्यासेपि पुनः सामान्यसमर्थनाय विशेषोपन्यास इति विकस्वरोलकारान्तरम् । Rudrata (viii. 85-86) thus explains and illustrates Ubhayanyāsa- सामान्यावप्यर्थो स्फुटमुपमायाः स्वरूपतोपेतौ । निर्दिश्येते यस्मिन्नुभयन्यास. स विज्ञेयः ।।

·131] Notes [-ii. 175 सकलजगत्साधारणविभवा भुवि साधवोधुना विरला । सन्ति कियन्तस्तरव' मुस्वादुमुगन्धिचारुफला ॥ Bhoja, finally, thus illustrates and explains प्रत्यनीकन्यास and प्रतीकन्यास (p 430)- विरला उवआरिच्चिअणिरवेक्खा जलहरच वञ्चन्ति । झिजन्ति ताण विरहे विरलचिअ सरिपवाहव्व ।। अत्र यदिदमुपकृत्य अनपेक्षितप्रत्युपकाराणा गमनम् यच्चाकृतप्रत्युपकाराणा तद्विरहे- क्मादनम् तदुभयमपि जलधरसरित्प्रवाहयारन्योन्यानिशयितयोरुपन्यस्यमान प्रत्यनी- कन्यासो भवति । का कथा बाणसंधाने ज्याशब्दनैव दूरतः । हुंकारेणैव धनुष. स हि विनानपोहति ॥ अत्र विघ्नप्रोत्सारणसमर्थाया बाणमोक्षणलक्षणाया क्रियाया प्रथमावयवभूत ज्या- शब्दं धनुषो हुंकारमिवेति तत्साधनमुपन्यस्य प्रतीकन्याममभिधत्ने । Vikasvara is admitted by the Kuvalayānandakāra (verse 123); Ubhayanyasa as an independent Alamkāra by Rudrata and Vägbhata (p 44), and as a subvariety of अर्थान्तरन्यास by Bhoja, who is alone in recognising the last two alamkāras as additional subvarieties of the same figure Notes to II. 170-173-(1) Dandin's distinction between विश्वव्यापि and विशेषस्थ is not strictly logical It turns upon the mere extent of the denotation But the proposition-All obey Fate, and the proposition-All great men relieve suffering, are equally universal propositions as Logic understands them, and can both be adduced with equal cogency in support of the particular propositions subsumed under them Notes to II. 174-175-(1) The eight sub-varieties given by Dandin go by pairs and hence our Sanskrit Connmentary, following the commentary called श्रुतानुपालिनी, renders श्लेषाविद्ध by अविरोधिन् In the illustration the अविरोध is brought out from the circumstance that प्रियभवन and दाक्षिण्य go harmoniously together, while the विरोध is shown in as much as मालिन्य (or दोष) and आह्वादन do not sort together This is perhaps possible, although in this interpretation varieties 3 and 4 lase ·ii. 175-) Kavyādarsa ( 132 little to distinguish them from the next pair As it is however not absolutely necessary that all the varieties go by pair, it would perhaps involve less forced interpretation if is given the usual interpretation of the use of words in two senses. The word दाक्षिण्यupon which the entire point of the corroboration turns -is so used in ii 174. Other sub-varieties, it is true, may also use paronomastic words; but in lige variety it is the most important word that is so used Compare Cb-दाक्षिण्यशब्दस्य स्वाभाविकार्था बहवः । तेषु अन्यतमः साध्यतया निर्दिष्टः साधनभूतेनान्यतमेन साध्यते इति श्लेषाविद्ध । विरोधवति युक्तात्मनि युक्तायुक्ते च अर्थान्तरन्यासे श्लेषाभुबन्धे सत्यपि प्रागुक्तन्यायेन न तद्वयपदेश। (11) In ir 175 the 77tjate is made up of a proposition which embraces a fare and it is corroborated by another proposition which also embraces a similar faster The two propositions, as we understand matters, are both particular It would accordingly be an instance of ezima in other writers, but Dandin would classify it as Terapia because the idea of corroboration is evidently the leading idea of the GTITS. If the idea of I were the more prominent one it would be, according to Dandin, a case of satayht. We consequently prefer taking the word that in the sense of a good brahman! Notes to II, 176-17.-(1) The distinctive principle underlying the last four varieties is very elusive In ii 176 the समर्थ्यवस्तु [ and not the समर्थकवस्तु also as in ii 175 ] involves some one doing something improper or against one's nature ; in ii. 177 both the 42 and the Heisa propositions involve the doing of an appropriate action; in ii. 178 the action in the test proposition is accordant for one agent but discordant for another agent; and in ii. 179 the action is discordant for one agent and therefore accordant for another agent. Ob and Cs understand विपर्ययअन्यभावापत्तिः or अतथाभवनम् and explain इन्दो शीततया [तस्य] संबन्धिनामपि शीतत्वेन भवितव्यम् । अतथा- ga jauzial The point is however debatable.

·133 ] Notes 1-11.180 Notes to II. 180-(1) Vyatireka consists of two parts- साधर्म्यकथन and भेदकथन-both of which are essential to the nature of the figure. The Upamā-variety called अतिशयोपमा (11. 22) aimed at bringing out the साधर्म्य alone (इयत्येव भिदा नान्या), the varieties called निन्दोपमा and प्रशंसोपमा, although mentioning with disapprobation or approbation certain points of inferiority or superiority in the Upamāna, did nevertheless content themselves with asserting, the free with more or less emphasis (Gp समानमपि सोत्सेकम् and तो तुल्यो), and the variety named विपर्यासोपमा, ii. 17, (=प्रतीप of later writers) mentioned साधर्म्य but did not mention the भेद, which was left merely to be inferred from the circumstance of the उपमेय and the उपमान having changed their normal relation It must also be noted that the real and the must each concern itself with a distinct गुण As Jagannatha observes (p 347)-प्रतीपादौ उपमान- तामात्रकृत एवोत्कर्ष. न वैधयंकृतः । साधर्म्यस्येव प्रत्ययात् । अधिकगुणवत्व मात्रम् उपमानगतापकर्षमात्र वा न व्यतिरेकस्वरूपम् । The same writer later likerwise remarks (p 350)-ननु अस्यालंकारस्य वैधर्म- मूलस्य उपमाप्रतिकूलत्वमेवोचितम् न तूपमागर्भवम् तस्याः साधर्म्यमूलकत्ात् अस्य च तनिषेधरूपेणैव प्रवृत्तः। न चेष्टापत्तिः सिद्धान्तभङ्गप्रसङ्गात् । सत्यम् । यद्गुणपुरस्कारेण यस्य यत्सादृश्यनिषेधः उत्कर्षपर्यवसायी तस्य तद्वणपुरस्कारेण तत्सादृश्यस्याप्रतिष्ठानेपि गुणान्तरेण सादृश्यप्रत्ययस्य दुर्वारत्वात्। यदि च तत्साध्या- सामान्यनिषेधो विवक्षितः स्यात् गुणविशेषपुरस्कारोनर्थकःस्यात् धनेनायमस्मादविक इत्युक्ते विद्यया रूपेण कुलेन च सम इति सर्वजनीनप्रत्ययात् । एवं च प्रतीयमानमपि सादृश्यं गुणान्तरकृतनिषेधोत्थापितेनोत्कर्षेण हतप्रभमिव बन्दी कृतमिव न चमत्कार- विशेषमाधातुं प्रभवतीति प्राचामाशय. । (ii) The variety called प्रतिषेधोपमा (ii.34) comes nearer to this figure As Dandin gives it as an Upamā varioty some kind of Hip between the moon and the face must evidently have been intended. The point of the app is not here actually expressed If we imagine that it is the कान्ति the example becomes a regular व्यतिरेक with the implied साम्य as regards कान्ति and the expressed भेद in consequence of कलङ्क and जडता-compare ii. 187 below. If however we regard the point of Top and वैधय॑ to be the same-say आह्वादकत्व-and interpret the example to mean that the moon, because of its two defects, cannot be a match to the face as regards charm·ii. 180- Kavyādarta [ 134 ingness--and this is how Dandin wants us to understand the passage-we can distinguish AETAT from व्यतिरेक because in the former there is not गुणविशेषवत्त्वेन उत्कर्ष as Jagannatha would say. Compare to the same effect the definition of Rudrata ( vii 86 )- यो गुण उपमेये स्यात् तत्प्रतिपन्थी च दोष उपमाने । व्यस्तसमस्तन्यस्तौ तौ व्यतिरेकं त्रिधा कुरुत ॥ As the Agnipurāna does not recognise Vyatıreka as a distinct figure, what it defines as Vyatirekopamā (344 13-14)- बहोर्धर्मस्य साम्यपि वैलक्षण्य विवक्षितम् । यदुच्यतेतिरिक्तत्वं व्यतिरेकोपमा तु सा ॥ must be taken to include both व्यतिरेक and प्रतिषेधोपमा (iii) As to the varieties of this figure, since one aspect of it is उपमा,-as Jagannatha observes-उपमाप्रभेदा सर्व एवात्र संभवन्ति। But it is usual to recognise only three of them according as the साधर्म्य 15 शब्दोपात्त (1. e both इवादीनामुपादाने शाब्दम् and तुल्यादीनामुपादाने आर्थम् ) or प्रतीत Next as to भेदकथनम्-उपमानस्यापकर्षनिमित्तम् उपमेयस्योत्कर्षनिमित्तं चेन्युभयमपि यत्रोक्तं तत्रैक । अपकर्षहेतुमात्रस्य उत्कर्षहेतुमात्रस्य उक्तो द्वयोरप्यनुक्तो च त्रयो मंदा इति चत्वार । This gives by combination 12 varieties, and the introduction of श्लेप in the statement of भेद at once doubles their number A further principle of sub-division is the relation between the two things brought together for comparison and contrast, which might be either class-concepts or individuals (Fastila- व्यतिरेक or स्वव्यक्तिव्यतिरेक), and the last differentia is the motive for a which may be simple or rendered complex by involving a further process of similarity within the difference, as in ii. 193, 194 All these principles are admitted by Dandin, though not actually illustrated. (iv) In all latter-day discussions about Vyatıreka there is a theme that comes in invariably for treatment the genesis of which is to be found in the following statement of Rudrata (vii 89-90 ) - यो गुण उपमाने वा तत्प्रतिपन्थी च दोष उपमेये । भवतो यत्र समस्तौ स व्यतिरेकोयमन्यस्तु ॥ सीण क्षीणोपि शशी भूयो भूयो विवर्धते सत्यम् पवरम प्रसीद सुन्दार यौवनमनिवर्ति यात तु॥

·1351 Notes [-ii.184 - Ruyyaka (p 80) explains the point of the example of this उपमानादुपमेयस्याधिकगुणत्वे व्यतिरेक by saying-चन्द्रापेक्षया च यौवनस्य न्यूनगुणत्वम् । शशिवलक्षण्येन तस्यापुनरागमात् । As against this Mammata asserts (p 784)- अत्र योवनगतास्थैर्याधिक्यं हि विवक्षितम् । Jayaratha the author of अलंकारसर्वस्वविमर्शिनी and Visvanātha the author of Acto side with the older school while Jagannātha follows Mammata The following full extract from the रसगङ्गाधर (pp 352-353) will make the position on either side quite clear नन्वत्र उपमानादुपमेयस्य न्यूनत्वं व्यतिरेक इति न युक्तम् तस्य हि वास्तवेनाहध- त्वात् । यौवनस्य चास्थिरत्वे प्रतिपाद्ये चन्द्रापेक्षयाधिकगुणत्वमेव विवक्षितम यदेत- चन्द्रवत् यातं सन्न पुनरायातीति । [इति चेदमदेतत् । ] यतोत्र चन्द्रवद्गतं सद्यौवनं यदि पुनरागच्छेत् तत् प्रियं प्रति चिरमीाद्यनुवन्धो युज्येत । इदं पुनर्हतयौवनं यातं सत् पुनर्नागच्छतीति ईर्ष्याद्यन्तरायपरिहारेण निरन्तरतयैव प्रियेण सह जनुः सफलयितव्यम । धिगीाम् । त्यज प्रियं प्रति मन्युम् । कुरु प्रसादम् । इति प्रिय- वयस्योपदेशे प्रिय प्रति कोपोपशमाय चन्द्रापेक्षया यौवनत्यापुनरागमनं न्यूनगुणत्वेन विवक्षितमिति न्यूनत्वमपि व्यतिरेक रसपरिपोषकतया चास्यापि हृद्यत्वम् इति ॥ [Jagannatha replies] तदुभयमण्यसत् । अस्मिन् हि प्रियहितकारिण्या वचने चन्द्रादप्यधिकगुणत्वमेव विवक्षितम् न न्यूनगुणत्वम् । चन्द्रो हि पुनः पुनरा- गमनेन लोके मुलभः अत एव न तादृशमाहात्म्यशाली । इदं च पुनयौवनमपुनरा- गमनेनातिदुर्लभतरत्वादत्युत्कृष्टमिति मानादिभिरन्तरायै शठजनश्लाघनीवर्विदग्धया भवत्या मुधा गमयितुमसाप्रतमिति तावदुपात्तगुणकृतमुत्कृष्टत्वं स्फुटमेव । सकल. सुखनिदानत्वाद्यनुपात्तगुणकृतोप्युत्कर्षोत्र वाक्यर्थपरिपोषाय सहृदयसरणिमवतरति । अन्यथा किमित्यस्य कदर्ययोवनस्य कृते मया मानाद्विरस्यते यातु नाम यौवनमिति प्रतिकूलेनार्थेन प्रकृतार्थस्यापुष्टतापत्तेः । Notes to II. 181-184-(1) As we have seen (Note (iii) to ii. 180) it has been customary to have, along with एक and उभय Vyatireka, अनुभय Vyatireka with the three sub-varieties depending upon the manner of expressing साधर्म्य, each with further two-fold differentiation depending upon the presence or absence of sig The three ant varieties from out of these six are declared to be impossible. Says Uddyota on Kavyaprakasa. pradipa (p. 793)-अत्रेदं चिन्त्यम् । उपात्तवैधाशे श्लेषेणैव व्यतिरेकस्य श्लेषमूलकत्वमुचितम् नतु यत्रकुत्रापि श्लेषेण । एवं चोभयानुपादाने श्लेषकृतभेदत्रय चिन्त्यमेव । To which may be added the conclusion of Jagannatha-इत्य च चतुर्विशतिभेदा इति प्राचामुक्तिर्विपुलोदाहरणा- भिर्यथाकथंचिदुपपादनीया ।

·ii. 185-1 Kavyādarsa [ 136 Notes to II. 185-188-(1) These three varieties are an attempt, after Dandin's manner, to combine the वैचित्र्य of this figure with that of some other figure or figures. Notes to II. 189-(i) As before observed (Note (iii) to li. 180), शब्दोपादानसादृश्य includes what is called शाब्दसाधर्म्य as well as reage Regarding this distinction Mammata notes (pp. 664 ff)-यथेववादिशब्दा• यत्पराः तस्यैवोपमानताप्रतीतिरिति यथप्युपमानविशेषणान्येते तथापि शब्दशक्तिमहिम्ना श्रुत्यैव षष्टीवत् संबन्धं प्रति- पादयन्तीति तत्सद्भावे श्रीती उपमा । तथैव तत्र तस्येव (पा. Vi 116) इत्यनेन विहितस्य वरुपादाने ॥ तेन तुल्य मुखम् इत्यादावुपमेये एव तत् तुल्यमस्य इत्यादो चोपमाने एव इद च तच्च तुल्यम् इत्युभयत्रापि तुल्यादिशब्दाना विश्रान्ति- रिति साम्यपर्यालोचनया तुल्यताप्रतीतिरिति साधर्म्यस्य आर्थत्वात् तुल्यादिशब्दो- पादाने आर्थी । तद्वत् तेन तुल्यं क्रिया चेद्वति (पा. V. 1 115) इत्यनेन विहितस्य वते स्थितौ ॥ In प्रतीयमानसादृश्य the उपमावाचकशब्द is altogether absent. Notes to II. 190-192-(i) Compare il. 190 with ii. 22. In the latter इयत्येव भिदा नान्या emphatically declares the साधर्म्य. In the former only the भेद is stated and the साधर्म्य is left to be inferred It should also be noted that 11 22 mentions a circumstance that can be regarded as उपमानोस्कर्षहेतु while the जलसंरोहि of ii 190-by an easy change into HIP and even without it-can constitute an उपमानापकर्षहेतु (ii) On ii. 191, which Bhoja quotes, he observes (p.237)-अत्र कान्तामृगेक्षणयोःप्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोःभ्रूविलासमदरागौ तदभावौ व विसदृशी भेदकाविति सोयं प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोरसदृशव्यतिरेकः । Notes to II. 193-186-(i) The essence of a सदृशव्यतिरेक consists in the fact that in it what is offered as a % or distinguishing characteristic between the 34t and the उपमेय has in it an element of सादृश्य. The सादृश्य however is sufficiently subdued to allow the sta to gain hold upon our mind at least in the first instance. Bhoja observes on this stanza as follows (p, 305)- ·11. 196-1 Kūvyādarsa [ 138 (iv) A better way of understanding the passage would probably be to regard ii 194 as forming one example of सदृशव्यतिरेकिता with प्रतीयमान(शब्दानुपात्त)माम्य. Thus- उपमान-चन्द्र उपमेय-हम शब्दानुपात्तसाम्य-शुद्धि, which is apprehended first (प्रतीत ) भेदक-नभस् , पयः भेदकसादृश्य-नक्षत्रमालिता, उत्फुल्लकुमुदत्व; this is apprehended as an after-thought. The only difficulty in the way of this interpretation is the two dual locatives (or genitives) connected by a in ii. 195. The locatives can be translated by-" between the moon and the hañsa, in regard to sky and water, a difference etc."; and a could be regarded as explative Bhoja, it must be added, favours the earlier interpretation. His remarks on this stanza are (p 305)- अत्र पूर्वार्धे चन्द्रहसयो प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोरम्बरोनसत्वतोयभूषणत्वे उत्तरार्धे तु नभ पयसोनक्षत्रमालित्वोत्कुमुदत्वे सदृशे एव भेदके । सोयं प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोः सदृशव्यतिरेकः। - Notes to II. 197-198-(i) Bhoja remarks on this illustration as follows (p. 303)-अत्र यौवनप्रभवस्य तमस' तमोजात्या सह दृष्टिरोधकरमिति सादृश्यमुक्त्वा अरलालोकसंहार्यमवार्य सूर्यरश्मिभिरिति व्यतिरेको विहितः । सोयं स्वजातिव्यतिरेकः । (ii) This stanza is made to support the weight of a chronological argument for the priority of Bāna's Kādambari over the Kāvyādarśa of Dandin-a weight which it is too weak to sustain ; for, even though the conclusion be sound it should not be supported by an unsound argument Peterson (Dasakumaru, First Edition, Preface) and Pandit Maheschandra Nyāyaratna before him (A.S B, Proceedings 1887, p. 193) regard Kavyadarsa ii 197 as a reminiscence of Bana in his Kadambari, (B.SS p 102, 1 16)-केवलं च निसर्गत एव अभानु- भेद्यमरनालोकोच्छेद्यमप्रदीपप्रभापनेयमतिगहनं तमो यौवनप्रभवम् । Nothing Deed hinder us, as far as the two passages alone are concerned, from regarding the Kādambari idea as an elaboration of that in the Kávyādarśa. More probably the two are quite independent of each other.

·139] Notes 1-1.199 Notes to II. 199-(i) Compare Notes (1) and (ii) to ii. 131- 132 In further distinction of कारणाक्षेप from विभावना it may be stated that while the former stops at a mere denial of the cause the main point of the latter turns rather upon the fach199 or imagining of the new cause (or Fathilarica) to explain the effect The name of this figure can be explained as विभाव्यते कारणान्तरादि यस्याम् (the way that Dandin suggests) or विशिष्टस्य कार्यस्य भावनं यत्र (the way that Bhamaha (ii. 77), Udbhata (P.38), and Ruy. yaka (P 124) prefer), both explanations of course amounting to the same thing. But it is interesting to note, as an indication of a difference in tradition, that Dandin and Bhāmaha give different explanations. We may also mention another fact in this connection that would point to the same conclusion. In the definition of this figure Bhāmaha, Udbhata, Vamana Mammata and others use the word क्रिया instead of कारण or हेतु, which is chosen by Dandin, Bhoja, Ruyyaka, Rudrata, Visvanatha, Jagannatha, and others. Pratihārendurāja explains tbe use of the word RT as follows (p 38)-इह यत्किंचित् ज्ञायते तत् सर्वे क्रिगफलम् । क्रियामुखेन कारणेभ्यः कार्यात्पत्तेः प्रातीतिकेन रूपेण परिदृश्यमानत्वात् सर्वेषां फलमूताना क्रियेवाव्यवहितं कारणम् । यत्र च क्रिया प्रतिषिध्यते अथ च क्रियाफलस्योत्पत्तिरुप- दिश्यते तत्र विभावनाख्योलंकारः। Ruyyaka's comment on this terminology is worth quoting (p. 125)-इह च लक्षणे याप्यन्यैः कारणपदस्थाने क्रियाग्रहणं कृतं तथापीह कारणपदमेव विहितम् । नहि सर्वैः क्रियाफलमेव कार्यमभ्युपगम्यते वैयाकरणैरेव तथाभ्युपगमात् । अतो विशेषमनपेक्ष्य सामान्येन कारणपदमेवह निर्दिष्टम् । (ii) The production of an effect without a cause is a violation of the natural law of causation-is सुष्टि- क्रमविरोध. As Jagannatha observes (p. 435)---विरोधमूला हि विभावनाद्यलंकाराः । विरोधस्येव विद्युत्प्रभावक्दापाततः प्रतिभासमानस्य चमत्कार- बीजत्वात् । Vibhavani, however, is to be distinguished from the figure-of-speech called Virodha (iL333 ff.) where the things brought in opposition to each other are equipotent and are not related to each other by any causal relation. As the Alamkārasarveste says (2184) कारणाभावेन बोपक्रान्तस्वात् बलबता कार्यमेव बाध्यमानत्वेन प्रतीयते न तु तेन कारणामा इत्यन्योन्यपाधवनानुमाणिताविरोधालंकारात् मेदः। To ·ii. 199- Kavyadarsa [ 140 the same effect writes the author of the Sahityadarpana (p 551)--विभावनाया कारणाभावेन उपनिबध्यमानत्वात् कार्यमेव बाध्यत्वेन प्रतीयते । विशेषोक्तो च कार्याभावेन कारणमेव । इह त्वन्योन्यं द्वयोरपि बाध्यत्वमिति भेद । We can in brief say that Virodha is a general name for figures-of-speech based on contradiction, and that विभावना as well as विशेषोक्ति are particular cases of Virodha that have been recognised as independent figures. (iii) The contradiction involved in a Vibhāvanā is of course an apparent contradiction which admits of an easy solution by कारणान्तरविभावन or स्वाभाविकत्वविभावन. The solution, however, ought to be quite easy: समाधौ सुलभे सति, as Bhamaha (ii.77) and Udbhata after him (p.38) observe; and yet at the same time there must be some kind of an actual problem to be solved. Thus in the illustration in ii. 200 क्षीबत्व has two senses: पानमत्तता, the primary sense, and शरत्कालजनितोत्साहविशेषः, the secondary sense. Now year is not the cause of the serielagia and 80 there is no contradiction in the statement that the कादम्बs are अपीतक्षीब. Such is the solution or समाधि. The difficulty arose from the identification of the secondary sense of an with the primary sense. Adapting the explanation of Jagannatha (p.432) to the case in point we can say-अत्र यस्य कार्यस्योत्पत्तिर्निबध्यते न हि तदीयकारणत्वेनावगतस्य व्यतिरेक. प्रतीयते । यदीयकारणव्यतिरेकश्च प्रतीयते न हि तस्य कार्यस्योत्पत्तिर्निबध्यते । क्षीबत्वं चात्र शरत्कालजनितोत्साहविशेषः । न तु पानमत्तता । पानं च न कालजनितमत्ततायाः कारणम् । अपि तु वारुणीविकार- विशेषस्य । तथा च कथमत्र विभावना इति चेन्न । मुख्यं हि क्षीबत्वं पानमत्तता । गौणं च शरत्कालजनितोत्साहविशेष. । तयोर्गौणमुख्ययो क्षीबयो साझ्यमूलेन अभेदाध्यवसानरूपेणातिशयेन सति भेदस्थगने मत्तताकारणमपि पानं शरत्कालीनो- त्साहकारणं संपद्यते । तदभावे चात्र कार्याभिन्नतयाध्यवसितस्य पीडाविशेषस्योप- निबन्धनान्न विभावनानुपपत्तिरूपो दोषः । एवं चास्मिन्नलंकारे सर्वत्रापि कार्याशे अभेदाध्यवसानरूपातिशयोक्तिरनुप्राणकतया स्थिता । तथा च आयसादिपिण्डवदेकी- कृतस्य वस्तुत सशवस्तुद्वयैकावयवसबन्धिकारणन्यतिरेकसामानाधिकरण्येन अपरा- वयवमादाय पर्यवसानं भवति । तत्र च कार्योश कारणभावरूपविरोधिनो बाध्यतयैव स्थितः न बाधकतया । कार्याशस्य कल्पितत्वात् कारणाभावस्य च स्वभावसिद्धत्वात् । अत एव कार्योशो रूपान्तरेण पर्यवस्यति इति । तथा च प्रकृतस्थले एवं निष्पन्नम् । वस्तुतः कारणभेदात् पानादिजन्यं क्षीबत्वं भिन्नम् भिन्नं च शरत्कालजन्यम् । तच साल्यात् अभेदाभ्यवसानेन अभिन्नं भवति । तथा च पानादिकारणाभावेपि शरज्जन्यस्य ·141] Notes -11.199 विजातीयस्य क्षीबत्वस्य स्थितिः सभवत्येव । तस्मात् कारणाभावे कथं कार्योत्पतिः इति शंकाया नोस्थितिः। (iv) Vibhavanā can be variously sub-divided. The commonest division is two-fold: उक्तनिमित्ता and अनुक्तनि- मित्ता; but we can have more. For instance the प्रसिद्धहेतु might be itself bodily negated (स्वरूपतः) or there may be a statement of its powerlessness to discharge its function though actually present (व्यापाराभावः as in 11. 338), or its deficiency in regard to its qualities and attributes (अवच्छेदकाभाव: as in in 324) or as regards its associated adjunct (सहकार्याभाव ). For illustrations and details see Alamkarakaustubha, pp. 311-12, where some of the examples given are, according to Dandin, examples of Virodha and not of Vibhāvana. The Kuvalayānandakāra gives six kinds of Vibhāvanā, as under (stanzas 76ff.)- विभावना विनापि स्यात् कारण कार्यजन्म चेत् । अप्यलाक्षारमासिक्तं रक्तं तच्चरणद्वयम् ॥ हेतूनामसमग्रत्वे कार्योत्पत्तिश्च सा मता। अबेरतीक्ष्णकठिगैर्जगज्जयति मन्मथः ।। कार्योत्पत्तिस्तृतीया स्यात् सत्यपि प्रतिबन्धके । नरेन्द्रानेव ने राजन् दशत्यसिभुजंगमः ॥ अकारणात् कार्यजन्म चतुर्थी स्याद्विभावना । शड्खाद्वीणानिनादोयमुदेति महदद्भतम् ॥ विरुद्धात् कार्यसंपत्तिष्टा काचिद्विभावना । शीताशुकिरणास्तन्वी हन्त संतापयन्ति ताम् ॥ कार्यात् कारणजन्मापि दृष्टा काचिद्विभावना । यश पयोराशिरभूत् करकल्पतरोस्तव ॥ In criticism of this six-fold division Jagannatha says (p 434)-तस्मादायेन प्रकारेण प्रकारान्तराणामालीढत्वात् षट् प्रकारा इत्यनुप- पन्नमेव । Rudrata (ix. 16-21) in a like manner, after laying down that fantaal is & figure of speech based upon अतिशय, attempts a three-fold division of it, which is also not distinctive enough. More worthy of consideration is the classification of Bhoja who, after giving the two-fold distinction of कारणान्तरविभावना and स्वाभाविकत्वविभावना after the manner of Dandin, gives a three-fold sub-classification as follows (iil. 10ff.)- शुद्धा चित्रा विचित्रा च विविधा सा निगद्यते । शुद्धा यत्रैकमुद्दिश्य हेतुरेको निवर्तते ।।

·ii. 199-1 Kavyādarsa [ 142 अनेको यत्र सा चित्रा विचित्रा यत्र ता प्रति । नयान्यया वा गीर्भड्नया विशेष कश्चिदुच्यते ॥ Vibhāvanā is closely allied to Viseshokti and more comment on this figure will be found in our Notes to ii 323. Notes to II. 200-202–(1) Bhoja regards these as examples of शुद्धा विभावना as above defined His explanation of ii. 200 is-अत्रेकै कादम्बादिकमुद्दिश्य क्षीबतादेः पीतत्वादिरेकैकः प्रसिद्धहेतु- यावतते हेत्वन्तरं च शरत्प्रभावो विभाव्यते । सेय शुद्धा नाम कारणविभावनाया विभावना | and of 11201 in similar terms-अत्रैकैकं दृष्टयादिक- मुद्दिश्य असितत्वादेरनजितत्वादिरेकैको हेतुवा॒वय॑ते स्वाभाविकत्वं चासितत्वादि दृष्टयादेर्षिभाव्यते । सेय शुद्धा नाम स्वाभाविकविभावनाया विभावना । Notes to II. 203-204-(1) In ii 203 there is no fahratt of anything There is no कारणान्तर and the स्वाभाविकत्व is शब्दोपात्त We can possibly say that the प्रसिद्धहेतु that is denied is itself fahre but it is a question of Dandin so understands the matter. Notes to II. 205-207-(i) The following are some of the more important definitions of Samāsokti- Agnipurana (345. 17)- यत्रोक्तं गम्यतेन्योर्थस्तत्समानविशेषणः । सा समासोक्तिरुदिता संक्षेपार्थतया बुधैः ।। Bhamaha (ii. 79)- यत्रोक्ते गम्यतेन्योर्थस्तत्समानविशेषणः । सा समासोक्तिरुद्दिष्टा संक्षिप्तार्थतया यथा ॥ Udbhata (page 39)- प्रकृतार्थेन वाक्येन तत्समाविशेषणैः । अप्रस्तुतार्थकथनं समासोक्तिरुदाहता ॥ Vamana (iv 3.3)- उपमेयस्थानुक्तौ समानवस्तुन्यामः समासोक्तिः । संक्षेपवचनात् समा- सोक्तिरित्याख्या। m- ·. 143] Notes | -11.207 - - Ruyyaka (page 84)- विशेषणाना साम्यादप्रस्तुतम्य गम्यले ममामोति। Bhoya (iv 46,49)- यत्रोपमानादेवैतदुपमेयं प्रतीयते । अतिप्रसिद्धेस्तामाहुः ममासोक्तिं मनीषिणः ॥ मक्षेपणोच्यने यस्मात ममासोक्तिरियं ततः । मवान्योक्तिरनन्योक्तिरुभयोक्तिश्च कथ्यते ॥ Mammata (page 741) परोक्तिर्भेदकैः श्लिष्ट समासोक्तिः । Visvanātha(x.56)- समासोक्ति समेयंत्र कालिङ्गविशेषण. । व्यवहारसमारोप- प्रस्तुतेन्यम्य वस्तुनः ॥ And finally, Jagannātha (page 367) - यत्र प्रस्तुतर्मिको व्यवहार साधारणविशेषणमात्रोपस्थापिताप्रस्तुत- धर्मिकव्यवहाराभेदेन भासते मा समामोक्तिः । (ii) It will be observed that while Dandın gives for this figure a most elementary definition, the advance in the various other definitions consists in introducing further conditions and qualifications in the definition with a view to delimit its sphere and to distinguish it from other allied figures such as प्रतिवस्तूपमा, तुल्ययोगोपमा, अर्थान्तरन्यास, तुल्ययोगिता, and अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. The first point to be noted is that, as far as Dandin's definition goes, it includes cases where the 13th conveys the stegnt or the प्रस्तुत the अप्रस्तुत; but all the writers whose definitions are quoted above except the first two-include only the former case under समासोक्ति, designating the latter &s अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा Dandin recognises the figure अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, but as he understands प्रशंसा as स्तुति and not mere कथन, his definition is not अतिव्याप्त See our note to it. 340.- In the second place, while Dandin only requires that the two वस्तुs be तुल्य, some of the later writers want that they should be alike as regards their eyes and that further these विशेषणs be paronomaakia or लिष्ट Royyaka's remarks in this connection are quite explioit (p. 84)-इह प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुतानां कचिद्वाच्यत्वं कचिदम्बत्वमिति द्वैवि- ध्यम् । वाच्यत्वं च श्लेषनिर्देशसमया पृथगुपादानेन वेत्यपि हविष्यम् । एतद्धिविषमपि ·ii. 207-1 Kavyādarsa [ 144 श्लेषालंकारस्य विषय । गम्यत्वं तु प्रस्तुतनिष्ठमप्रस्तुतप्रशमाविषय अप्रस्तुतनिष्टं तु समासोक्तिविषयः । तत्र च निमित्त विशेषणसाम्यम् । विशेष[ष्यास्यापि साम्ये श्लेषप्राप्ते । विशेषणसाम्याद्धि प्रतीयमानमप्रस्तुत प्रस्तुतावच्छेदकत्वेन प्रतीयते । अवच्छेदकत्व च व्यवहारसमारोप न रूपसमारोपः । रूपसमारोपे तु अवच्छा- दितत्वेन प्रकृतस्य तद्रूपरूपित्वादेव रूपकम् । तच्च विशेषणसाम्यं श्लिष्टतया साधारण्येनौपम्यगर्भवेन च भावात् त्रिधा भवति । (iii) In प्रतिवस्तूपमा, तुल्ययोगोपमा, तुल्ययोगिता, and अर्थान्तरन्यास, for one reason or another, both the प्रस्तुत and the अप्रस्तुत are शदोपात्त, in समामोक्ति only one of them is present, the second being Te by one of the three modes described at the end of the above quotation We have just referred to Dandin's conception of Stega Rih. Dandin does not recognise the figure called, regarding which the प्रतापरुद्रीय says (p. 410)-समासोक्तौ विशेषणविशेष्ययोईयो- रुपादानाभावाच्छलेषाद्विशेष । Lastly the commentators spend much ingenuity in distinguishing एकदेशविवर्ति रूपक from समासोक्ति, regarding which the following brief statement of conclusion should suffice (Jayaratha, p. 85) एवं समासोक्तो व्यवहारसमारोपादप्रस्तुतेन प्रस्तुतस्य वैशिष्टयलक्षणमवच्छेदकत्वं विधीयते रूपके तु रूपसमारोपाद्रूपरूपितत्वाख्यमाच्छादकत्वम् इत्यनयोर्भेदः । This statement of the case has however been much criticised. We would refer the curious to Sāhityadarpana (p. 530), Kuvalayānanda (stanza 60, Vriti), Rasagangadhara (pp. 373 ff.), Alamkarkaustubha (pp. 254 ff) and Sahityasara, (pp. 446 ff) (iv) For sub-divisions of Samāsokti see Notes to ii 208 below Samāsokti is liable to a la called अनुपादेयत्व, which Mammata (p. 958) thus explains- साधारणविशेषणवशादेव समासोक्तिरनुक्तमपि उपमानविशेषणं प्रकाशयतीति तस्यात्र पुनरुपादाने प्रयोजनाभावादनुपादेयत्वम् । यथा स्पृशति तिग्मरुचौ ककुभः करै- दैयितयेव विजृम्भिततापया। अतनुमानपरिग्रहया स्थित रुचिरया चिरयापि दिनश्रिया ॥ अत्र तिम्मत्वेः ककुभा च यथा सदृशविशेषणक्शेन व्यक्तिविशेषपरिग्रहेण चनायकतया नाथिकात्वेन च व्यक्ति तथा ग्रीष्मदिवसश्रियोपि प्रतिनायिकात्वेन भविष्यतीति किं दयितयेति स्वशब्दोपादानेन ।

·145] Notes 1-1211 Notes to II. 208-213-(1) A derailed classification of this figure is as follows (op. Alamkārasarvasva pp. 88f) - गमागोक्ति emain patnamesments शुद्धकार्यसमारोपेण उभयमयत्वेन विशेषणसाम्येन -- श्लिष्टविशेषणे माधारणविगेवणे औषम्यगर्भविशेषणे 'पगंगमागेपेण कानमागेपेण उपमामंऋरेण भमामेन And this bas been combined (101 cm) with another four-fold classification- सर्वत्र चात्र व्यवहारममारोप व जीवितम् । स च लोकिके वस्तुनि लोकिकवस्तुव्यवहारसमारोप । शास्त्रीय वस्तुनि शास्त्रीयवस्तु- व्यवहारसमारोप । लोकिक वा शाम्बीयवस्तुव्यवहारसमारोप. । शास्त्रीये वा लोकिक्वस्तुव्यवहाररामारोप इति चतुर्धा भवति । तदेव बहुप्रकारा समासोक्ति । (11) Bhoja gives an independent eight-fold classification as under (iv. 47)- प्रतीयमाने वाच्ये वा साये मोपजायते । श्लाघा गह मुझे नोभे तदुपाधीन् प्रचक्षते ॥ as also the varieties called अन्योक्ति, अनन्योक्ति, and उभयोक्ति, the अनन्योक्ति (अध्यासविषया तद्भावापत्ति) being further distinguished into शुद्धा and चित्रा. (iii) Bhoja quotes stanza ii. 208 (= Bhoja iv. 48) reading तुल्यातुल्य for भिन्नाभिन्न. Mammata would regard ii. 209 as an eruit of the first variety Notes toII. 214-(i) The treatment of अतिशयोक्ति by Alamkärikas falls under two main categories Soms writers look to the etymology of the word and describe tho figure in a general manier as a heightened or hyperbolic mode of expression. The main definitions an accordance with this view are the following Agnipurana (344 25) - लोकसीमानिवृत्तस्य नस्तुधर्मस्य कीर्तनम् । भवेदतिशयो नाम संभवासंभवाद्विधा । 19 Kavyadarsa] - ·li 214-1 Kavyadan sa 1 146 Bhāmaha (1 81) and Udbhata (p 40) निमित्ततो वचो यत्तु (यत्तु वच. Udbhata) लोकातिक्रान्तगोचरम् । मन्यन्ततिशयोक्ति तामलंकारतया यथा (बुधाः Udbhata) | Hemachandra (p 264)- विशेषविवक्षया भेदाभेदयोगायोगव्यत्ययोतिशयोक्तिः । Vägbhata (p 37)- अत्युक्तिरतिशयोक्तिः। Varaana (iv 3. 10) -- सभाव्यधर्मतदुत्कर्षकल्पनातिशयोक्तिः । and Bhoja who, besides quoting Kāvyādarśa ii. 214 and i1. 220, gives the following extra characterisation of the figure (iv. 82,83)- सा च प्रायो गुणाना च क्रियाणा चोपकल्प्यते । नहि द्रव्यस्य जातेर्वा भवत्यतिशय क्वचित् ॥ प्रभावातिशयो यश्च यश्चानुभवनात्मकः । अन्योन्यातिशयो यश्च तेपि नातिशयात् पृथक् ॥ (ii) It is during the process of division and subdivision of the possible hyperbolic statements of & thing--the most complete is by zroqpugitera, (Kuvalayānandavritti on stanza 36) into [रूपकातिशयोक्ति, भेदकाति- शयोक्ति, संबन्धातिशयोक्ति, असंबन्धातिशयोक्ति, अक्रमातिशयोक्ति, चपलाति- शयोक्ति, and अत्यन्तातिशयोक्ति-that the later idea of the five-fold iceret as understood by Mammata comes to the fore. Some of these later division-definitions are- Mammata (p762)- निगीर्याध्यवसानं तु प्रकृतस्य परेण यत् । प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्यत्वं यद्यर्थोक्तौ च कल्पनम् ॥ कार्यकारणयोर्यश्च पौर्वापयविपर्ययः। विज्ञयातिशयोक्तिः सा........... ।। Visvanatha ( 47) भेदेप्यभेदः संबन्धेसबन्धस्तद्विपर्ययौ । पौर्वोपर्यात्यय कार्यहेत्वोः सा पञ्चधा ततः ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 65) is most explict in the matter अध्यवसाने त्रयं सभवति-स्वरूप विषयो विषयी च । विषयस्य हि विषयिणान्तर्निगीर्णत्वेव्यवसायस्य स्वरूपोत्थानम् । तत्र साध्यत्वे स्वरूप- प्राधान्यम् सिद्धत्वे त्वष्यवसितत्वप्राधान्यम् । विषयप्राधान्यमध्यवसाये ·147 ] Notes 1-11.214 नैव सभवति । अध्यवसितप्राधान्यवातिगयोक्तिः । अस्याश्च पञ्च प्रकाराः। भेदभेदः। अभेदे भेदः । संवन्धेमंबन्ध । असंबन्धे मंबन्ध । कार्य- कारणपौर्वापर्यविध्वंसश्च । Rudrata perhaps marks the middle stage in this pro. cess of evolution in as much as he regards Tiery 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) यत्रार्थधर्मनियम प्रसिद्धिबाधाद्विपर्ययं याति । कश्चित् क्वचिदतिलोकं स स्यादित्यतिशयस्तस्य ।। पूर्वविशेषोत्प्रेक्षाविभावनातद्गुणाधिकविरोधाः । विषमासंगतिपिहितव्याघाताहेतवो भेदाः ॥ Just the opposite of this is the view of Hemachandra who says (p. 267)-एवंविवेच सर्वत्र विषये अतिशयोक्तिरेव प्राणत्वेनाव- 'तिष्ठते ता विना प्रायेणालंकारत्वायोगादिति न सामान्यमीलितकावलीनिदर्शनाविशे- षाधलंकारोपन्यासः श्रेयान् । (iii) Atiśayokti understood in this extended sense is called all by Bhämaha in the oft-quoted stanza (ii. 85)- सैषा सर्वैव वक्रोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते । यत्नोस्यां कविना कार्य. कोलंकारोनया विना ॥ Vakrokti is formally defined by Vāmana (iv. 3.8) as सादृश्यालक्षणा, the point being-यत्र साश्यलक्षणा सहृदयहृदयेष्वविलम्बेन लक्ष्यार्थप्रतिपत्तिमुद्भावयितुं प्रगल्भते तत्र कोक्तिरलंकार इति रहस्यम् । (10) The most modern school as represented hy Jagannatha (p 313) and others refuses to recognise the five or more sub-varieties for the figure put forward by the Middle School As the Alamkārakaustubha observes (p 285)-उपमानोपमेयस्य निगीर्याध्यवसानमेवातिशयोक्तिः। प्रकारान्तरे त्वतिरिक्तालंकारान्नरकल्पनमेवोचितम् । न ह्येतचतुष्टयसाधारणमति- शयोक्तिलक्षण संभवति यत्रैकधर्मावच्छिन्नत्वेनालकारत्वं स्यात् । न तदन्यतमत्वमेव सवानुगतमस्तीति वाच्यम् । विच्छित्तिवलक्षण्यसत्त्वेन्यतमत्वस्याप्रयोजकत्वात् । अन्यथा उपमानरूपकादिकतिपयान्यतमत्वं सकलान्यतमत्वं वातिशयोक्तिलक्षण विधाय उपमादीनामप्येतद्भेदत्वापत्तेः । This school therefore approaches the most ancient school represented, amongst others, by Dandin. * ·ii.214- Kavyūdarsa [ 148 (v) Bhoja's statement (iv 82) quoted above probably differentiates जतिशयोकि fion कान्ति ( 185), see also our Sanskrit Commentary p. 23611 6-12. Notes to II, 215-21-(1) Verse 215 is given by Bhoja(p.462) asan example of कान्त्यतिशय with the remark-अत्रेवं चन्द्रालोकस्य लोकसीमातिक्रमेण वाहुल्योत्कर्षविवक्षा चेन तस्मिन् समानाभिहारेणाभिसारिका अपि न लक्ष्यन्ते मोय कान्यतिशयो नामातिगयभेद । Hemachandra (p265) cites this as an example of योगे अयोग-अत्राभिसारिकाणा लक्षणक्रियायोगपि ज्योत्स्नाबाहुल्योत्कर्षविवक्षया अयोग उक्त.। Mammata would regard the example as containing an independent figure called मीलित or पिहित , but Bhoja observes- अथास्य पिहितात् को विशेषः । उच्यते । पिहिते चन्द्रातपस्योन्कषेणाभिसारिका- तिरस्कारो विवक्ष्यते इह त्रभिसारिकातिरस्कारेण चन्द्रातपोत्कर्ष इति । (11) The foot-note on p. 237 contains a misprint For सर्वागीणाई read सर्वाड्गेणा for सर्वागीणाई, and for क्षोमवल्यो in the last line read क्षोमवन्त्यो - Notes to II. 217-218-(i) Bhoja (p 462) gives this as an example of तनुत्वातिशय with the remark-अत्रेवं मध्यस्य लोकसी- मातिक्रमेण तानवातिशयविवक्षा येन तदन्ति नास्तीति वा संदिद्यते । सोयं तनुत्वा- तिशयो नामातिशयभेद । Notes to II. 219-(1) Bhoja (p. 462) gives this as an example of गुणातिशयेन महत्त्वातिशय and remarks-अत्रैवं यशोराशे- रशक्यमानस्याप्यतिशयोक्त्या विशेषविवक्षा येन त्रिभुवनादरमपि सकीर्णमाशङ्कयते । सोयं महत्त्वातिशयो नामातिशयभेद । Mammata and others recognise this as an indeperdent figuie-ot-speech called अधिक Notes to II. 220-(1) Bhoya gives other sub-varieties of this figure such as प्रभावातिशय, अनुभवातिशय, and अन्योन्यातिशय or क्रियातिशय. (11) Bhāmaha also delivers himself in a similar strain (ii. 84)- इत्येवमादिरुदिता गुणातिशययोगतः । सर्वेनानियोक्तिस्तु तर्कयेन ता यथागमम् ॥

·1491 Notes [-11.221 We have already mentioned Rudrata's attempt to regard Tarte as a fundamentum divisionis for classifying figures - Notes to II. 221-225-(1) We give below some of the more important definitions of Utprekshā. Agnipurana (344.24)- अन्यथोपस्थिता वृत्तिश्चेतनस्येतरस्य च । अन्यथा मन्यते यत्र नामुत्प्रेक्षा प्रचक्षते ॥ Udbhata (p 43)-- साम्यरूपाविवक्षाया वाच्येवाद्यात्मभि पदैः। अतद्गुणक्रियायोगादुत्प्रेक्षातिगयान्विता ॥ Bhāmaha (11 91)- अविवक्षितसामान्या किचिच्चोपमया सह । अतद्गुणक्रियायोगादुत्प्रेक्षातिशयान्विता ॥ Vamana (iv. 39)- अतद्रूपस्यान्यथाध्यवमानमतिशयार्थमुत्प्रेक्षा । Ruyyaka (p 55) अध्यवसाये व्यापारप्राधान्य उत्प्रेक्षा। Rudrata (vill. 32,36)- अतिसारूप्यादैक्यं विधाय सिद्धोपमानसद्भावम् । आरोप्यते च तस्मिन्नतद्गुणादीति सोत्प्रेक्षा ॥ यत्र विशिष्टे वस्तुनि सत्यसदारोप्यते समं तस्य । वस्त्वन्तरमुपपत्त्या संभाव्यं सापरोटोक्षा । Vigbhata (p. 34)- अत्यन्तसादृश्यादसतोपि धर्मस्य कल्पनमुत्प्रेक्षा । Vagbhata (iv 90)- कल्पना काचिदौचित्याद्यत्रार्थस्य सतोन्यथा । योतितेवादिभि शब्दरुप्रेक्षा सा स्मृता यथा ॥ Bhoja (1v. 50)- अन्यथावस्थितं वस्तु यस्यात्प्रेक्ष्यतेन्यथा। द्रव्यं गुणः क्रिया चापि तामुरक्षा प्रचक्षते ॥ Hemachandra (p 247)- असद्धर्मसभावनमिवादिद्योत्योत्प्रेक्षा।

·ii. 221 - 1 Kavyādarša [ 150 Vidyanatha (p 383) and Chitram imansa. (p 73)- यन्नान्यधर्मसंबन्धादन्यत्वेनोपतर्कितम् । प्रकृतं हि भवेत् प्राज्ञास्तामुत्प्रेक्षा प्रचक्षते ॥ Vidyadhara (viii 12)- अप्रकृतत्वेन म्याद यवमायो गुणाभिसंबन्धात् । माध्य. प्रकृतस्य यदा कथितोटोक्षा तदा तज्ज्ञ ॥ Manmata (p 707)---- मंभावनमधोत्प्रेक्षा प्रकृतस्य समेन यत् । Visvanatha (x 40) भवेत् मभावनोत्प्रेक्षा प्रकृतस्य परात्मना । Jagannatha (p. 285)-- तद्भिन्नत्वेन तदभाववत्वेन वा प्रमितस्य पदार्थस्य रमीतद्वृत्तितत्स- मानाधिकरणान्यतरतद्धर्मसंबन्धनिमित्तकं तत्त्वेन तद्वत्त्वेन वा संभावन- मुत्प्रेक्षा। And Visvesvara (p. 180)-- संभाव्यते सह यदा साम्यप्रतियोगिना तदुपमेयम् । तामुत्प्रेक्षामाहुर्भिन्ना हेत्वादिविषयत्वात् ॥ (ii) All these definitions from the simplest to the most elaborate agree as to the essentials. The points to be noted are 1 that it should be a संभावन -अन्यथोरेक्षण = अन्यथाध्यवसान = अन्यथा कल्पन =अन्यत्वेनोपतर्कण = असदारोपण, ie उत्कटकोटिकसंदेह 2 That it should be deliberate or आहार्य and not due to actual error 3 That it should be between things having similarity, and so hased on similarity 4. That it should be striking or picturesque And that it should concern itself with the वर्म or गुण and क्रिया or व्यापार of the thing under discussion Regarding this last requirement Pratſhärendurāja observes (p. 44)- द्रव्यधर्मः सिद्धो गुणः । साध्यस्वभावस्तु क्रिया । इदं खलु विश्व स्वतन्त्रपरतन्त्रपदार्थात्मकत्वात् द्विविधम् । यश्च स्वतन्त्रः पदार्थः स धर्मात्यभिधीयते । तच्च इदं तदिति सर्वनामप्रत्यवमर्शयोग्यत्वात् द्रव्यम् । परतन्त्रस्य पदार्थस्य धर्मरूपता । तस्य च द्वैविध्यम् सिद्धसाध्यताभेदात् । तत्र यः सिद्धो धर्मः स गुणः यस्तु साध्यः सा क्रिया । एतावन्तश्च लौकिका' पदार्थाः सामान्यादीनामत्रैव प्रातीतिकेन रूपेणान्तर्भूतत्वात् । (iii) Numerous subdivisions of this figure are given by Alamkārikas: compare Alamkarasarvasva (p. 57), 5 ·151 ] Notes [-ii225 Rasagangādhara (pp 285-87), and especially Pratūparudriya (p. 386) We can exhibit them in a trhular form thus- उत्प्रेक्षा | वाच्या प्रतीयमाना जातिविषया गुणविषया क्रियाविषया द्रव्यविषय। जातिविषया गुणविषया नियविषया पवित्रता Further subdivisions of each of these varieties are as under- जातिविपया वाच्या भावाभिमानरूपा अभावाभिमानरूपा । गुणनिमित्ता क्रियानिमिना गुणनिमित्ता क्रियानिमिता उपात्तनिमित्ता अनुपात्तनि० उ०नि० अ०नि० उ०नि० अ०नि० उ०नि० अ०नि० The four main divisions of anzer are in this way divisible into 8 sub-varieties, thus giving rise to & total of 32 varieties under वाच्या Each of these varieties can be further sub-divided into three sorts thus- उपात्तभावरूपगुणनिमित्ता जातिविषया वाच्या । स्वरूपोत्प्रेक्षा हेतृत्प्रेक्षा फलोत्प्रेक्षा Thus we have-- वाच्या जातिविषया of 24 varieties, वाच्या गुणविषया of 24 varieties; वाच्या क्रियाविषया of 24 Tarieties%3B वाच्या द्रव्यविषया of 8 varieties (द्रव्यस्य प्रायः स्वरूपोन्ग्रेक्षणमेव); प्रतीयमाना जातिविषया of 12 varieties (निमिन्नस्यानुपा- दानं तस्या न सभवति), ·ii. 225-) Kavyādarśa [ 152 That guiau of 12 varieties, SCURT of 12 varieties; प्रतीयमाना द्रव्यविषया of varieties; Total 120 varieties Illustrations for all these varieties, especially the samat varieties, are not always quotable Jagannātha's criticism of these manifold varieties is also worth quoting He says (p 295)-- FIZIGET #GT. प्राचामनुरोधादुदाहृता । वस्तुतस्तु नैषा चमत्कारे वैलक्षण्यमस्तीत्यनुदाहार्यतैव । चमत्कारवैलक्षण्यं पुनर्हेतुफलस्वरूपात्मकानां त्रयाणा प्रकाराणामेव । (10) Fur the distinction between ca and John1441 compare our Note to u 23 Bhoja, however, considers ( 151) उत्प्रेलोपमा as उपमागोत्प्रेक्षा and says that it is not distinct from a proper His example is-- किशुकव्यपदेशेन तस्मा ह्य सर्वत । दग्धादग्धामरण्यानी पश्यतीव विभावसुः ॥ अत्र व्यपदेशशब्देन किशुकजुसुमानामनिसादृश्यमभिधाय दर्शनक्रिया उत्प्रेक्ष्यते । This however is distinct from the HT variety recog. nised by Dandin (v) As to seraya being de compare our Notes to ii, 359 Notes to II, 226-234-(1) This famous discussion of the ferycia stanza which has been taken over from our hor by most subsequent writers such as Ruyyaka, Mammata, Visvanātha, Jagannātha, eto, raises certain side issues which we shall first dispose of Dandin refers to this stanza as having been already, before his days, the subject of discussion at cannot therefore be of Dandin's own composition, and he cannot be reasonably supposed to have been the author of the work from which the stanza is taken The next question is to determine the source of the quotation Until the discovery of Bhāsa's [Daridra-10hārudatta all were content to assign the Mrichchhakatika 1 34 as the source for Dandin; but there are reasons to suppose that the Mrichchhakatika is itself an elaboraţion of the Chārudatta (compare a paper on the subject ·153 ) Notes (ii. 228 read by me before the First Oriental Conference held at Poona, 1919), and this leaves it an open question as to whether Dandin was indebted to Śūdraka or to Bhāsa Exact grounds are lacking for determining the question one way or the other; but so much we have gained by the discovery of Bhāsa's plays. we need not any more link the date of Dandin to that of Sūdraka. (or of Bhāsa) If Sūdraka is to be assigned, say to oir. 600 A. D, and if reasons exist to assign Dandin to an earlier date, we can do so by making him refer to Bhāsa' who gives our stanza in Chārudatta i 19 as well as in Bālacharita 1 15 If on the other hand Bhāga turns out to be a ninth-century play-wright (I have seen this only asserted but not actually proved or even made probable) and if Dandin comes earlier, we can still preserve our countenance and make Dandın borrow from Sūdraka Dandın here quotes the first balf of the stanza One of our Mss. quotes the full stanza in this place and gives besides another extra stanza which is noticed in the Ohitramimänsä (p 77) The full stanza is repeated also as fii. 362] which we regard as an interpolation (see Note to the stanza). (ii) The word इव is used in उपमा as well as उत्प्रेक्षा. Compare Note (x) to ii. 14. In the latter half of ii. 227 Dandin is actually quoting the words of Patañjali. See our Sanskrit Commentary. (iii) The getta in il. 228-229 can be thus exhibited: The stanza लिम्पतीव तमोङ्गानि contains an उपमा with- उपमान लिम्पति i. e. तमसः अधःप्रसरणं लेपनमिव । उपमेय-तमस् साधारणधर्म-लेपन वाचक-इव. Here of course one word is made to perform two func. tions, which is obviously a mistake. (iv) In the above qelqen the verb festufe was interpreted as afir following the usual practice of the Vaigākaraņas or Grammarians. According to them ( 20 Kavyadarśa ) ·ii. 228-) Kavyādaren ( 154 लिम्पति = अमुककर्तृक अमुककर्मक-लेपनव्यापार. Now we have seen that we cannot make the 19TT the 347. Can we make the simile turn upon the subordinate elements of the व्यापार, the कर्तृ and the कर्म? This is the point considered in i1. 230. The answer is in the negative; for if the 19th interpretation of female is to be retained, the Tr factors are lost in the principal and can have no independent locus standi. This is quite obvious. (v) The game in ii 231 suggests that, following the Naiyāyikas, we should so interpret the verb feria as to give a non-subordinate position to the tree of the लेपनक्रिया In this view लिम्पति-अमुक[कर्मवृत्तिफलजनक- लेपनानुकूलकृतिमान-कर्ता So the proposed उपमा statement is- उपमान-लिम्पतिकर्ता or लेपक उपमेय-तमस् साधारणधर्म-? वाचक-इव Now the question is, who is the 349? If the idea is यथा कश्चित् पुरुषः [भित्ति] लिम्पति तथा तमः अङ्गानि लिम्पति, we obviously can connect to with the her alone and not with the cara also, whereas, as a matter of fact, fi seems to be intended in the stanza as going with both. Hence Dandin says-ra a 999 (or adopting the variant which also has good ms. authority: Traifa aparat) Further, the point of similarity between the proposed ETHT and 4er (or, adopting the variant, the point in which तमस् the उपमेय is compared with the लेपक the 3475) has got to be extraneously supplied: it is not actually given in the stanza (vi) Can we not, as a possible alternative, connect अङ्गानि with both the उपमान and the उपमेय proposed in (v) above, and in this manner -- Protea gon: 379a festura (or लिम्पेत्) तथा तमः अङ्गानि लिम्पति। This would obviate the first difficulty of Arifa 7 9964; but the second difficulty still remains. We can, it is true, conceivably imagine सान्द्रत्व or some such characteristic of the लेपन As the supposed common dharma, but it is fast and ·155 1 Notes 1-il. 234 more or less unsatisfactory. The common property in an 34RT, as Dandin says (ii. 232), ought to be evident, which is not the case here. (vii) The proper way to understand the verse is not to regard it as containing an 34ht but rather an 34 The poet intends to escribe to get the character of a लेपक--the उपश्लेषण or व्यापन 1s भ्रमातिशयकारकत्वसकलवस्तुमलिनी- करणत्वादिनिमित्तेन लेपनादिरूपतया संभावितम् as it has been well observed. The word sa accordingly can be a gre of उत्प्रेक्षा also. (viii) We have said that the line fostudia etc contains an STATT There are however two possible ways of understanding the उत्प्रेक्षा We could say that here तमःकर्तृक-अङ्गकर्मक-व्यापनं (which is the अनुपात्तविषयप्रस्तुत) नभ-प्रभृति- भूपर्यन्तसकलवस्तुसान्द्रमलिनीकरणेन निमित्तेन (which is also अनुपात्त) तम.कर्तृक अङ्गकर्मक-लेपनतादात्म्येन संभाव्यते । Or we could say that here-अङ्गवृत्तिफलजनकव्याफ्नानुकूलकृतिमत्तमः (the उपात्तविषय) व्यापनेन निमित्तेन (this being अनुपात्त) अङ्गवृत्तिफलजनकलेपनानुकूलकृति- मत्कर्तृतादात्म्येन संभाव्यते। The first is the वैयाकरण view adopted by Dandin, Mampata, Viśvanātha, Appayya- Dikshita and others; the second, the first view countenanced by Alamkārasarvasva, Rasagangadhara and other modern texts. The difference does not however seem to be very vital. Compare Alamkārakaustubha pp. 194-195. (ix) Some Mss. give here (after ii. 226, first half) an extra verse which can be thus rendered "The Ocean, by its billowy summits, is as-if grounding sandal-ointment-in-the-form-of-foam ; taking that by his hands Grays> the moon is besmearing as-it-were the Ladies-in-the-form-of- Quarters." 13 (2) It is usual to render 3 by Poetio-fancy. Fancy, however, is a lighter product of our plastic or creative faculty, which generally concerns itself with associations or combinations of ideas which are remote, recondite, arbitrary, and unexpected; while Ut·ii. 234- ) Kavyādarsa ( 156 prekshå knows of no such limitations. At the same time, while a simile is a more or less sustained effort of the imagination to hold two things together in one consciousness with a view to establish a complete picture, an Utprekshā is a passing suggestion of the intended similarity, which may occasionally be very picturesque and which, while it lasts, gives a point of view from which the poet wishes us to understand the fact, the quality, or the action described. Hence we would render the word by Poetic-Conception. Notes to II. 235-(1) The three figures a, e, and el, and in this order, are enumerated by Bhāmaha (ii, 86) who however says- हेतुश्च सूक्ष्मो लेशोथ नालंकारतया मतः ।, the view of Dandin being just the contrary. The question about the chronological relation between the two writers cannot be settled either way on the strength of this circumstance alone. Compare, however, Notes to 244 below. Other writers who recognise all these three figures by these names are 75 (111. 12, n. 21, 19 56), 2 (vii 82, vii 98, vii. 100), anh (p 43), and samego (stanzas 166, 150, 137). Others recognise one or two of them only, subsuming the remaining under some other figure or figures Dandın illustrates Hetu in 11. 236-259, defines and illustrates Sūkshma in 11. 260-264, and treats of Leśa in 11. 265-272. (ii) Hetu is a poetic cause, and Indian Alamkārikas recognise a number of figures of speech based upon causal relation These are (op. Note (1) to ir 2 also)-- अर्थान्तरन्यास (in 169), विभावना (ii. 199), समाहित (ii 298), विशे- all (ii. 323), faget (ii. 348),-amongst the alamkāras recognised by Dandin--as also the alamkāras known as काव्यलिङ्ग, अनुमान, कारणमाला, अहेतु, विषम, विचित्र, समुच्चय, समाधि, व्याधात, असंगति, eto , not to mention alamkaras like दृष्टान्त, प्रतिवस्तूपमा, or तुल्ययोगिता (where similarity serves to illustrate as well as to corroborate), or some sub-varieties like Rue or Mammata's last variety of fearailer (where causal relation comes in only secondarily).

·157 ) Notes (-ii. 235 Ignoring the last two groups of alamkāras, and considering first the alamkāras not found in the Kāryādarśa, it is to be noted that while=HEA, Dandin preserving the first word for the yu and the second for the alamkāra. Writers like Bhoja (üi. 34, iv. 44), Ruyyaka (p. 163, P 189), and Visvanatha («. 86, x 96), it is true, recognise both This and whilea as two distinot alamkāras, but the hipea of the last two writers is a Teatre, while we have already commented upon Bhoja's Samadhi as an alamkāra (aee Note (11) to ii 99). About Hy we shall have something to say in the Notes to 11. 298, while VIHICT is only the with preemiatele super-added The figure Bed as recognised by Bhoja (iii 18), Rudrata (1x. 54), and ITHE (p. 44) comes very near to our author's fatal (ii. 323). The figure काव्यालङ्ग (defined by Mammata as हेतोर्वाक्यपदार्थता) is practically the same as Dandin's , while he is the same is set forth with the usual a and other paraphernalia of a logical inference. For the rest compare Notes (1) to (vi) to ii. 169. The other figures need not be here considered in details. See however Notes on famed varieties. (iii) Dandin has given illustrations for 16 varieties of g of which 14 are illustrations of these and only 2 (viz. ii. 244, ii. 245) are of the $14. We have already (p. 127 above) explained the distinction between for at and ज्ञापक हेतु, from which it will be clear that the कारकहेतु (e.g. वह्नि) normally precedes the कार्य (धूम), while the ज्ञापक is the logical mark or fee (e. g. ) which in its most valid from is actually the कार्य of the ज्ञाप्यवस्तु (viz. (वहि). But a poetic $14 need not always have that rigorous validity in its which logic requires. For instance in ii. 245 the व्याप्ति-यत्र इन्दुपादाबाध्यब्वन्दनाम्भसामसाभ्यश्च देहोष्मा तत्र 91HICCIH-may conceivably be vitiated in a particular person who is restless, but not by love. It is only if the ज्ञापक is the कार्य of the ज्ञाप्य that the व्याप्ति is invariably valid, ·ii. 235–) Kavyādarta [ 158 (iv) An spices, as we have seen above (p. 128), involves a साध्यसाधन relation between two things or वस्तुs. Now although it is true that the most valid form of proof is the one that depends at each stage upon demonstrable causal relation between one thing and another, we are not always so rigorously exacting in ordinary life and much less so in poetry. Even analogy is often given and accepted as valid proof. Generally, however, the way and the IT are related as particular to universal, or vice versa. The particular is the result of the universal by deduction, while the universal is the result of the particular by induction. In primerih, accordingly, the causal relation between the two statements (even where it is demonstrable) is ignored and attention is fixed upon the Father relation between them. In aeg, even in the film variety, the causal relation is naturally what comes to the fore; and as the two gays in question are normally two particular objects (e. g. 5T and fra in ii. 245) and not two statements as in an TPPT, the distinction between that figure and $74€ is generally not very difficult to make. (v) Some important definitions of care given below: Agnipurāna (344.29-32) सिषाधयिषितार्थस्य हेतुर्भवति साधकः । कारको ज्ञापक इति द्विधा सोप्युपजायते ॥ Bhoja (iii. 12) क्रियायाः कारणं हेतुः कारको ज्ञापकश्च सः। अभावश्चित्रहेतुश्च चतुर्विध इहेष्यते ॥ Vägbhata (iv. 105)- यत्रोत्पादयतः कंचिदर्थे कर्तुः प्रकाश्यते । तद्योग्यतायुक्तिरसौ हेतुरुको बुधैर्यथा ।।

·159] Notes [-11.235 Rudrata (vii. 82) हेतुमता सह हेतोरभिधानमभेदकृद्भवेद्यत्र। सोलंकारो हेतुः स्यादन्येभ्यः पृथग्भूतः ।। Vagbhata (p.43)- कार्यकारणयोरभेदो हेतुः। Visvanātha (r.64)- अभेदेनाभिधा हेतुर्हेतोर्हेतुमता सह । Kuvalayānanda (stanzas 166-167) हेतोर्हेतुमता सार्ध वर्णनं हेतुरुच्यते । ........ हेतुहेतुमतोरेक्यं हेतुं केचित प्रचक्षते । (vi) Of these definitions while the first two and the first given by the Kuvalayānandakāra agree with that of Dandin, in the others is distinctly noticeable an attempt to give a special a to the figure besides the mere fact of one thing being the of another. Bhāmaha, it will be remembered, had already raised his voice against the recognition of gas a distinct figure in as much as there was no afar in it at all; and this criticism has so much weighed upon later Alamkārikas that even so astute a writer as Jagannātha questions the validity of pee (which with these later writers does duty for ) as a distinct figure-of-speech The view is thus set forth and criti. aised by Visvesvara (p. 340f.)-यत्तु [रसगङ्गाधरे]-काव्यलिङ्गं नालंकारः कविप्रतिभानिर्मितत्वप्रयुक्तचमत्कारविशेषात्मकविच्छित्तिविरहात् । हेतु- हेतुमद्भावस्य लोकसिद्धत्वात् । श्लेषादिसंमिश्रणजन्यस्तु चमत्कारः श्लेषप्रयुक्तत्वात तदंशस्यैवालंकारता कल्पयति न तु काव्यलिङ्गस्य तत्प्रयोज्यचमत्कारान्तराभावादिति तत्तुच्छम् । लौकिकत्वेपि कविप्रतिभामात्रजन्यतया चमत्कारजनकत्वात् । .. ...। एवमुपमादेरप्यलंकारत्वं न स्यात् सादृश्यस्य वास्तवत्वेन कविप्रतिभाकल्पितत्व- विरहात् । (vii) The sixteen varieties of Hetu illustrated by Dandin are exhibited in the following Tabular statement. Bhoja has elaborated Dandin's own scheme adding minor sub-varieties.- - ·ii. 235-1 । कारक ज्ञापक ii. 244,245 भावरूपहेतु अभावरूपहेतु चित्रहतु दूरकार्य कार्यसहज कार्यानन्तरज अयुक्तकार्य युक्तकार्य il 255 ii 256 ii 257 11258 1 259 Kavyādarsa । प्राप्य निवेत्ये विकार्य il.242 11 243 भावप्रतियोगिकाभावरूप अभावप्रतियोगिकाभावरूप । . । अत्यन्ता भावरूपकाये अभावरूपकार्य il 238 प्रागभावप्रति प्रध्वंसा प्रध्वंसा अन्योन्या० ii 251 not illustrated 1236 प्रध्वंसाभाव अन्योन्याभाव । अत्यन्ताभाव in 250 प्रागभाव 11.247 1248 11, 249 [ 160 ·161 ] Noter । -ii.240 Notes to II. 235-237-(i) Bhoja thus explains the illustration-सोयं यथोक्तो मलयमारतः प्रीत्युत्पादनक्रियासमावेशात् प्रवर्तको नाम कारकहेतुभेदः। Notes to II. 238-239-(1) Bhoja thus explains the illustration अत्रैवंविधस्य पवनस्य पत्रिकामाचसाधनक्रियायां कर्तृत्वेनावेज्ञानि- वर्तको नामार्य कारकहेतुमेदः। (ii) In ii. 239d the reading भारोचक, as being the lectio difficilior and as yielding a very good sense has to be naturally preferred to the other variants available. . Notes to II. 240-(i) The threefold division of here given by Dandin is also to be found in the Vāky&. padiya of Bhartrihari (iii. 45-88, कर्माधिकार), some pertinent stanzas from the section being निर्वत्यै च विकार्य च प्राप्यं च त्रिविधं मतम् । तत्रेप्सिततम कर्म चतुर्थान्यत्तु कल्पितम् ॥ ४५ ॥ औदासीन्येन यत् प्राप्तं यच्च कर्तुरमीप्सितम् । संज्ञान्तरैरनाख्यातं यद्यच्चाप्यन्यपूर्वकम् ॥ ४६ ॥ सती वा विद्यमाना वा प्रकृतिः परिणामिनी । यस्य नाश्रीयते तस्य निर्वय॑वं प्रचक्षते ॥४७॥ प्रकृतेस्तु विवक्षाया विकार्य कैविदन्यथा । निलं च विकार्ये च कर्म शास्ने प्रदर्शितम् ॥ ४८ ॥ थदसज्जायते सदा जन्मना यत् प्रकाशते । तन्नित्यं विकार्ये च कर्म द्वेधा व्यवस्थितम् ॥ ४९ ॥ प्रकृत्युच्छेदसंभूतं किंचित्काष्टादिभस्मवत् । किंचिगुणान्तरोत्पस्या सुवर्णादिविकारवत् ।। ५० ॥ क्रियाकृतविशेषाणां सिद्धिर्यत्र न गम्यते । दर्शनादनुमानाद्वा तत् प्राप्यमिति कथ्यते ॥५१॥ विशेषलाभः सर्वत्र विद्यते दर्शनादिभिः । केषाचित् तदभिव्यक्तिसिद्धिदृष्टिविषादिषु ॥ ५२॥ यथा चैकमपादानं शास्ने भेदेन हर्षितम् । तथैकमेव कर्मापि भेदेन प्रतिपादितम् ॥ ७७ ॥ निर्वयों का विकार्यो वा प्राप्यो वा साधनाश्रयः । नियामेव साध्यत्वात सिद्धरूपोभिधीयते ॥ ७८॥ ( Professor K. B. Pathak (Ind. Ant XLI, Opt. 1912, B. 237) hus atgrned that this three-fold division of 21 [ Karyadarsa) ·ii. 240-] Kavyādarsa [ 162 unknown both to Pānini and Patañjalı-was evolved out of Panini's sūtra I. iv 49 by the genius of Bhartri. hari himself, Dandin having borrowed it from Bhartrihari. No definite proof, however, has been adduced to prove that the three-fold division of stone was first made by Bhartriharı himself The fragmentary Berlin Ms. of Bhartrihari's commentary on Patañjali's Mahābhā. shya--the only Ms. of the work hitherto discoveredunfortunately does not go beyond I. i. 55, and we have no other clear evidence one way or the other. Seeing, however, that Bhartrihari himself, as Kielhorn points out (M. Bh., vol ii, Preface p. 20), had an extensive commentorial literature before him, it is unsafe to assert in the absence of compelling evidence that a particular doctrine originated with Bhartrihari, and to base upon that assertion other chronological superstructure S far as the evidence goes therefore it is not proved that Danlin lived a'. r 650 AD, the traditional date of Bhartrihari's death. (iii) A निर्वयकर्म is कट in the sentence भृत्य कटं करोति । Here the causal activity consists in the manufacture of the fad, and its exact nature is determined by the object to be produced. A विकार्यकर्म is सुवर्ण in the sentence सुवर्णकारः सुवर्ण संस्करोति. Here again the exact nature of the causal operation depends upon the sort of fate or संस्कार effected As distinct from these is the प्राप्यकर्म, Viz ग्राम in the sentenos रामो ग्रामं याति or रामो ग्रामं पश्यंति. Here the ha or pela involves the same kind of activity whether its object is h or something else. Hence Dandin says that in निर्वयं and विकार्य कर्मs the हेतुत्व is कमीपेक्ष; while in प्राप्य it is generally (प्रायःशब्देन बुद्धिसुख- दुःखादिषु च प्राप्येषु तदपेक्षयैव हेतुत्वमिति ज्ञाप्यते-says ta) क्रियापेक्ष only. As a further consequence it follows that in the first two instances other नs (expressed by other कास्क cases) are required; but they are unnecessary for the last. It will be incidently noted that it involves the or the issuing out of the RA its objects, in sobordance with the strani pong theory of sense. perception, ME ·163 ) Notes (-ii. 241 Notes to II. 241-245-(i) In ii. 242 the forests have been transformed into poison. A facre involves a change of form and quality, the inner substance remaining the Sanne. (ii) Bhoja has given il. 243 as an illustration of what he calls प्रयोजकः क्रियानाविष्टो हेतुः। For explanation see Sarasvatikanthābharana, p. 274 f. (iii) Dandin has given for street an illustration that depends upon our understanding the doctrine of feTOTT far. A straight-forward illustration would have used an ordinary verb of motion. This he has done in ii. 244; only, mere statements like "birds are repairing unto their nests” have no poetry if interpreted wholly and solely as containing the statement of a Sai Bhamaha criticises such bald or unpoetic statements in the following words (ii. 87) - गतोस्तमर्को भातीन्दुर्यान्ति वासाय पक्षिणः । इत्येवमादि किं काव्यं वार्तामेनां प्रचक्षते ॥ (iv) Here an interesting chronological question has been raised. Is Dandin by his words-athra (ii. 214)-expressing his dissent from Bhāmaba's unjust condemnation of the rout; or is Bhāmaha criticising Dandin by refusing to allow as poetry what Dandin gives as good poetry. At first blush both views seem to be equally correct; but it seems to us that if one of the two writers is quoting the other at all, it is Bhāmaha who is criticising Dandin, though it is possible that the verse was one of the floating traditional lines-like many another in Patanjali's Mahābhāshya-which had been made the object of exposition by several Alamkārikas before them. Dandin, we think, gives it as his opinion that the line is unpoetic, and so is not an illustration of कारकहेतु with प्राप्यकर्म. But it can be a good guma for indicating the time. Mammaţa thus brings out the suggestion about the कालावस्था (P. 290)-गतोस्तमर्कः इत्यतः सपलं प्रत्यवस्कन्दनावसर इति अभिसरणमुपक्रम्यतामिति प्राप्तप्रायस्ते प्रेयानिति कर्मकरणान्निवर्तामहे इति सांध्यो विधिरूपकम्यतामिति दूरं मा गाः इति सुरभयो गृह प्रवेश्यन्तामिति संतापोधुना न ·[ 164 it.245-] Kavyādarsa भवतीति विक्रेयवस्तूनि संहियन्तामिति नागतोद्यापि प्रेयानित्यादिरनवधिळङ्गयोर्थ- स्तत्र तत्र प्रतिभाति । (v) Dandin uses the words aitcafu area to explain why he has not taken a regular verb implying motion as his illustration for sy A mere motion as that of birds to their nests has no afazi if understood as an illustration of a कारकहेतु with प्राप्यकर्म But, says he, the instance can be a good illustration for a $119€. After this Dandin proceeds to give a regular example of a ज्ञापकहेतु in 11. 245. Similarly Bhamaha can be understood as criticising the line in question even as the illustration of a ज्ञापकहेतु It then becomes mere वार्ता, mero report of the weather, and hence void of any alainkāra. The chronological relation between Dandin and Bhamaha cannot in any case be made to rest upon the doubtful testimony of this passage alone Notes to II. 246-252-(i) Bhoja quotes from Dandin stanzas ii. 247, 248, 249, 250 and 251 His comments on these are: ii.247-अत्र विद्यानभ्यासादेःप्रागभावस्य व्यसनादिकारणत्वम्। ii.248-अत्र कामकथोन्मादगमनादेः प्रध्वंसाभावस्य पुण्याश्रमानुसंधानकारणत्वम् (with the variant गतो for क्षतो) ii 249-अत्र वनानि अमूनि न गृहोत्यादरि- तरेतराभावस्य मनःप्रमोदकारणत्वम् । ii. 250-अत्रानालोचितचेष्टितस्यात्यन्ताभावो विभूतीना निर्विनवृद्धिहेतु. (with the variants तेषु for तेषां and निर्वि- धन्धा विभूतय for सततं सर्वसंपदः ). ii. 251-अत्र वस्तुन उत्पादः प्राग- भावाभाव उच्यते। तेनेह सहकारमञ्जरीणामुद्भेदस्य पथिकनारीणां मरणे कारणत्वम् । For a more accurate explanation of the last illustration see our Sanskrit commentary ii. 2517. The com. mentary also gives the other three illustrations not given by Dandin. Notes to II. 253-264--(1) A चित्रहेतु is a viotation 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 tore. Otherwise We would be a different figure-of-speech.

·165]. Notes [-ii. 257 Notes to II. 255-(i) The cxample given involves only स्थलकृतदूरता; Bhojagives also an example of कालकृतदरता in the verse अननवानेन etc. quoted by us in our Sanskrit commentary to ii. 255. (ii) Several writers who do not recognise Hetu as a distinct alamkara designate the स्थलकृतविदूरत्व between कारण and कार्य as a distinct figure-of-speech known as असंगति. Mammata thus defines it (p. 869)- भिन्नदेशतयात्यन्तं कार्यकारणभूतयोः । युगपद्धर्मयोर्यत्र ख्यातिः सा स्यादसंगतिः ॥ explaining the point thus in his Vritti-इह यद्देशं करणं तद्देशमेव कार्यमुत्पद्यमानं दृष्टम् यथा धूमादि । यत्र तु हेतुफलरूपयोरपि धर्मयोः केनाप्यतिशयेन नानादेशतया युगपदवभासनम् सा तयोः स्वभावोत्पन्नपरस्परसंगति- त्यागादसंगतिः। - Notes to II. 256-(i) A more familiar example of this variety is- सममेव समाक्रान्तं द्वयं द्विरदगामिना । तेन सिंहासनं पित्र्यमखिलं चारिमण्डलम् ॥ regarding which Bhoja observes-अत्र राज्याभिषेकरिपुमण्डला- क्रमणयोर्हेतुहेतुमद्भावेन सत्यपि पौर्वापर्ये क्षिप्रकारित्वात् तुल्यमेव कार्यकारणभावो विवक्षितः । तेन सहजो नामायं चित्रहेतुः (ii) The figure can be confused with सहोक्ति (ii.352-354). The distinction between the two is explained in our * Sanskrit Commentary, p. 324, lines 8–10. Compare, for the distinction between this figure and the Dipaka variety illustrated in ii. 106 our Note to this last stanza. (iii) Several later writers have subsumed this चित्र variety under art, and particularly that variety of it known.as कार्यकारणयोः पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययरूपा. विपर्ययश्च द्विविधः कार्यस्य प्राथम्येन सहभावेन चेति-as a commentator explains. Thus this variety of fries would include also the next or the कार्यानन्तरज variety of चित्रहेत. Notes to II, 257–(i) Bhoja thus explains the illustration-- अत्र चन्द्रोदयलक्षणाद्धेतोः पूर्वकालमेव रागसागर उर्णि इति कार्यस्योदयलाभः स इह गुणवृत्त्याश्रय हेतावतिशयं पुष्यतीत्यय कार्यानन्तरजो नाम चित्रहेतुः ।

·ii. 258) Kavyadarśa ( 166 Notes to II, 258-259-1) The figure called far as recognised by 7277 (who defines it, P. 133, as-Faraustasofa- ष्पत्तये प्रयत्न ), by विश्वनाथ, and by most later writers differs from these two varieties, if at all, only in the circumstance that the darur is in that figure supposed to be making a voluntary effort to produce an unsuitable effect When such an effect is produced unexpectedly and disconcerts the agent we have the figures-of-speech called fage in its several varieties, thus defined by Mammata (p. 875) क्वचिद्यदतिवैधान्न लषो घटनामियात् । कर्तु क्रियाफलावाप्ति वानर्थश्च यद्भवेत् ।। गुणक्रियाभ्या कार्यस्य कारणस्य गुणक्रिये । क्रमेण च विरुद्ध यत् स एष विषमो मत.॥ or, the figure of speech known as area, if the agent of the unexpected or disconcerting result is different from the original agent. Op Mammata (p 911)- यद्यथा साधितं केनाप्यपरेण तदन्यथा । तथैव यद्विधीयेत स व्याघात इति स्मृतः ॥ (ii) Bhoja quotes Kāvyādarśa ii. 83 as an illustration for the ya variety of fang. Dandin apparently regards the ża alamkāra in the stanza as subordinate to the Eyefa. Probably there is a mixture (Heft) of both these figures in that stanza The Bèg alamkāra defined by Bhoja as (1 18) - वस्तुनो वा स्वभावेन शक्तेर्वा हानिहेतुना । अकृतात्मीयकार्यः स्यादहेतुाहतस्तु यः ॥ can also be-यथासंभवम्--subsumed under Dandin's चित्रहेत. can Notes to II. 260-264-(1) Ruyyaka, Rudrata, Mammata, Vágbbata, Visvanatha and most subsequent writers recognise Sakshm& as a distinct alamkāra. It is not 988y to understand why Bhāmaha found the alamkāra void of वक्रोक्ति or वैचित्र्य. Sakshma involves a process of inference, but it is not to be confäsed with aria since the is here subtle and discovered only by shrewd bbservation of gestures of pastures. ** ·167 ] Notes [-11.267 (ii) A figure-of-speech called fafea and defined in the कुवलयानन्द (151) as-पिहितं परवृत्तान्तन्त्रातुः साकृतचेष्टितम् | is very difficult to distinguish from सूक्ष्म. The चन्द्रिकाकार thus formulates the distinction (ibid, p. 191)-सूक्ष्मालंकारे परा- भिप्रायमवगत्य साकूतचेष्टितेनोत्तरसमर्पणम् । पिहितालंकारे तु गुढं परवृत्तान्त ज्ञात्वा साकूतचेष्टया तत्प्रकाशनमिति भेदो बोध्यः| Normally, however, पिहित is understood differently. Vāgbhata (p. 43) defines it as-एकत्राधारे यत्राधेयद्वयस्यैकेनेक पिधीयो तत् पिहितम् । Rudrata on the other hand defines it as (ix. 50)- यत्रातिप्रबलतया गुणः समानाधिकरणमसमानम् । अर्थान्तरं पिदभ्यादाविर्भूतमपि तत् पिहितम ॥ Notes to II.265-267-(i) In सूक्ष्म there is the discovery of the hidden thing, but not disclosure. In लेश (No. 1) there is (a) & concealing, (b) a discovery leading to imminent disclosure, and (c) an attempt to prevent the disclosure under some other pretext. This figure is known in other writers as it defined by Rudrata (p. 174) as-उद्भिन्नवस्तुनिगृहनम् and by Visvanātha (x. 92) as-व्याजोक्तिर्गोपन व्याजादुद्भिनस्यापि वस्तुनः। Vamana's definttion (iv. 3.25) व्याजस्य सत्यसारूप्यं व्याजोक्तिः is tantamount to the same thing. (ii) This igure has to be distinguished from अपहुति (ii 304). As will be clear from Dandin's definition of the latter figure (cp. also Note (iii) to il. 95) he does not regard it as the invariable basis of an अपहुतिः and so the usual distinction between these two figures dannot be stated as it is generally stated by commentators-साम्यमूलकापह्नवोपहृति । अत्र (i.e. व्याजोतो or लेशे) तु न साम्यविवक्षेति भेदः | We can perhaps formulate the distinotion between them by saying that in an efa neither the thing negated nor the thing asserted is anything like subtle or mysterious. In de the subtlety of the 'thing constitutes the very essence of the figure. (50 Vănába's example for the figure is अरचन्द्रांशुभ.प. च्छशाङ्कगोरेण वाताविवेन भामिनि । कानपुष्पलवेनेदं साश्रुपातं मुख कृतम् (V. 1. मम ॥ है .

·ii. 267- Kavyādaria [ 168 This is from Bhāsa's Svapnavāsavadattă (iv. 7). Our example (ii. 267) uses the same at but under entire. ly different circumstances Notes to II. 268-272-(i) Writers who define al in the alternative way mentioned are- Bhoja (iv. 56) दोषस्य यो गुणीभावो दोषीभावो गुणस्य यः। स लेश. स्यात् ततो नान्या व्याजस्तुतिरपीष्यते ॥ Rudrata (vii 100) दोषीभावो यस्मिन् गुणस्य दोषस्य वा गुणीभावः । अभिधीयते तथाविधकर्मनिमित्तः स लेशः स्यात् । Kuvalayānanda (137) लेशः स्याद्दोषगुणयोर्गुणदोषत्वकल्पनम् । Vāgbhata (p. 43) कार्यतो गुणदोषविपर्ययो लेशः। and Jagannātha (p. 512) गुणस्यानिष्टसाधनतया दोषत्वेन दोषस्येष्टसाधनतया गुणत्वेन वर्णन लेशः। But none of these writers are earlier than Dandin, and it is difficult to ascertain what writers Dandin desig. nates by एके Bhamaha cannot be one of them, as he rejects say in both the alternative forms. (ii) Bhaja already has raised the question of the distinction of this figure from ogla (ii. 343). We have already quoted the view of Appayya Dikshita on the point in our Sanskrit Commentary (p. 26918 – p. 27061). Dandin who recognises both (No 2) and na as distinct figures makes the distinction turn naturally upon the word it: in ii. 268d. The Alamkārakaustubha (p. 407 f) would subsume (No. 2" under 2ta, ar alamkāra not recognised by Dandin. (iii) The father or Egla máy at times involve a simiky between things, and Bhojx 'accordingly gives ·1691 Notes [-11.274 examples involving what he calls a समामोक्ति and also not involving it (see p 409). For further remarks see Notes to 343. Notes to II. 273-274-(1) Except Bharata, Agnipurana, Hemachandra, and Alamkarasekhara this figure-of. speech is recognised by all extant writers Some distinctive definitions may here be collected Bhamaha (in 89) and Udbhata (p. 42)- भूयसामुपदिष्टानामर्थानामसधर्मणाम् । क्रमशो योनुनिर्देशो यथासंख्यं तदुच्यते ॥ Rudrata (vii. 34)- निर्दिश्यन्ते यस्मिन्नर्था विविधा ययेव परिपाट्या । पुनरपि तत्प्रतिबद्धास्तयेव तत् स्याउथामख्यम् ॥ Vamana (iv. 3. 17)- उपमेयोपमानाना क्रमसबन्ध क्रमः । Bhoya (iv.79)- शब्दस्य यदि वार्थस्य द्वयोरयनयोरथ । भणनं परिपाट्या यत् क्रम स परिकीर्तित ॥ and Mammata (p. 803)- यथासंख्यं क्रमेणैव क्रमिकरणा समन्वयः । (ii) It will be noticed that while Vamana requires that the things mentioned in succession should have between them a relation of similarity, Bhämaba contrary wise holds that the things should not be so related Jagannatha, as also Hemachandra before him, argues (p. 478) that यथासंख्य should not be recognised as a distinct figure. His words are-यथासंख्यमलंकारपदवीमेव तावत् कथमारोहुँ प्रभवतीति तु विचारणीयम् । न ह्यस्मिल्लोकसिद्ध कविप्रतिभानि- मितत्वस्यालंकारताजीवातोर्लेशतोप्युपलब्धिरस्ति येनालंकारव्यपदेशो मनागपि स्थाने स्यात् । अतोपक्रमत्वरूपदोषाभाव एव यथासंख्यम् । Vamana's requirement of similarity would probably supply the element of वैचित्र्य needed for the figure. It is however a fact that quite apart from the similarity there is a charm even in the orderly succession of things, and hence the alamkāra deserves to be recognised as an independent alamkara. 22 [Kavyadaria] ·ii 275-1 Kūvyādai sa [ 170 Notes to II. 275-(1) Dandın now defines together a group of three Alamkäras known as TATSofits. Bhāmaha (in. 1-7) and Udbhata (p 49, generally following Bhā. maha 10 his treatment) are alone amongst ancient writers to recognise these three alamkāras in the sense in which Dandin understands them. Ruyyaka (P. 185), Visvanātha (x 95-96) and one or two later writers accept these alamkāras and even add to their number the alamkāras designated as Samāhita, Bhāvodaya, Bhāvasamdhi, and Bhāvaśabalatā (see Kuvalayānandachandrikā on stanzas 169f), but they have radically altered the nature of these figures in as much as they require that in these figures the TH, F, etc ought to be introduced in subordination to another artist and not prominently and for their own sahe This view was first propounded by the author of the arriers (cp 11 5, p. 71) प्रधानन्यत्र वाक्यार्थे यत्राङ्ग तु रसादय'। काव्ये तस्मिन्नलंकारो रसादिरिति मे मतिः॥ Anandavardhana's Aloka on this kārikā runs as follows:-यद्यपि रसवदलंकारस्यान्यैर्दर्शितो विषयस्तथापि यस्मिन् काव्ये प्रधानतयान्योर्थो वाक्यार्थीभूतस्तस्य चाङ्गभूता ये रसादयस्ते रसादेरलंकारस्य facet sa AHTat: : Dandın, Bhāmaha, or some predecessor of them is perhaps intended to be alluded to in the kā rikā in question : Abbinavagupta in his tri Traa to the passage actually mentions Bhāmaba, Our Sanskrit Commentary on 11. 275 lines 123ff. quotes Premachandra's attempt to defend the position taken by Dandin and Bhāmaha as against the new school. (ii) We have explained in a general way in our Note (i) to i. 18 the nature of Rasa, but it is necessary to afford a detailed exposition of the theory of Rasas in all its bearings. Poetry consists of two elements. words and sense (ignoring the question of their relative prominence) Now there are excellences and defects belonging to words and to sense and these are treated at great length in the works of the earlier Alamkārikas. They were considered as character- ·171 ) Notes (ii. 275 istics inherent in the "body" of poetry. Dandin calls them sms or life-breaths (1. 42) And as a hody can have extraneous ornaments to set forth its natural charm so poetry also had its ornameats" or alamkāras, these being specific turns of expression or thought which could not be covered by the usual TTS (and gas) For a time advance in the science of Poetics consisted mainly in an elaboration of the TUS and 375rts, their number and mutual distinction The. next step of importance taken was the formulation of the doctrine of Oras or styles. It was probably discovered that certain schools, courts, or literary coteries developed only specific gunas and alamkāras to the exclusion of others, and as these originally were confined to definite territorial divisions the styles cultivated by them got the nicknames of वैदर्भी, गौडी, 991, etc. This may have led to emulation which in time degenerated into jealousy and animosity, and the ultimate compromise effected only ended in the doctrine that all the Afas had each an element of good and of evil in it (iii) All this time however no attempt was made to explain why certain jus or 316ires afford pleasure more than others A mere external labelling and classification was naturally felt to be inadequate in a science of Æsthetics. Help was sought at first from the sister science of Dramaturgy. The Nātyaśāstra had led down the Sutra-विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोगाद्रसनिष्पत्ति (Adhyāya vi, p. 62, where this ancient theory is quoted and explained). The generating and intensifying factors (आलम्बन and उद्दीपन विभावs) are सीता, शकुन्तला, etc. and वसन्त, ज्योत्स्ना, मेघोदय, etc. And they produce in राम, दुष्यन्त etc. in the first place one or more of the 8 सात्विक Thes, which are somewhat involuntary and physiological in origin, and along with them & number of psychological moods or feelings through which the hero passes. These latter are some of them dominent feelings or Fine HI98 of which there are nine enume. rated, and somo, concurrent foolings or afhathias of + ·ii. 275 ) Kavyādarsa [ 172 which no less than 33 are enumerated. The 3rghas. स्थायिभावs and व्यभिचारिभावs together make up the 49 (50) kinds of भावs, and these भावs, belonging to राम, दुष्यन्त, etc (or to the actors representing them), called into existence by definite "factors," produce in the audi. ence by sympathy the nine tas or sentiments. This is the theory of the Nātyaśāstra which can be graphically thus presented :- 8 artachi 316THS produce 8(9) आलम्बन (विभावs produce 8 (9) स्थायिभाव रस उद्दीपन (in Actor) 33 व्यभिचारिनू (in Audience) The eight 3THCS are enumerated in our Sanskrit Com. i1. 27575–76, the FTIHTS in 11 27559-59, and fit areas in 11 27589—90. The eight (or nine) TS correspond to the nine स्थायिभावs- रति to शृङ्गार क्रोध to रोद्र जुगुप्सा toबीभत्स हास to हास्य उत्साह to वीर शोक to करुण भय to भयानक [feale to 3177] (10) Dandin is aware of the existence of the Ta theory (cp. 1. 51, ii. 280, iii. 170, and especially the last passage) but he did not know how to organically incorporate it with his theory of Poetics. Accordingly he merely gives a recognition to the then theory by introducing a new variety of 377farts for cases where the TAs for their own sake were pre-eminently developed in a poem which was otherwise devoid of the usual गुणs or अलंकारs. The रस comes in for recognition also in connection with Dandın's treatment of Fig (i 51). This was merely borrowing a feather from the sister science. Rasa is of the nature of an inner consciousness (hence called Taon), and it is evident that it can be felt even in poems not containing the ta alamkāra. Some Alamkārikas, as we saw, tried to get out of the problem by recognising 796 alamkāra only in those cases where the top is felt as being subordinated to the fake to 3767 alerief proper. (v) The real solution of the matter came from the grammarians. If poetry consists of words having specific songe (or words and sense), it 16 necessary to ·173 ] Notes [min. 275 sense determine at first the varieties of sense or sf. There is the expressed sense or the arts and the figurative or indicative sense or ITU In the stock instance gt means literally and primarily the stream, which is the वाच्यार्थ But in statements like THTYTT the word must mean not the stream but the bank. This is the secondary significance of the word or its r. Now why should a person be prompted to say गङ्गाया ग्रामः instead of गगातटे ग्रामः? Clearly there must be a प्रयोजन (ignoring for the moment the few cases where overpowers it), and this was discovered to be the intention to bring out the शैत्य, पावनत्व, and other qualities inherent in the art by reason of its proximity to the stream. The प्रयोजन of a लक्षणा Is therefore the व्यङ्ग्य In cases like the above where the grand the लक्ष्य senses can be clearly distinguished from the व्यङ्ग्य sense there is no difficulty of any kind. But there are cases where the FT is 757; where the statement as a whole brings in a subtle suggestion without our being able to locate it as resulting from some specific word or words, and all Tis could now come in under the असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यय (vi) One inevitable consequence of the share which the grammarians had in the formulation of the a theory was the adoption of their Fate theory by the Alamkārikas. Anandavardhana in hissa (p. 47-48) clearly recognises this indebtedness. He says-fe विद्वासो वैयाकरणाः व्याकरणमूलवान सर्वविद्यानाम् । ते च श्रूयमाणेषु वर्णेषु ध्वनिरिति व्यवहरन्ति । नर्थवान्यैस्तन्मतानुमारिभि मूरिभिः काव्यतत्त्वार्थदर्शि. भिर्वान्यवाचकसंमिश्र शब्दात्मा काव्यमिति व्यपदिश्यते व्यञ्जकत्वसाम्यावनि- fren: 1 In other words :- वैया call शब्द = ध्वनि, as being the व्यञ्जक of स्फोट (to which are sounds are subordinate); आलं. call शब्दार्थ-ध्वनि, as being the व्यञ्जक of व्यङ्ग्य (to which the are sense is subordinate). This means that there is no उत्पत्ति but only an अभिव्यक्ति of the Ts. That is to say, the gestures and movements of the actor can prevail over you only if you are at and have once experienced feelings and emo·ii 2751 Kavyadarea [ 174 tions answerable to those depicted or enacted. The Alamkārıkas who followed this view of the case naturally gave no independent place to Hac and other Alamkāras. If Mammata in one place (Ullåsa i. p. 23) mentions the रसवत् it is भामहभट्टोद्भट प्रभृतिचिरंतनालंकारिकमतेन, as a commentator explains it (vii) If 27 (or Togref) be the body and yus the lifebreaths of poetry, the question-what is the soul of poetry which is naturally suggested by the metaphor is answered (1) by Vámana (116) as AFATTAT F17F7; (u) by the ध्वनि school (ध्वनिकारिका 1) as काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनि and (11i) by Viſvanātha (1 3) as an i THICHES Form On this point compare Notes to 1. 10 The question can have only an academic interest once we have realised the function of रस, रीति or स्वनि in poetry. (vin) How is produced in the heart of the ECE 545, its exact modus operandi, has given rise to a number of divergent views which it would take us too far afield to discuss here in detail Consult on the question sur P 69, Mammata, Ullāsa iv, pp 101-111, an. Rasagangādhara pp 22–31. (ix) The distinction between प्रेयस् , रसवत् , and ऊर्जस्विन् can be thus formulated. If the 50 Hras described above (Note iii) are any of them produced by certain fantas the nature of which prevents the manifestation of a corresponding full-fledged in the audience or the reader-when, for instance, the FIT HTC called ya is produced not by some lady-love but by Ta, .q, zyra, y7, etc-we have an incomplete रस or rather अप्राप्तरसावस्थभाव, which gives rise to 150r. The alamkāra is sometimes called भावालंकार also:-cp. अलंफारसर्वस्व p 189. A रसवत् alamkāra of course exhibits the विभावs, अनुभावs, and raifts in regular sequence As Bhāmaha says (iii 6) रसवद्दर्शितस्पष्टशृङ्गारादिरसं यथा । Finally an ऊर्जस्विन् exhibits an inchoate Rasa (as in Preyas) or a full-fledged Rasa (as in Rasavat), but the manner of exteriorisation adopted is अनुचित, 1s शास्त्रसंविद्विरुद्ध, is in flagrant opposition to the normal or the conventional, purposely with a view to stamp one's own individuality upon it. Thus in the ·ii.279-1 Kiivyādarsa [ 176 with नरसिंहवर्मा II who had राजसिंहवर्मा as his other name. Narasimhavaiman's date is A. D. 690-715 (see G. Jou. veau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, p 70), and he is described as a devout Saiva and as a builder of several Śiva temples including the noble Kailasanātha temple (Indian Antiquary for 1912, p 90-92). Hiuen Tsang who visited Kāñchi in A. D. 640 during the reign of Narasimhavarman I (630-668) affords some testimony for the triumph of Saivism at the time. (ii) In partial variance with this we have the testimony of the Ms. of अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथासार (Report of the Peripatetic Party of the Government Or. Mss. Library, Madras, for the years 1916-19, Ms No 194) which connects Dandin's grand-father with the Pallava king Simhavishnu (575-600) thus making Dandin a contem. porary of Narasimhavarman I (630-668). The pertinent verses from the poem (copied down on the occasion of the First Oriental Conference in Poona, where the Ms was amongst the exhibits) may here be given अस्ति प्रासादविस्तारग्रस्तव्योमान्तरा पुरी । काञ्चीपुराख्या कल्याणी ककुभ• कुम्भजन्मन । .. .... 4 तस्या जज्ञे बुधबातध्वस्ताखिलविपल्लव । पल्लवेपु महीपाल. सिंहविष्णुरिति श्रुतः ॥ ......। .................. ................ अदृष्टपूर्वो गन्धर्वस्तं सभासदमेकदा । उदञ्जलि महीपालमुपवीणयदार्यया ॥ श्रुत्वेनामत्युदारार्थी कुतूहलबलान्नृपः । अब्रवीद्भद्र केनेय निर्मिता वर्णपद्धतिः ॥ इत्युचिवामं प्रत्यूचे गन्धर्वस्तं धनेश्वरम् । अस्त्यानन्दपुरं नाम प्रदेशे पश्चिमोत्तरे। आर्यदेशशिखारत्नं तत्रामन् बहवो द्विजाः ॥ ततोभिनिसृता काचित् कोशिकी ब्रह्मसततिः। ... ....... ..................... तस्या नारायणस्वामिनाम्नो नारायणोदरात् । दामोदर इति श्रीमाम् ·1771 Notex [-11, 279 स मेधावी कविर्विद्वान् भारवि (वि) प्रभवं गिराम् । अनुरुभ्याकरोन्मैत्री नरेन्द्र विष्णुवर्धन ॥ . .... ..... तस्यान्तिके वसत्येष तेनायेंयमुदीरिता ।। इति श्रुत्वा महीपालस्तदालोकनलोलुप. । ........... ...... ........ नृपनिबन्धनिर्दिष्टे प्रकृष्टविभवे गृहे । वहतः पैतृकी वृत्तिं तम्यासीत तनयत्रयम् ॥ मनोरथाहृयस्तेषा मध्यमो वङ्गवंशगः (१) । ततस्तनूजाश्चत्वारः स्रष्टुर्वेदा इवाभवन् । श्रीवीरभद्र इत्येषां........... यवीयानस्य च श्लाघ्या गौरी नामाभवत् प्रिया । ततः कथंचित् सा गौरी द्विजाधिपशिखामणे । कुमारं दण्डिनामानं व्यक्तशक्तिमजीजनत् ।। स बाल एव मात्रा च पित्रा चापि व्ययुज्यत । अयुज्यत गरीयस्या सरस्वत्या श्रुतेन च ॥ सविक्रिये पुरे तस्मिन् परचक्रोपरांधत' । स चचार शुभाचारः सर्वामुर्वीमुदारधीः॥ ... ... ... ....... - अथाहूतः क्षितीशेन प्रशान्तोपद्रवे पुरे । स्वसुहृद्वन्धुमध्यस्थः स भेजे निजमास्पदम् ॥ The story goes on to mention a visit which Dandin subsequently pays to the temple of Vishnu in Mahamallapuram in Keral country adjoining the sea महामल्लपुरे देव स्वैरं वारिधिसनिधौ । आस्ते मुकुन्द मानन्द फणीन्द्र इव मन्दिरे ॥ (iii) We need not of course take all the gossiping talos in the pa as sober history; but the present story has some verisimilitude about it. Dandin is here made a contemporary of Simhavishnu's subcessors Mahendravarman I (600-630) and Narasimhavarman I (630-668), the first of whom is famous as the king under whose orders were constructed tbe reniarkable monolithic temples known as the 'Seven Pagodas' at Māmallapuram (see Smith's Early History, 3rd ed., p. 474). The trouble hinted at in the last verse above quoted is therefore probably the invasion of the Pallava 23 [Kavyadarsa] ·it. 279-1 Kāvyādar sa (178 country by the Chālukya monarch, Pulakesin II, about 609 or 610 Pulakesin was victorious at first, but was later defeated by Narasimhavarman I in 642 AD Mahendravarman is reported to have been a Jain originally, and to have been converted to faith in Siva by a famous Tamil saint If therefore we can imagine that राजवर्मन् is a poetic variant for महेन्द्रवर्मन् or that महेन्द्रवर्मन् bore रातवर्मन् as an additional name, we have here all the evidence that we can expect from tradition for placing Dandin at the court of the Pallavas of Kāñchi in the first half of the 7th century. And as the Pallava power was at its height during this very period, their kingdom might have at this time included the old Chera or Kerala country. We may add that the king Vishnuvardhana mentioned in the earlier part of the extract can be the prince Vishnuvardhana who founded, about A. D 615, the line of the Eastern Chalukyas. Anandapura the city I am unable to identify (iv) The eight forms of manifestation mentioned in 11. 278 are of course the same as the 37er ne or la alluded to by Kālıdāsa in the benedictory verse of the Sakuntala. Notes to II, 280-281-(1) Dandin is now going to give in succession the illustrations for 1791, a separate one for each रस (ii) Our Ms N, in a different hand, gives the marginal note identifying start with amach Väsa vadattā was an Avanti Princess; compare Svapnavāsavadattā V. 5 An interesting question is to determine whether Dandin is referring to Bhāsa. Definite indications are unfortunately lacking. The pretended burning of Vāsavadattā at Lāvānaka is an old story not invented by Bhāsa. Many dramatists besides Bhāsa have worked on the theme. "Tāpasavatsarāja is a play later than Ratnāvali (see the account given by Hultsch in Nach K. G. W Gott., 1886) Abhinavagupta in his Nātya- Tedavivriti (Madras Ms., vol nii, p 44) speaks of a play ·1791 Noten ॥ mpan -286 ot Subandhudealing with the story of उदयन and वासवदत्ता His exact words are-तत्रास्य बहुतरख्यापिनो बहुगर्भस्वप्ना यततुल्यस्य नाट्यायितस्यौदाहरणं महाकविमुबन्धुनिबद्धो वासवदत्तानाट्यधाराख्यः (१) समस्त एव प्रयोग. । तत्र हि विन्दुस्वर प्रयोज्यवस्तुत उदयनचरिते सामाजिकीकृतोप्युदयनो वासवदनाचेष्टिने. ..तत्र ह्यदयन सामाजिकीकृते सूत्रधारप्रयोगः-तव सुचरितैरेव जयतीति । तत उदयनः कुतो मम मुचरितानाति सास्र विलपति । From this it appears that this particular play made use of a play. within-the-play in the dénouement. There is also & newly discovered play called Vināvāsavadatta (?) affording analogy in construction with the Bhasa plays.. Besides there are the intents dealing with the story of Vasavadattā which were probably known even to the author of Vyakaranamahabháshya (see Kielhorn's ed, vol. 11, p 284), which however could not have contain. ed a verse like the one given by Dandin. Seeing that Bhasa's Svaunavāsavadattā does not contain the present verse, it is perhaps possible that Dandin is here alluding to the unknown play of Subandhu referred to by Abhinavagupta, or to some other unknown work. (ii) In the variants to ii. 280 read-"R, B, सैषा तन्वी P, Rn%3" instead of "P, R, B; '. (iv) The following quotation from Abhinavagupta's Natyavedavivriti (Madras ms p 204) is worth noting- चिरंतनाना चायमेव पक्ष । तथाहि दण्डिना स्वा(रसा?)लकारलक्षणेभ्यधायि- रतिः शृङ्गारता गता रूपवाहुल्ययोगेनैति । अधिरा परा कोटि कोपो रोदात्मता गत इत्यादि च। Notes to II, 282-285-(1) The stanzas ii. 282, and in 284 are apparently of Dandin's own composition; and the same explanation might have been available in the case of 11, 280 also, Notes to II. 286-(i) The stanza is undoubtedly reminiscent of Raghuvamsa viil. 57- नवपल्लवसंस्तरेपि ते मृदु दूयेत यदशमर्पितम् । नदिदं विषहिन्यते को वद वामोर विताधिरोहणम् ॥ per ETVVIDMAAJMER ·ii. 287-] Karyūdursa [ 180 Notes to II. 287-291--(1) It is difficult exactly to perceive the point of ii. 290. Possibly but is not to be construed with an ama but rather refers to certain denizens of heaven that are the topic on hand. The poet is struck to find all their wants answered by a mere tree. Notes to II. 292–(i) Having introduced to as constituting the essence of a variety of Alamkāra as well as of guna, Dandin guards against the possibility of every माधुर्यगुणवत् काव्य necessarily containing the रसवदलंकार, and vice versa. In Arget the emphasis is primarily upon अग्राम्यता. (ii) Dandin apparently recognises only 8 hs, ignoring , the ninth. This is in conformity with the older view, compare 712ZRITE VII 98. Notes to II. 293-294-(i) Udbhata thus defines suffant (p. 51) अनौचित्यप्रवृत्ताना कामक्रोधादिकारणात् । भावाना व रसानां च बन्ध ऊर्जस्वि कथ्यते ॥ A good example of it is Mālatīmādhava iii. 124 धत्ते चक्षुर्मालिनि रणत्कोकिले बालचूते मार्गे गात्रं क्षिपति बकुलामोदगर्भस्य वायो.। दाहप्रेम्णा सरसबिसिनीपत्रमात्रोत्तरीय- स्ताम्यन्मूर्तिः श्रयति बहुशो मृत्यवे चन्द्रपादान् ॥ where Madhava the desperate lover seeks the very objects that ordinarily lovers would carefully avoid, he being regardless of life and callous to all suffering. Notes to II. 295-297-(i) Vamana is the only other writer besides a who does not recognise putain Bhoja and Rudrata designate it as simply puta, a name which some writers reserve for a distinct alamkāra not recognised by Dandin. A few leading definitions are here assembled Agnipurāna (345.18) and Bhāmaha (iii. 8) पर्यायोक्तं यदन्येन प्रकारेणाभिधीयते।

·181] Notes [-11.297 Udbhata (p 51) adds the extra line- वाच्यवाचकवृत्तिभ्या शून्येनावगमात्मना । Rudrata (vii. 42) वस्तु विवक्षितवस्तुप्रतिपादनशक्तमसदृशं तस्य । यदजनकमजन्यं वा तत्कथन यत् स पर्यायः॥ Bhoja (iv. 80)- मिषं यदुक्तिभनिर्यावसरो य म सूरिभिः । निराकाङ्क्षोथ साकाङ्क्ष पर्याय इति गीयते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. iii)- गम्यस्यापि भङ्गयन्तरेणाभिधानं पर्यायोक्तम् । Mammata (Ullasax. p. 828)- पर्यायोक्तं विना वाच्यवाचकत्वेन यद्वच. । Vāgbhata (iv. 108) अतत्परतया यत्र कल्प्यमानेन वस्तुना। विवक्षित प्रतीयेत पर्यायोक्तिग्यिं तथा । Vagbhata (p. 36)- ध्वनिताभिधानं पर्यायोक्ति । Hemachandra (p 263)- व्यङ्ग्यम्योक्ति पर्यायोक्तम् । Prataparudriya (p. 446)- कारणं गम्यते यत्र प्रस्तुतात् कार्यवर्णनात् । प्रस्तुतत्वेन सबद्धं तत् पर्यायोक्तमुच्यते ॥ Ekavali (viii. 29)- यत्र व्यङ्गयस्य सतो हेतो कार्याभिधानभङ्गीभिः । स्यादभिधानं सुधिय पर्यायोक्त विदुस्तदिदम् ॥ Sahityadarpana (x.61)- पर्यायोक्तं यदा भगाथा व्यायमेवाभिधीयते। Kuvalayananda (67)- पर्यायोक्तं तु गम्यस्य वचो भङ्गचन्तराश्रयम् । and Jagannātha (p. 409). विवक्षितस्यार्थस्य भङ्यन्तरेण प्रतिपादनम् ।

·ii 2971 Kavyūdu sa | 182 (1) Most of the definitions (except those ut Bhã. maha or Bhuja) contemplate the ilecessity of listinguishing an ordinary case of व्यञ्जना from पर्यायोक्त Thus TETIT 917 is a round about way of saying that the TF s coul and holy , but it is a case of pure rath or suggestion, and not an instance of this Why? Dandin, Bhāmaha, and the earlier writers would answer that there is no poetic pretext (#9, ) that makes the periphrasis peculiarly charming Writers who adopted the safe theory would reply that of the sentence is uttered merely with the primary purpose of telling us just the location of the village, and consequently if the act and rana come in only by way of a back-door suggestion, then it is not part If, however, the direct object of the speaker were to tell us that the la is शैत्यपावनविशिष्ट, and if the writer merely says गङ्गाया ग्राम: or even at an with an emphasis on 75T, the case does not differ from an ordinary queen except that the instance is there or unpoetic, perhaps. In other words in पर्यायोक्त the व्यङ्गथार्थ (शैत्यादि) is itself the areef or primarily intended, though it is not conveyed as a वाच्यार्थ, but only प्रकारान्तरेण, Mammata means the same thing when he writes in his Vritti-eated aga व्यङ्ग्यम् यथा तु व्यगय न तथोच्यते । Compare also the प्रदीप on the passage --अत्र सन्नपि व्यङ्गयोर्थ अतिस्फुटतया न तथातिशेते यथा उक्तवैचित्र्यमिति न ध्वनित्वम् नापि गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयत्वम् । (iii) Ruyyaka, Vidyānātha, and Vidyādhara go a step further They not only require that the piano should convey the per or the 57 sense primarily; but also that the exact mode or at of conveying it be by describing the effects of it, or the cause of it, or by an analogue of it-the last two modes being recognised by Jagannātha. Compare the Rasagangādhara (p. 415)-37 arestare foto fruta arata PRIRI TRICO क्वचित् कार्येण कारणस्य क्वचिदुभयोदासीनेन सबन्धिमात्रण संबन्धिमात्रस्य चेति tagaiaga:1 This last is a limitation of the sphere of the figure which is not generally recognised, (iv) Pargāyokta along with two or three other alamkāras has played in the hands of Bhãm ha and ·183 ] Notes [-11.299 others the same rôle that was subsequently assigned to safa. Jagannatha (p 415) observes on the point as fol. lows-'वनिकारात् प्राचीन महाद्भटप्रभृतिभि. स्वग्रन्थेषु कुत्रापि 'वनिगुणी- भूतव्ययादिशब्दा न प्रयुक्ता इत्येतावतेव तेवन्यादयो न स्त्रीक्रियन्त इत्याधुनि- काना वाचायुक्तिरयुक्तैव यन. समासोक्तिव्याजस्तुत्यप्रस्तुतप्रशसाद्यलंकारनिरूपणेन कियन्नोपि गुणीभूतव्यगायभेदास्तैरपि निरूपिताः । अपरश्च सर्वोपि व्यङ्ग्यप्रपञ्चः पर्यायोक्तकुक्षो निक्षिप्तः । न ह्यनुभवसिद्धार्थो बालनाप्यपहातुं शक्यते । ध्वन्यादि- शब्दै परं व्यवहारो न कृत । न तावतानङ्गीकारो भवति । (v) The sense intended to be conveyed and the sense actually expressed by the words used in a paryāyokta (as Dandin understands the figure) both of them fut they are not therefore of coordinate or equal importance, and there is not between the two any relation of Hy etc, as there is in Samasokti (including under the figura अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा as defined by modern writers-see our Note (u) to ii. 205). Hence ममासोक्ति and पर्यायोक्त are adequately differentiated from one another are (v1) Bhoja gives (p 457 - मया विमुक्ता बहिरव वली ब्रजेदवश्यायकणेश्व माताम् । द्रतं तदेनां करवै निचोलके कयाचिदवं मिषता विनियंय ।। as an example of निराकार पर्यायोक्त, because there is the Axpress statement that the friend left the room under the pretext of putting back the luto into its case. Our verse ii 296 lie quotes as an example of the EHET variety. Notes to. II 298-299-(1) See Note (11) to 11. 235. Bharata, Agnipurana, Bhamaha, Ubdhata, Rudrata and Hemachandra do not recognise the alamkāra at all. Ruyyaka, Mammata, Bhoja, Visvanātha and Jagannatha designate it as समाधि, making समाहित ३ रमालकार, definod hy Udbhata (p. 52) ag_- रसभावतदाभासवृत्तै. प्रशमबन्धनम् । अन्यानुभावनिःशून्यरूपं यत् तत् समाहितम् ।। Bhāmaha's illustration from Rajamitra (iii 10) points to A Rimilar conception of the alamkārs Vāmāna ·. it.299-] Kavyadarsa 184 makes HTET & new category altogether in as much as he defines It (1v. 3. 29) as-यत्सादृश्यं तत्संपत्ति. समाहितम् illustrating it by the verse तन्वी मेघजलाईपल्लवतया etc from the Vikramorvasiya, Act iv, with the remark-अत्र पुरूरवसो लतायामुर्वश्या. सादृश्य गृह्णत' सेव लतोर्वशी संपन्नेति । Ruyyaka defines the figure as-कारणान्तरयोगात् कार्थस्य सुकरत्वम् and quotes Dandin's example ; and Mammata does the same thing. Finally Jagannātha gives the definition in these words-एककारणजन्यस्य कार्यस्याकस्मिककारणान्तरसमवधानाहित- सौकर्य समाधिः। (ii) The figure-of-speech known as समुच्चय (not recognised by Dandin) involves also a number of co. operating causes, and the distinction between समुच्चय and समाधि (i. e समाहित) is thus formulated in the Alam. karasarvasva (p. 161)-[यत्र] ह्येकस्य कार्य प्रति पूर्ण साधकत्वम् अन्यस्तु कार्याय काकतालीयेनापतति तत्र समाधिर्वक्ष्यते । यत्र तु खले कपोतिकया बहूनामवतारस्तत्रायं समुच्चयः। To the same effect also Jagannatha (p. 490)-समाधौ हि एकेन कार्ये निष्पद्यमानेप्यन्येनाकस्मिकमाफ्तता कारणेन सौकर्यादिरूपोतिशयो यत्र सपाद्यते स विषय । अस्मिंस्तु समुच्चयप्रभेदे यत्रैककार्य संपादयितु युगपदनेके खले कपोता इवाहमहमिकया संपतन्ति कार्यस्य चन काप्यतिशयः सः। (iii) Bhoja distinguishes between different varieties of this figure according as the सहायाप्ति is दैवकृता or अदैवकृता, and according further as each of these is the or बुद्धिपूर्वा. Dandin's example he gives as आकस्मिकी दैवकृता सहायाप्तिः। Notes to II, 300-303-(i) Most writers who recognise EGITI are agreed in giving two varieties of it similar to those of Dandin. For instance, Bhamaha (iii. 11-13)- उदात्तं शक्तिमान् रामो गुस्वाक्यानुरोधगः। विहायोपवनं राज्यं यथा वनमुपागमत् ।। एतदेवापरेन्येन व्याख्यानेनान्यथा विदु । नानारत्नर्धियुक्तं यत् तत् किलोदात्तमुच्यते ॥ Udbhata (p 53)- उदात्तमृद्धिमद्वस्तु चरितं च महात्मनाम् । उपलक्षणता प्राप्त नेतिवृत्तित्वमागतम् ।।

·185] Notes [-11 304 RIvyaka (p 183-184)- समृद्धिमद्वस्तुवर्णनमुदात्तम् । अङ्गभूतमहापुरुषचरितं च । Mammata (x. p 831 ff.)- उदानं वस्तुन सपन्महना चोपलक्षणम् । Visvanatha (x. 94 f.) - लोकातिगयमपत्तिवर्णनोदात्तमुच्यने । अद्राधि प्रस्तुतम्याग महता चरितं भनेन । (11) Some writers refuse to recognise the figure. Thus Hemachandra observes (p 293)-उदात्तं तु ऋद्धिमद्वस्तु- लक्षणमतिशयक्तिर्जातर्वा न भिद्यते । महापुरुषवर्णनारूपं च यदि रसपरं तदा ध्वनेविषय । It will be noted-and Udbhata lays it down as a distinct condition--that the Tarafta must be introduced only subordinatels As Pratīhārendurāja observes (p 4)- न खल्बत्र महापुरुषचेष्टित वाक्यतात्पर्यगोचरतामनुभवति । अर्थान्तरोपलक्षणपरत्वात् । यत्र च रसास्ताप्तर्येणावगम्यन्ते तत्र तेषां वाक्य. विश्रान्तिस्थानन्वेन चतुर्वगतदितरप्राप्तिपरिहारोपायभूतम्थायिभावपरिपोषात्मनास्वा. द्यमानत्वाद्रमवदलंमागे भवति । This disposes of the second objection of Hemachandra and serves to distinguish उदात्त from रसवत् (iii) The उदान which is विभूनिवर्णनपर Is not mere स्वभावोक्ति cp Note (111) to ii 9-13 The Alamkārasarvasva also distinguishes उदात्त from भाविक (अतीतानागतयोः प्रत्यक्षायमाणत्वम्) but this last is understood by Dandin in quite a distinct sense (cp il 364 ff) The words of Ruyyaka are these (p. 18f)-स्वभावोक्तो भाविके च यथावद्वस्तुवर्णनम् । तद्विपक्षत्वेन आरोपितवस्त्वान्मन उदातम्यावमरः । तत्रामभाव्यमानविभूतियुकस्य वस्तुनो वर्णनं कविप्रतिभोत्थापितमैश्वर्यलक्षणमुदानम् । . Notes to II. 304-(1) A few leading definitions of Apahnuti are given below- Agnipurana (345 18) sane as Dandın. Bhāmaha (til 20) and Udbhata (p. 59)- अपह्नतिरभीष्टा परिचिदन्तर्गनीपमा । भूतार्थापह्नवाद म्या क्रिगत वाभिधा यथा ॥ [निबन्ध कियते युधैः ॥ Tilbhata]. 24 [kavyadarsa ·ii.304--] Kūvyādarsa 1186 Rudrata. (viii. 57)- अतिसाम्यादुपमेयं यस्यामसदेव कथ्यते सदपि। उपमानमेव सदिति च विज्ञेयापहृति. सेयम् ॥ Vamana (iv 35)- समेन वस्तुनान्यापलापोपह्नुतिः। Bhoja (1v. 41)- अपह्नुतिरपहृत्य किंचिदन्यार्थदर्शनम् । औपम्यवत्यनौपम्या चेति सा द्विविधोच्यते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 50)- विषयस्यापहवेपह्नुतिः। Mammata (x, p. 735)-- प्रकृतं यन्निषिध्यान्यत् साध्यते सात्वपगुतिः । Vägbhata (p 39) प्रकृतस्य सदृशेनापलापोपह्नुतिः। Vägbhata (iv 86). नैतदेतदिदं ह्येतदित्यपहवपूर्वकम् । उच्यते यत्र सादृश्यादपद्भुतिरिय यथा ॥ Kesavamisra (p 34)- किंचिदपढत्य यदन्यार्थप्रदर्शनं सापह्नुतिः । Hemachandra (p. 281)-- प्रकृताप्रकृताभ्या प्रकृतापलापोपट्ठति । Vidyādhara (p 380) - निषिध्य विषयं साम्यादन्यारोपे ह्यपह्नुतिः । Visvanatha (x. 38f.) - प्रकृतं प्रतिषिध्यान्यस्थापनं स्यादपढुतिः । गोपनीयं कमप्यर्थ द्योतयित्वा कथंचन ॥ यदि श्लेषेणान्यथा वान्यथयेत् साप्यपद्भुतिः । Jagannatha (p. 278) उपमेयतावच्छेदकनिषेधसामानाधिकरण्येनारोग्यमाणमुपमानतादात्म्य- - मपहुति । - Visvesvara (p, 235)- प्रकृनं निषिभ्य भिन्नात्मतया प्रोक्तावपटुंति' कार्थता । and Achutarāya (viii. 131) विषयत्वनिषेधस्य सामानाधिकरण्यतः। आरोप्यमाणविषयितादात्म्यं स्यादपङ्गुतिः ॥

·187 ] Notes [-11.305 (ii) It will be seen that while the majority of these definitions require that there should be a sort of & similarity between the thing negated and the thing asserted, Dandın does not admit that necessity A सादृश्यमूलक अपह्नुति, according to Dandin, constitutes what he calles तत्त्वापहवरूपक (see Note (un) to ii 95). The Alam. karakaustubha clearly states the position (p. 235)- अत्र केचित् सादृश्यस्थल एवापह्नुतिः । न पञ्चेषु स्मरस्तस्य सहस्रं पत्त्रिणा यतः- इत्यादौ तु नापह्नुतिः किंतु प्रकृतस्य यदन्यत्वम् इत्येवंरूपातिशयोक्तिरित्याहुः । अन्ये तु...साहित्यदर्पणोक्तदिशा किंचिदपहृत्य कस्यचिद्दर्शनमपह्नुतिः ... इत्याहुः Bhoja, as we have seen, admits both cases. (iii) For the distinction between अपहृति and श्रान्तिमान् consult Note (ii) to ii. 66; and for that between अपह्नुति and लेश (or व्याजोक्ति) our Note (1) to in. 265. - Notes to II 305-308-(1) Dandin gives only two varieties of अपहृति, viz विषयापह्नुति and स्वरूपापह्नुति. Rasagangadhara gives the varieties सावयव and निरवयव which are based upon a different principle of division So also are the divisions into Tect where the negation is directly conveyed and 3778ff where it is suggested by words like 42, मिष, छल, छम, कैतव, व्याज, वपुः आत्मन्, परिणाम, eto. More important is the six-fold division given by the Kuvalayananda (stanzas 25-30), VIZ शुद्ध, हेतु, पर्यम्त, श्रान्त, छेक, and कैतव Of these the first variety is a normal case of Apahnuti which can be made to include both the varieties reoognised by Dandin, while the last is an आर्थी अपहृति. His other varieties with definitions and illustrations are as under सयुक्तिके सदारोपे हेत्वपह्नुतिरुच्यते । नेदमिन्दुरनङ्कत्वात् किंत्विदं मुकुरो रतेः॥ पर्यस्तापह्नुतिधर्मनिह्नवोन्यत्र सिद्धये । नायं सुधांशु. किं तर्हि सुधाशु' प्रेयसीमुखम् ॥ भ्रान्तापह्नुतिरन्यस्य शङ्काया भ्रान्तिवारणे । तापं करोति सोत्कपं ज्वरः किं न सखि स्मरः ।। छेकापह्नुतिरन्यस्य शङ्कातस्नथ्यनिह्नवे। प्रज. पन मत्पदे लमः कान्तः किं न हि नधुरः ॥

·ii. 308 ] Kavyadarsa ( 188 (ii) In the illustration in ii. 305 the real nature of 777 etc is admitted as perceivable by others. It however does not hold good in the case of the speaker himselt In ii 306 the negated thing is declared to be entirely void of its very essence is assigned an alto. gether contradictory nature, so that the moon can no longer be called moon (अमृतदीधिति= चन्द्र). In the example in 11 304 only a part of the nature of the thing was negated, in 11. 305 even the negation of this part was tempered by limiting its fact In 11. 306 the negation is absolute as regards its contents and its range Such seems to be the basis of Dandin's distinction Notes to II. 309--(i) Compare Note (11) to ii 94-95. As we saw there पूर्वम् can mean in, 34 (प्रतिषेधोपमा), ii 36 (तत्त्वाख्या- F119HT), or 11 95 (ata148964) In view of the difference of view noted above, Note (11) to 11. 304, the temptation to accept the last of these interpretations is very strong For Dandin must have known the view which makes Freke the sine qua non of wala Bhāmaha in any case knows the view and even adopts it Duffering from him Dandin considers सादृश्यमूलकाप?ति as a variety of रूपक. He consequently must have made a slip here or we can adopt the justification of Ca-ZTHETSTIACHGIT I There is sonething for whatever the view we finally adopt. Notes to II. 310-(1) It is rather unfortunate that the same name ( or for) should signify both a Guna and an Alamkāra. For the nature of the guna see Note (in) to i. 43. The alamkāra has nothing to do with the guna (ii) That Ślesha involves the use of paronomastic words, or words conveying more than one sense, 18 conceded by all. The main controversy is as to whether we should regard it as a grottare only or an spurtcictare 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 ślesha upon the ·189) Notes (ii. 310 use of specific words it seems reasonable to treat it as a 376770FIT and to assign to it a lower place in criticism, At the saine time it is necessary that we should understand the two-fold sense of the words in question. the words as words do not give us the pleasure of the figure as is done lur instance by an alliteration. Hence it is equally plausible to regard them as exclusively an Teisal, as is done by Udbhata and Alankarasarvasvakāra Jagannātha (y 401-2) gives a clear exposition of these views in these words-सायं श्लेषः सभङ्गोभनश्वार्थालंकार एवेत्यौद्भटा उभावप्येतौ शब्दालंकारौ शब्दस्य परिवृत्त्यसहन्वादन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां तदाश्रितत्वावधारणात् । .। इति मम्मटभट्टाः॥ अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्या हि हेतुत्वावगमो घटं प्रति दण्डादेरिवास्तु । न त्वाश्यत्वावगम । अन्यथा प्रत्यर्थ शब्दनिवेश इति नये पराभिमतोर्थश्लेषोपि शब्दालंकार एव स्यात् ॥ A reasonable view to hold is that of Mammata (x, p. 626), who observes-इह दोषगुणालकाराणा शब्दार्थगतन्वेन यो विभागः सोन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यामेव व्यवनिष्टते॥ यत्र हि पर्यायान्तरपन्वृित्तिमहत्वं नास्ति तस्य शब्दगतत्वम् यत्र तु तत्सहत्वं तत्रार्थगतत्वमिति सिद्धान्तादिति भाव. -as a commentator explains it. (1) Others try to get out of the difficulty by recog. nising a distinct variety of any and of 33 Thus Bhoja gives six varieties of gez(11 68ff) viz. na, प्रत्यय, विभक्ति, वचन, पद, and भाषा. Mar mata adds two more varieties to the list. Fi and form, while Bhoja includes The former under the q variety and the latter under the repla variety. In these varieties the word-element 15 distinctly the all-in all For illustrations see, besides the two works in question, Sahityadarpana pp. 457ff, and Alamkåra kaustubha pp 242ff-The on the other hand includes the cases where the use of the paronomastic words brings about prominently a comparison between the 27 and the 3 statements. As we have a two-in-one statement in THTHIRI so also we have it in , only the method is different. Dandin does not bring out this point in his definition (and it is in this sense that we wish to have our remark on Slesha in Note (ii) to ii. 207 understood), but most other writers including even Bhāmaha (iii.14) ube 3TAT and 394-4 in the vory definitions of the figure.-- Rudrata is so inuch in uiessed by the different u60s to which ·11.310-1 Kavyādarta [190 , paronomastic words can be put that he makes श्लेष8 basic principle of subdivision for alamkāras along with वास्तव, औपम्य, and अतिशय. He gives (r 1 - 23) ten sorts of श्लेषमूलालंकारs, Viz अविशेप, विरोध, अधिक, वक्र, व्याज, उक्ति, असंभव, अवयव, तत्त्व, and विरोधाभास. For illustrations see the Kävyālamkāra itself (iv) For the distinction of this figure from Samásokti see Note (ii) to ii 207. Our remarks there apply to the developed conception of Ślesha leading to try as it is found in other writers. Dandin's illustrations do indeed suit the definitions of the later Alamkārikas, but his definition is non-commital. Notes to II 311-(1) Bhoja quotes this illustation and thus comments upon it (p 465)--अत्रायमुदीयमानश्चन्द्रमा लोकस्य हृदयं हरतीत्युक्तेयुक्तिमाह- राजा अनुरक्तमण्डल उदयी मृदुकर कान्तिमानिति । यो ह्येवंभूतो राजा सोवश्यं लोकस्य हृदयहारी भवति । अत्रापि च प्राकरणिकथेप्राकरणिक उपश्लिष्यमाण. पदानामभेदेनाभिन्नपद लेषो भवति । Notes to II 312-(1) Bhoja's comment on the figure is as follows-अत्र प्रदोषो रात्रे प्रथमयाम किमिति प्रियारहितं मा न बाधते इन्युक्तेयुक्तिमाह-इत्थम् अनुभूयमानप्रकारेण राज्ञा सबध्नन् । कीदृशेन दोषाकरण नक्षत्रपथवर्तिनेति । यो हि दोषाणामाकरेण राजमार्गातिगामिना च राज्ञा प्रकृष्टदोष सबध्यते सोप्रियमवश्यं बाधत एव । तदत्र पूर्वस्मिन् प्राकरणिकर्थे द्वितीयोों- प्राकरणिका पदभेदेनोपश्लिष्यमाणो भिन्नपदश्लेषापदेशमासादयति । Notes to II.313--(i) Paronomasta constitutes the ingredient of so many figures that a question has been started as to whether in these several cases the alamkāra is primarily Slesha alone, or the other figure [उपमा (ii 28), रूपक (ii 87), आक्षेप (ii. 159), व्यतिरेक (ii. 185), etc], or a संसृष्टि or mixture of both. The discussion is started by Udbhata's statement (p. 54) अलंकारान्तरगता प्रतिभा जनयत् पदैः। द्विविधैरर्थशब्दोक्तिविशिष्टं तत् (श्लिष्टं) प्रतीयताम् ॥ Jagannātha (p. 393ff) gives a résumé of it in these words-अयं चालकारः प्रायेणालंकारान्तरस्य विषयमभिनिविशते तत्र किमस्य ·। . .. 191 ] Notes [-11.316 वाधकवं स्यादाहोस्वित्संकीर्णत्वमुताहो बाध्यत्वमिति । अत्राहरुद्रटाचार्याः-येन नाप्राप्ते य आरभ्यते स तस्य बाधक इति न्यायेनालंकारान्तरविषय एवायमारभ्य- माणोलकारान्तरं बाधते । न चास्य विविक्तः कश्चिदस्ति विषयो यत्र सावकाशो नान्यं बाधेत । .. ....... । तस्मादुपमादिप्रतिभो पत्तिहेतुः श्लेष एव स्वविषये सर्वत्रालंकारः ॥ एतच्चापरे न क्षमन्ते । तथा हि ......... एवं च सावकाशत्वाच्छलेषस्यालंकारान्तरापवादकत्वं न युक्तम् । अत एवोपमादीनां प्रतिभानमात्रमिति यदुक्तं तदपि न संगतम्...... .....प्रत्युत श्लेषस्यैव प्रतिभान- मात्रमिति वक्तं युक्तम् । तस्माच्छलेषस्य नापवादकत्वं सकीर्णत्वं तु स्यात् ॥ अन्ये तु-अलकारा हि प्राधान्येन चमत्काराधायका. स्वा स्वामाख्यां लभन्ते । त एव परोपकारकतया वर्तमानास्तां त्यजन्ति । ........ . . . । एवं चालकारान्तरोपस्कार- कतया स्थित श्लेष कथकारं स्वगृहस्थ इव श्लेषालंकारव्यपदेश चोदुमीष्टामिति बाध्यप्राय एव इत्यप्याहुः ॥ The most reasonable view to hold is that it all depends upon the particular circumstances of the case, and these differ in different illustrations, so that no hard and fast rule of universal application can be laid down. - Notes to II 314-315-(i) Dandin's classification is somewhat peculiar. Bhojagives the varieties भिन्नपद-अभिन्नपद, भिन्नक्रिय-अभिन्नक्रिय, भिन्नकारक-अभिन्नकारक. Bhamaha, after defining the figure (iil 14) as- उपमानेन यत् तत्त्वमुपमेन्यस्य साभ्यते । गुणक्रियाभ्यां नाम्ना चलिष्टं तदभिधीयते ॥ gives illustrations for श्लेषs involving सहोक्ति, उपमा, and to respectively as under छायावन्तो गतव्याला स्वारोहा फलदायिनः । मार्गद्रुमा महान्तश्च परेषामेव भूतये ॥ उन्नता लोकदयिता महान्त. प्राज्यवार्षिणः । शमयन्ति क्षितेस्तापं सुराजानो घना इव ।। रत्नवत्त्वादगाधत्वात् स्वमर्यादाविलङ्घनात् । बहुसत्त्वाश्रयत्वाच्च सशत्वमुदन्वता ॥ It will be seen that the last example Is श्लेषमूलक हेतुपमा (ii. 50), the second, a regularलेषोपमा (1128), while the first has greatest affinity with 11. 316 - Notes to II. 316-(i) Bhoja reads स्वभावमधुरा निग्धाः instead of वका स्वभावमधुरा | His comment is (p 467)-अत्र कर्षन्ति इत्येतस्यां क्रियाया दृशां दूतीना च श्लिष्टपदत्वेनादेशादयमभिन्नक्रियो नाम श्लेषविशेषः ।

·ii. 317-] Kavyādursa | 192 - Notes to II. 317-(i) Bhoja (p 466) explains the point thus- अत्र आकर्ण्यन्ते श्लिष्यन्ते च इति क्रियापदद्वितयस्थ प्राधान्यत गमुगयेनोपात्तस्य मधुरा इत्यादिमि श्लिष्टपदै कोकिलागिर. असितेक्षणा' इति वा विशेष्येकपदवर्ज पर्यायत. संबन्धो भवति । तद्यथा-आकर्ण्यन । का । कोकिलागिर. । कीदृश्यः । मधुरा ... .. । शिलायन्ते च । का । अगितेक्षणा' हरिणचक्षुषः । किभूता. मदकला..... इति। Notes to II. 318-(1) Here as also in ri. 322 below we have a. combination of लेपयेचिन्य with the विग of विरोध 38 exemplified in ii 334 For the distinction of this from तुल्ययोगिता see Notes to ii 330 below. Notes to II. 319-320--Most writers with the exception of, besides Dandin, भामह, उद्भट, भोज, वामन, and स्य्यक,-to say nothing of भरत and अग्निपुराण,--admit a figure of speech called परिसंख्या which consists in a नाटगगनपोह An example will explain the nature of this figur भक्तिर्भवे न विगवे व्यगनं गावे न युवनिकामाचे । चिन्ता यगामि न वपि प्रायः परिदृश्यने महताम ॥ The Sahityadarpana (p. 563) from which this illustration is taken goes on to observe- श्लेषमूलन्चे चास्य चचियविशेषो यथा-यस्मिंश्च राजनि जितजगति पालयनि मही चित्रकर्मम् वर्णमकरायापेषु गुण- च्छेदाः इत्यादि। Notes to II. 321-322-(1) It is difficult to distinguish ii. 321 from ii.87, the illustration of a श्लिष्टरूपरु. All that we can say at the atmost is that in ii 87 the identity with a lotus is given an exclusive prominenca, while here the king receives at least as much prominence a4 74T OT कार्तिकेय. It cannot at the same time be लेपापमा illustrated in ii. 28 because there is an absence of any उपमाप्रति- पादकशब्द. (ii) Compare Note (1) to in. 84 and Noto (i) to ii. 318 above. IA Notes to II. 323-(i) Some distinctive definitions of Vise. shokti are- Agnipuräna, same as Danlin's definit - ·-- 193] Notes -11 323 Bhamaha (iii. 22)- एकदेशस्य निगमे या गुणान्तरसंस्थितिः। विशेषप्रथनायासौ विशेषोक्तिर्मता यथा ॥ Udbhata (p. 58) यत् सामग्रयेपि शक्तीना फलानुत्पत्तिबन्धनम् । विशेषस्याभिधित्सातस्तद्विशेषोक्तिरुच्यते ॥ दर्शितेन निमित्तेन निमित्तादर्शनेन च । तस्या बन्धो द्विवा लक्ष्ये दृश्यते ललितात्मक ।। Vāmana (IV. 11. 23) एकगुणहानिकल्पनायां साम्यदाय विशेषोक्तिः Bhoja, same as Dandin. Ruyyaka (p 126) कारणसामग्रये कार्यानुत्पत्तिर्विशेषोक्तिः । Mammata (x. p 800)- विशेषोक्तिरखण्डेषु कारणेपु फलावच । and Jagannātha (p 437) प्रमिद्धकारणकलापसामान्याधिकरण्येन वर्ण्यमाना कार्यानुत्पत्तिर्विशे- षोक्तिः।-compare has definition of Vibhavana- कारणव्यतिरेकमामान्याधिकरण्येन प्रतिपाद्यमाना कार्योत्पत्तिर्विभावना। (ii) While Vāmana's definition of this figure (which he illustrates by द्यूतं हि नाम पुरुषस्यासिंहासनं राज्यम्) is put down by later writers as a case of 546 (as Jagannātha says: अत्र हि द्यूते राज्यं तादात्म्येनारोप्यते । तत्र सिंहासनरहितं हि द्यूतं सिंहासनमहित- राज्यतादाम्यं कथं वहेदित्यारोपोन्मूलकयुक्तिनिरासायारोप्यमाणे राज्येपि सिहासन- राहित्यं कल्प्यते । तेन दृढारोपं रूपकमेवेदम्) it must be admitted that Dandin's conception of Višeshokti, in as mucn as it does not bring the causal relation prominently to the fore, is a development from a root conception of the figure quite allied to that of Vāmana It is rather difficult to accurately distinguish this figure from कारणाक्षेप (ii 131), कार्याक्षेप (ii. 133), and विभावना (ii 199). Compare Note (ii) to ii. 131-132, Note (1) to ii 133-134, Notes (i) and (11) to ii. 199, and Note (ii) to ii 235. Keeping ourselves strictly to the conceptions of these figures as Dandin gives them, we can say that while in a normal case of cause producing effect we have the 25 [Kavyadarsa] ·ii 323-] Kavyādarsa [ 194 presence of (1) 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 produce the normal result--we have IN कारणाक्षेप Principal cause absent -Effect absent; Accessory causes present IN कार्याक्षेप Principal cause present -Effect absent;* [Extra circumstances lacking?) IN THUGIT 1ST KIND Principal cause absent -Effect present; Extra circumstances inferrable * IN विभावना 2ND KIND Principal cause absent -Effect present; Exceptional natural circumstances inferrable IN विशेषोक्ति Principal cause present -Effect present through greatness but with special hindrances of cause; IN 316T (Bhoja iit. 18) Principal cause present Effect absent [ Bet unpropitious ? ) The point of the figure in each case is the item marked by an asterix (*). Notes to II. 324–(i) Bhoja reads (p. 431) ferahanga for fer- मेवासीत् His comment on the stanza is-अत्र तीक्ष्णेनाकठोरेण चायुधेन पुष्पधन्वा त्रीणि जगन्ति विजयते इति तस्य प्रभावातिशयः प्रतीयते। सेयं प्रतीयमानविशेषहेतुर्गुणवैकल्यवती विशेषोक्तिः।

·185] Notes [-11.330 Notes toII.325-(i)On this stanza Bhoya observes-अत्र देव- कन्यकात्वाभावेप्येषा वेधसोपि तपोभङ्ग विधातुमलमिति वर्णनीयाया रूपातिशयः प्रतीयते । सेयं प्रतीयमानविशेषहेतुर्जातिवैकल्यवती विशेषोक्तिः। Notes to II. 326-(i) Bhoja (p 432) explains the point thus- अत्र भ्रूभकादेरभावेपि योयं द्विषतां जयस्तेन वर्णनीयस्य प्रतापातिशयः प्रतीयते । सेयं प्रतीयमानविशेषहेतुः क्रियावैकल्यवती विशेषोक्ति । Notes to II. 327-(i) Bhoja remarks-अत्र रथादेरभावेपि जगत्त्रय- विजयहेतुः स्त्रीणामपाडावलोकनमभिधीयते । सेयमभिधेयविशेषहेतुव्यवैकल्यवती fantafti: Bhoja however is not correct in supposing that the हेतु is here expressed. The real हेतु is the मनोहारित्व of the glances which is to be understood, Notes to II. 328-329-(i) Bhoja reads जगत्त्रयम् for नभस्तलम् . His remarks are-अत्र रथादीनां द्रव्याणामेकचक्रत्वादिभिर्वैकल्येपि यदेत- द्भगवतो भास्करस्य भुवनत्रयाक्रमणं तस्येह तेजस्विता हेतुरभिधीयते । सेयमभिधेय- विशेषहेतुकल्यवद्रव्या नामापरा विशेषोक्तिः। Notes to II. 330-332-(i) We have already given a few definitions of Tulyayogitā in our Notes (i) and (iii) to ii. 48-49. We make room here for a few more- Vagbhata (iv.88)- उपमेयं समीकर्तुमुपमानेन योज्यते । तुल्यैककालक्रियया यत्र सा तुल्ययोगिता ॥ Kuvalayananda (43, 45, 46)- वर्ध्यानामितरेषा वा धर्मैक्यं तुल्ययोगिता । ..... हिताहिते वृत्तितौल्यमपरा तुल्ययोगिता। ......... ......... .. गुणोत्कृष्टेः समीकृत्य वचोन्या तुल्ययोगिता ।। and Jagannātha (p. 317)- प्रकृतानामेवाप्रकृतानामेव वा गुणक्रियादिरूपैकधर्मान्वयस्तुल्ययोगिता। (12) It will be noted that more than one conception of this figure is current amongst the Alamkārikas, ·ii. 330-1 Kavyādarsa ( 196 Vāmana. Bhāmaha, Vägbhata, Kuvalayānandakāra, Bhoja, and Dandın are all attempting, each in his own way, to define the figure in conformity with the etymology of its name. Under the circumstances we will have to keep close to our author's conception of the figure and try to distinguish it from afaatnya (ii. 46), JETT1441 (11. 48), 2198 (11. 97), FH (11. 205), (ii. 310 ff), 315ETASTRİT (ii. 340), ostega (ii. 343) and Argia (in. 348). To begin with, in sfaatnya (op. the sllustration in ii. 47) the 346 is not intended to be extraordinarily superior to the उपमेय and the समीकरण between them is not directly expressed, but is sata only; whereas in TELTTATGT there are things decidedly superior or juice with which an inferior thing is joined in an assertion. The #HEATH (not the f) is direct, and not left to be suggested Further, the intention in the present figure is either स्तुति or निन्दा, and this is absent in प्रतिवस्तूपमा (iii) In JerHiHT (11 48) we have the superior and interior relation between the things and an attempt to equate them, as in Japiima. But while in the former 3471 is consciously sought to be expressed by reference to identical fat (or T"), in the latter the 3977 relation is subordinate and the point of it is not fully brought out. Further in their star the desire to praise or blame is prominently present, the same being absent in the उपमा variety (10) Consider the atque illustrations in ir. 99, and ii. 100. In these there is • अधिकहीन relation and no Falafazer intended as a definite end. Further, the point of similarity is expressed with one statement and has to be supplied with the other. So the distinction of these varieties from Jafrar is quite obvious (v) In a FATTO the two things are you, neither being by nature red or atat. Besides, only one of them ( or BTSTEKS) is expressed directly, the other being sata only. Nor is there here any conscious desire to praise or blame. In तुल्ययोगिता, besides the अधिक- ·197 ) Notes (-ii. 333 हीन relation and स्तुतिनिन्दाप्रयोजन, we are required to make an express mention of the two objects compared. (vi) Though the illustration of a 11. 310 ff.) might offer points of comparison with gry, the figure always turns upon an unmistakable peculiarily which is its sufficient distinctiveness. The paronomasla in ii. 332d is not intended or indispensable. (vii) Aprastutaprašamsā as Dandin conceives it involves स्तुति, if not स्तुति or निन्दा, but there is an absence of feeta relation, and an implication of stega through a statement, in place of the direct statement of the two found in a तुल्ययोगिता. (viii) Vyājastuti (11. 343) involves tara (or fargt) but it is feigned And it is a Egla made of a certain thing which might not be joined with any thing else in simile. A geriforat is necessarily based upon & relation between at least two things (ix) In face in the Army between the two things is not a well-established fact so that we could know before hand which is गुणोत्कृष्ट or गुणनिकृष्ट. The साम्य is evolved just in the very act presented to our eyes. संगतीकरणं युक्तथा Notes to II. 333-339-(i) All writers except Bharata admit faster as a distinct figure. A few leading defini. tions are given below :- Agnipurāna (344. 28) यदसंगच्छमानयो। विरोधपूर्वकत्वेन तद्विरोध इति स्मृतम् ॥ Bhamaha (iii. 24) and Udbbata (p 59) गुणस्य वा क्रियाया वा विरुद्धान्यक्रियाभिदा [v.1 वचः] । या [v.l. यद] विशेषाभिधानाय विरोधं तं विदुर्बुधा [v.l प्रचक्षते]॥ Rudrata (ix. 30- यस्मिन् द्रव्यादीना परस्परं सर्वथा विरुद्धानाम् । एकत्रावस्थानं समकालं भवति स विरोधः ॥ Vāmana (IV. in. 12) and Ruyyaka (p. 121)- विरुद्धाभासत्वं विरोधः।

·1.39-] Rävyādarta 1108 Bhoja (iii. 24)-- विरोधस्तु पदार्थानां परस्परमसंगतिः। असंगतिः प्रत्यनीकमधिकं विषमश्च सः॥ Mammata (X. p. 807) विरोधः सोविरोधेपि विरुद्धत्वेन यद्वचः। Vagbhata (iv. 121)- आपाते हि विरुद्धत्वं यत्र वाक्येन तत्त्वतः । शब्दार्थकृतमाभाति स विरोधः स्मृतो यथा ॥ Vāgbhata (p. 38) अविरोधेपि विरोधप्रतीतिर्विरोधः । साक्षाद्विरोधे तु काव्यत्वासंभवात् । Kesavamisra (p. 35)-- विरोधो द्विविधः। पारमार्थिकाविरोधेपि औचित्येन विरुद्धतया प्रतीयते यत्र । द्वितीयस्तु यथाश्रुते विरोध[?धा]संधानेपि यत्राभिप्रेतार्थमादाय विरोधः । अयमेव विरोधाभास इत्युच्यते । Hemachandra (p. 269) अर्थाना विरोधाभासो विरोधः । Vidyadhara (viii. 33) स्फुरति विरोधाभासे भवति विरोधाभिधो दशधा। Vidyanatha (p. 416)- आभासत्वे विरोधस्य विरोधालंकृतिर्मता । Visvanātha (x 68) जातिश्चतुर्भिर्जात्याद्यैर्गुणो गुणादिभित्रिभिः । क्रिया क्रियाद्रव्याभ्या यद्व्यं द्रव्येण वा मिथः ॥ विरुद्धमेव भासेत विरोधोसौ दशाकृतिः । Kuvalayānanda (st. 75)- आभासत्वे विरोधस्य विरोधाभास इष्यते। विनापि तन्वि हारेण वक्षोजौ तव हारिणौ ॥ Jagannātha (p. 427) एकाधिकरणसंबद्धत्वेन प्रतिपादितयोरथयोर्भासमानकाधिकरणसंबद्धत्व मेकाधिकरणासंबद्धत्वभानं वा विरोधः। Visvesvara (p. 321)- अविरोधेपि विरोधो यत्रोक्तः स्याद्विरोधः सः। Achyutarāya (viii. 202) विरोधस्याल्पभासश्चेद्विरोधाभास उच्यते ।

·199 ) Notes L-ii, 339 9 (ii) The figure is said to be tree when a word like 31f4 is used in the statement; otherwise it is 3f. This division is however disputed (op. Rasagangādhara p 428 ). It is called y when not based upon or paronomasia. Dandin's last example (ii. 339) is 39. The ten-fold division of the figure given by most writers is, like that of half or $196, based upon the four-fold ia of words recognised by gram. marians Jagannātha (p 428) rightly calls this classification अहृद्य Bhoja gives four kinds, viz. असंगति, प्रत्यनीक, अधिक, and विषम. Rudrata gives 13 varieties, denying the validity of succurata, and adding 4 additional varieties (cp. ix. 33, exemplified in ix. 41-44) not generally recognised by other alamkärikas. Dandin's classification is based on no definite principles. (iii) Virodha enters into the composion of a number of other figures such as उपमा (in 33), रूपक (ii.84), दीपक (ii 109), etc, while figures like fantaal or certain varieties of stea are, on ultimate analysis, special kinds of faria only. Op. the list of atto figures on p. 69 above, as also Note (iii) to ii 199. Hemachandra in fact even observes (p 272) --e a fantasiasanayi ifa- विषमाधिकव्याधाततद्गुणाः पृथगलंकारत्वेन न वाच्याः । विरोध एवान्तर्भावात् । The Kāvyaprakāśakāra however takes a different view. These alamkāras, as being special cases of faster and having a distinct charm of their own, can be considered as independent figures. For he says (about staina, p. 871) -9 a fagiaanfetant a laztato अपवादविषयपरिहारेणो- त्सर्गस्यावस्थितेः। (iv) Strictly speaking every poetical identification such as yrå involves an element of fate; but that has to be ignored. Jagannātha observes (p. 430)— इह हि अलंकारवर्गे यो यत्र सहृदयचमत्कृतिपथमवतरति स एव तत्रालंकार इति निर्विवादम् । एवं च रूपके..... यद्यप्यस्ति विरोधस्तथापि न स तत्र प्रतिपिपादfarea: 1 ...... I fattya TFHIÊ RAT: TRICI अभेदस्य विरोधोत्थापनार्थमुपात्तस्याचमत्कारित्वात् रूपकालंकारत्वमयुक्तम् । (v) Dandin and Bhāmaha are alone in putting facta- Cela specially into the very definition of this figure Other definitions imply this, ...... . ........ ...

·ii. 339-] Kavyādarsa [ 200 (vi) In ii. 339 the reading दुःशासनीयत्वं etc. for विश्वसनीयत्वं eto. is worth noting It is a deliberate attempt to improve the original A d Notes to II. 340-342-(i) Dandin understands अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा in the literal sense of अप्रस्तुतस्य [प्रस्तुतनिन्दाथै ] प्रशंसा, and 80 strictly limits the application of this figure to this case alone Cp note (ii) to 11 205, where (p. 143 line 11 from bottom) read latter for "former' and 'former' for 'latter'. The definitions of other writers for this figure are- Bhamaha (iii 28)- अधिकारादपेतस्य वस्तुनोन्यस्य या स्तुतिः। अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसेति सा चैवं कथ्यते यथा ॥ Udbhata (p 61) reads the second line thus-- अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसेय प्रस्तुतार्थानुबन्धिनी ॥ Vamana (IV. iii. 4) and Vagbhata (p. 36)- [उपमेयस्य] किंचिदुक्तौ [समानवस्तुन्यास ] अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा । Bhoja (iv. 52) अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा स्यादस्तोतव्यस्य या स्तुतिः । कुतोपि हेतोवांच्या च प्रत्येतव्या च सोच्यते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 104) अप्रस्तुतात् सामान्यविशेषभावे कार्यकारणभावे सारूप्ये च प्रस्तुतप्रती- तावप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा। Mammata (x, p. 750)- अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा या सा सैव प्रस्तुताश्रया । कार्ये निमित्ते सामान्ये विशेष प्रस्तुते सति ॥ तदन्यस्य वचस्तुल्ये तुल्यस्येति च पञ्चधा ।। Vagbhata (iv. 134)- प्रशंसा क्रियते यत्राप्रस्तुतस्यापि वस्तुन । अप्रस्तुतप्रशसा तामाहुः कृतधियो यथा ॥ स्वैरं विहरति स्वैरं शेते स्वैरं च जल्पति । भिक्षुरेकः सुखी लोके राजचौरभयोज्झितः ॥ Jagannatha (p 402)- अप्रस्तुतेन व्यवहारेण सादृश्यादिवक्ष्यमाणप्रकारान्यतमप्रकारेण प्रस्तुत- व्यवहारो यत्र प्रशस्यते साप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, adding in explanation, प्रशंसनं च वर्णनमात्रम् न तु स्तुतिः ।

·Xo1] Notes 1-11. 342 (ii) It will be seen that while to later writers- अप्रस्तुतवर्णनेन प्रस्तुतवर्णनप्रतीतिः 15 अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा ; to Dandin- अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसनेन प्रस्तुतनिन्दाप्रतीति: is अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. This has saved Dandin from the necessity (1) of dis. tinguishing this figure from समासोक्ति, अर्थान्तरन्यास, श्लेष, etc.: and (ii) of explaining the circumstances which make it possible for the 37tga to suggest se These oir-, oumstances give the several varieties of the figure as admitted by subsequent writers In order to show how very complicated the whole business of classification has become at the hands of these later writers wo give below a tabular statement based on the Kavyaprakāía- (i) कार्ये प्रस्तुते कारणाभिधानम् (ii) कारणे प्रस्तुते कार्याभिधानम् अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा र (iii) सामान्ये प्रस्तुते विशेषाभिधानम् (iv) विशेष प्रस्तुते सामान्याभिधानम् (v) तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्यान्तराभिधानम् Variety (v) further divided into A Use of विष्ट words for विशेषण+विशेष्य B. Through व्यवहारारोप as in समासोक्ति (with विशेषण alone श्लिष्ट) C. Through simple साश्म Or again, independently, into A1. अनभ्यारोपेण BI, अध्यारोपेण Cl. अंशेष्वध्यारोपण (iii) Bhojagives for अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा the twofold classifica. tion into वाच्या and प्रत्येतव्या, his instance for the latter being Dandin's illustration in il. 341 paraphrased , VIZ." काम वनेषु हरिणास्तृणानि खादन्त्ययन्नसुलभानि । विदधति धनिषु न दैन्यं ते किल पशवो वयं मुधिय ॥ 26 [Kivyadarta ·ii.342--1 Kavyädarta t202 The aprej variety he illustrates by पड़ो वन्यस्त्वमसि न गृहं यासि योर्थी परेषा धन्योन्य त्वं धनमदवतां नेक्षसे यन्मुखानि । श्लाघ्यो मूक त्वमपि कृपणं स्तौषि नार्थाशया यः स्तोतव्यस्त्वं बधिर न गिरं य. खलाना शृणोषि ॥ Notes toII. 343-347-(i) A few representative definitions of this figure are Bhamaha (iii. 30)- दूराधिकगुणस्तोत्रव्यपदेशेन तुल्यताम् । किचिद्विधित्सोर्या निन्दा व्याजस्तुतिरसो यथा ॥ Udbhata (p 61)- शब्दशक्तिस्वभावेन यत्र निन्देव गम्यते । वस्तुतस्तु स्तुतिश्चेष्टा व्याजस्तुतिरसौ मता ॥ Rudrata (x. 11)- यस्मिन् निन्दा स्तुतितो निन्दाया वा स्तुतिः प्रतीयेत । अन्या विवक्षिताया व्याजश्लेष. स विज्ञेयः ।। Vāmana (IV iii. 24) संभाव्यविशिष्टकर्माकरणानिन्दा स्तोत्रार्था व्याजस्तुतिः। Bhoja (iv. 56) - दोषस्य यो गुणीभावो दोषीभावो गुणस्य यः। स लेशः स्यात्ततो नान्या व्याजस्तुतिरपीष्यते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 112) स्तुतिनिन्दाभ्या निन्दास्तुत्योर्गम्यत्वे व्याजस्तुतिः । Mammata (x, p. 815)- व्याजस्तुतिर्मुखे निन्दा स्तुतिर्वा रूढिरन्यथा । Hemachandra (p. 276) स्तुतिनिन्दयोरन्यतरपरता व्याजस्तुतिः । Vidyadhara (viii. 30)- यत्र प्रक्रान्ताया स्तुती कथंचित् प्रतीयते निन्दा ! निन्दायां स्तुतिरथवा सेयं व्याजस्तुतिर्द्विविधा ॥ Vidyānātha (p. 443) निन्दया वाच्यया यत्र स्तुतिरेवावगम्यते। स्तुत्या वा गम्यते निन्दा व्याजस्तुतिरसौ मता ॥ and Jagannātha (p. 416). आमुखप्रतीताभ्या निन्दास्तुतिभ्या स्तुतिनिम्दयो क्रमेण यक्सा व्याजस्तुतिः।

·208 1 Notes L-il. 347 (ii) It will be noted that all writers except Dandir, Bhāmaha, Udbhata, and Vāmana consider both fagy स्तुतिः and स्तुत्या निन्दा as the legitimate spheres of this figure. It is not certain therefore whether Dandin really would permit the 3458 which we have put upon the definition in our Sanskrit Commentary ii. 3437. Rudrata gives the figure as a variety of 10 figures, and so requires that it be based necessarily upon paronomasia Bhoja, finally, makes no distinction between legla and is defined as in Kāvyādarśa ii. 268. (iii) Acoording to Dandin's view it seems that Loś& No.2 is distinguished by the presence of a subtle element in the praise or blame, while in a rela no such subtle element is necessary. This is the only distinction between these two figures. Hence we must either suppose that Dandin did not intend to accept Lesa No. 2 without reserve, or that Bhoja is justified *in making लेश व्याजस्तुति. (iv) In an अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा there are two things : a प्रस्तुत and an अप्रस्तुत. Further the स्तुति of the अप्रस्तुत is real and not intended to be withdrawn. So also the first of the अप्रस्तुत. The स्तुति and निन्दा, it is also to be noted, is of two distinct things: it is not a case that the same thing is outwardly censored but really praised (and vice versa), as in a fala (v) Similarly, while in ostala the apparent fact is to be ultimately set aside, and eata obtained by implication, the case is not one of simple sana, in as much as the grey is here entirely thrown overboard- & thing which does not necessarily happen in an ordinary safal. Cp. on the point Jagannātha (p. 416) अत एव नास्या ध्वनित्वम् । ध्वनौ हि वाच्येनागूरणमहिम्नार्थान्तरमवगम्यते । न चैवं प्रकृते । (vi) Bhoja quotes both the examples given by Dandin and remarks (R. 410) - tegiaJualai1994 Na (vii) In li. 345C 4S is a better reading than IRT, but we have no Ms. Authority for adopting the im. proved reading.

·ii.348-] Ravyādarsa [ 204 - Notes to II. 348-350-(i) A few representative definitions of निदर्शन or निदर्शना are here assembled. The figure is not recognised by भरत, अग्निपुराण, रुद्रट, हेमचन्द्र, केशवमिश्र, and both the वाग्भट Bhamaha (iii.32)- क्रिययैव विशिष्टस्य तदर्थस्योपदर्शनात् । ज्ञेया निदर्शना नाम यथेववतिभिर्विना ।। Udbhata (p. 62) - अभवन्वस्तुसंबन्धो भवन् वा यत्र कल्पयेत् । उपमानोपमेयत्वं कथ्यते सा विदर्शना ।। Vamana (IV. iii. 20)- क्रिययैव स्वतदर्थान्वयख्यापनं निदर्शनम् । Bhoja (iii. 31) दृष्टान्तः प्रोक्तसिध्ये यः सिद्धेथें तन्निदर्शनम् । पूर्वोत्तरसमत्वे तजु वक्रं च कथ्यते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 76) संभवतासंभवता वा वस्तुसंबन्धन गम्यमानं प्रतिविम्बकरण निदर्शना । Mammata (x, p. 744 ff.). [निदर्शना] अभवन् वस्तुसंबन्ध उपमापरिकल्पकः । स्वस्वहेत्वन्वयस्योक्तिः क्रिययैव च सापरा ॥ Vidyādhara (viii. 19) प्रतिबिम्बनस्य करणं संभवता यत्र वस्तुयोगेन । गम्यमसंभवता वा निदर्शना सा द्विधाभिमता ॥ Vidyānātha (p. 433) असंभवद्धर्मयोगादुपमानोपमेययोः । प्रतिबिम्बक्रिया गम्या यत्र मा स्यानिदर्शना॥ Visvanātha (x. 51) संभवन्वस्तुसंबन्धोसभवन्वापि कुत्रचित् । यत्र बिम्बानुबिम्बत्वं बोधयेत् सा निदर्शना ।। Kuvalayānanda (st. 52 ff.)- वाक्यार्थयोः सदृशयोरक्यारोपो निदर्शना । यद्दातुः सौम्यता सेयं पूर्णेन्दोरकलकता ॥ पदार्थवृत्तिमप्येके वदन्त्यन्यां निदर्शनाम् । त्वनेत्रयुगुलं धत्ते लीलां नीलाम्बुजन्मनः ॥ अपरां बोधनं प्राहुः क्रिययासत्सदर्थयोः । नश्येद्राजविरोधीति क्षीणं चन्द्रोदये तमः॥

·205 ) Notes [ ~iſ. 350 Jagannātha (p. 339) उपात्तयोरर्थयोरार्थाभेद औपम्यपर्यवसायी निदर्शना । and Visveśvara (p. 262) उपमापर्यवसनो यत्रार्थोन्योन्यमन्वयानहः । यच्च क्रियया कारणकार्यान्वयधीर्निदर्शना सोक्ता ॥ (ii) It will be observed that Dandin, Bhāmaha, Vāmana, and others admit what is known as the alert- ASIAT as the only variety of the figure, while Mammats and most other writers admit an additional variety. Dandin's conception of this figure bas the advantage of keeping true to the etymologioal sense of the figure. (iii) This बोधननिदर्शना is the same as the सभवद्वस्तुनिदर्शना of Ruyyaka, Viśvanātha, and most later writers As Appaya Dikshita observes in his Chandrikă (p. 74- स्वक्रियया परान् प्रति सदसदर्थबोधनं संभवदेव समतां गर्भीकरोति। To the same effect also Jagannātha (p 345). The second, and with later writers, the more usual variety is spiaggfa- दर्शना divided into वाक्यार्थनिदर्शना and पदार्थनिदर्शना, a good example of the former being Mudrārākshasa (vii 6)- केनोत्तुङ्गशिखाकलापकपिलो बद्धः पटान्ते शिखी पाशै केन सदागतेरगतिता सद्यः समापादिता । केनानेकपदानवासितसटः सिंहोर्पितः पञ्जरे भीमः केन च नैकनक्रमकरो दोभ्यो प्रतीर्णोर्णव. ॥ The qualification which requires a farsifalara relation between the two statements is to be noted. This relation has to be assumed in order to explain the prima facie impossiblility of the relation between the two statements, which is dogmatically asserted. As Dandin does not recognise this variety, we need not enter in details into the exact scope of the figure as also its distinction from , which is another figure not recognised by our author. See on the point Alamkārasarvasva (p. 77) (iv) Bhoja (p. 299 ff.) introduces in Dandin's facetal one or two minor principles of sub-division. The similarity is directly asserted in the statement or is left to be inferred. The former is the latter, ·4.350-] Kavradarsa [206 वक्र. Further we have cases when there is a complete दृष्टान्त statement given at first, the दान्तिक statement being given almost as an after-thought; or the relation is the reverse of this; or the two statements are simultaneous. According to Bhoja, Dandin's first example (ii. 349) is पूर्वमृजु, his second (ii. 350), सममृजु. His comment on ii. 354 is-अत्र राजविरुद्धानामिति श्लिष्टपदेन दर्शयन्तीति वर्तमानकाललक्षणात् सद्य इति तद्धितेन च समकालमेव दृष्टान्तदा न्तिकयोः शब्दत ऋजूक्त्यैवोक्तत्वादिदमृजु समं च निदर्शनम् । . - Notes to II. 351-364-(i) A few other definitions of this figure are Agnipurāna (344 23) सहोक्तिः सहभावेन कथनं तुल्यधर्मिणाम् । Bhamaha (iii 38) and Udbhata (p.67)- तुल्यकाले क्रिये यत्र वस्तुद्वयसमाश्रये [समाश्रिते v l] | पदेनैकेन कथ्यते सहोक्तिः सा मता यथा [सताम् v. 11 ॥ Rudrata (viii.99f)-- सा हि सहोक्तिर्यस्या प्रसिद्धदूराधिकक्रियो योर्थः । तस्य समानक्रिय इति कथ्येतान्यः समं तेन ॥ यत्रैककर्तृका स्यादनेककर्माश्रिता क्रिया तत्र । कथ्येतापरसहितं कर्मक सेयमन्या स्यात् ।। Vamana (iv. 3. 28)- वस्तुद्वयक्रिययोस्तुल्यकालयोरेकपदाभिधानं सहोक्तिः। Bhoja (iv.57 ff)- कादीनां समावेशः सहान्यैर्यः क्रियादिषु । विविक्तश्चाविविक्तश्च सहोक्तिः सा निगद्यते ॥ यत्रानेकोपि कादिः प्रविविक्तेः क्रियादिभिः । विविक्तभावं लभते विविक्ता सापि कथ्यते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 81) उपमानोपमेययोरेकस्य प्राधान्यनिर्देशेपरस्य सहार्थसंबन्धे सहोक्तिः। Mammata (x, p 817) सा सहोक्तिः सहार्थस्य बलादेकं द्विवाचकम् । Vagbhata (iv. 119)- सहोक्तिः सा भवेद्यत्र कार्यकारणयोः सह । समुत्पत्तिः कथाहेतोर्वक्तुं तज्जन्मशक्किताम् ॥

·Notes t-ita Vagbhata (p.38)- सहभावकथनं सहोक्तिः। Kesavamisra (p. 36)- समानकालोक्तिः सहोक्ति ।सा द्वयी-उदासीनयोस्त्वराप्रतिपत्तये कार्य- कारणयोरपि । Hemachandra (p. 273)- सहार्थबलाद्धर्मस्यान्वयः सहोक्ति । Vidyanatha (p. 400)- सहार्थेनान्वयो यत्र भवेदतिशयोक्तितः। कल्पितौपम्यपर्यन्ता सा सहोक्तिरितीष्यते ॥ Visvanātha (x. 55) सहार्थस्य बलादकं यत्र स्थावाचकं द्वयोः । सा सहोक्तिर्मूलभूतातिशयोक्तियंदा भवेत् ॥ and Jagannātha (p 357) गुणप्रधानभावावच्छिन्नसहार्थसंबन्धः सहोक्तिः। (ii) The statement of simultaneity between the qualities or actions of two objects, which constitutes the essence of this figure, is not a matter of-faot description as in पुत्रेण सहागतः पिता It is अतिशयोक्तिमूलक. Ruy. yaka however goes further and says (p 81)-तत्र नियमेना- तिशयोक्तिमूलत्वमस्या । सा [अतिशयोक्ति] च कार्यकारणप्रतिनियमविपर्ययरूपा अभेदाध्यवसायरूपा च । अभेदाध्यवसायश्च श्लेषभित्तिकोन्यथा वा। Ruyyaka thus recognises, amongst others, a variety of महोक्ति based on कार्यकारणपौर्वापर्यविपर्यय, giving as an example- मवदपराधेः सार्ध सतापो वर्धतेतरामस्थाः। Jagannatha refuses how. ever to recognise this variety. As Alamkārakaustubha (p. 331) observes-कार्यकारणयो. पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययात्मकातिशयोक्तिमूलभे- दस्तु प्राचीनोको न युक्तः । तत्रातिशयोक्तरेवालंकारत्वसंभवात् । तव कोपोरिनाशश्च जायते युगपन्नृप इत्यतिशयोक्तयपेक्षया तव कोपोरिनाशश्च सहैव नृप जायते । इति सहोको विच्छित्ति - चमत्कार]विशेषाननुभवात् । The relation between the two objects brought together in 8 सहोक्ति should be merely गुणप्रधानभाव (ope Panini II iii. 19, सहयुक्ते- wah). Dandin would endorse the view of Jagannatha ·354-] Kavyadarsa 1208 though his conception of अतिशयोक्ति, as we have seen (Notes, p. 146-47), is somewhat different. The हेत्वलंका illustrated by Dandın in ii. 256 would be considered by Ruyyaka as FEIRI; but the very fact that Dandin regards it as a separate alamkāra proves his nonacceptance of पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययमूला सहोक्ति variety. In none of the examples given by Dandin for JETER is there in evidence a कार्यकारण relation, the real cause in ii.352 and ii. 353 being प्रियजनविरह and in ii. 354, probably. प्रियजनसंनिधान. R Notes to II. 355-356--(1) The figure is defined by Dopdin in ii. 351, latter half Other definitions for this figure are Bhamaha (iii. 40)-- विशिष्टस्य यदादानमन्यापोहेन वस्तुनः । अर्थान्तरन्यासवती परिवृत्तिरसौ यथा ॥ Udbhata (p. 69) समन्यूनविशिष्टैस्तु कस्यचित् परिर्वतनम् । अर्थानर्थस्वभाव यत् परिवृत्तिरभाणि सा॥ Rudrata (vii. 77)- युगपहानादाने अन्योन्य वस्तुनाः क्रियते यत् । क्वचिदुपचर्येते वा प्रसिद्धितः सेति परिबृत्तिः ॥ Vamana (IV. iii. 16)- समविसदृशाभ्यां परिवर्तन परिवृत्तिः। Bhoja (iii. 29 f.) व्यत्ययो वस्तुनो यस्तु यो वा विनिमयो मियः । परिवृत्तिरिहोक्का सा काव्यालंकारलक्षणे ॥ सा त्रिधा व्यत्ययवती तथा विनिमयात्मिका । तृतीया चोभयवती निर्दिष्टा काव्यसूरिभिः ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 152) समन्यूनाधिकानां समाधिकन्यूनैर्विनिमयः परिवृत्तिः। and Jagannātha (p. 481).- परकीययत्किचिद्वरत्वादानविशिष्टं परस्मै.स्वकीययत्किचिवस्तुसमा परिवत्तिः। RAN ·20%] Notes [-11 (ii) Two points deserve to be noted. The barter ought to be praefeta and charming An actual oommércial transaction howsoever noteworthy cannot be an instance of this figure. Secondly, there ought to be a regular sales-agent in the transaction. Accordingly a case like-किमित्यपास्याभरणानि यौवने धृतं त्वया वार्धकशोभि वल्कलम् or किशोरभावं परिहाय रामा बभार कामानुगुणा प्रणालीम् where there is only a व्यत्यय or किंचित् त्यक्त्वा किंचिदादानमात्रम् cannot be a regular refer in the normal acceptance of the term विनिमय. Mammata and Jagannatha also are against admitting व्यत्यय, while वामन and रुय्यक admit it. Bhoja attempts to hold the balance evenly by recognising Start as a sub-variety of Parivritti. His example (p. 297) is- जो तीअ अहराउ रत्तिं उब्बासिओ पिअअमेण । सोच्चिअ दीसइ गोसे सवत्तिणअणेसु संकन्तो । [यस्तस्या अधररागो रात्रावुद्वासितः प्रियतमेन। स एव दृश्यते प्रातः सपत्नीनयनेषु संक्रान्तः॥] (iii) In the above example several things belong to or reside in one and the same object. Conversely we can have a case where one object resides in succession in several places Both these are taken by Mammata and later writes to be instances of (an alamkāra not recognised by our author) which is thus defined by Jagannatha (p. 478)-क्रमेणानेकाधिकरणकमेकमाधेयमेका पर्यायः । क्रमेणानेकाधेयकमेकमधिकरणमपरः। Notes to II. 357-(i) Vagbhata the author of the काव्यानुशासन is the only writer besides भामह and दण्डिन् to recognise fraft: as a figure of speech. Vāgbhata defines it as (p. 46)- इष्टार्थस्याशंसनम् while the definition of Bhamaha (iii. 54) is- आशीरपि च केषांचिदलंकारतया मता । सौहृदस्याविरोधोक्तौ प्रयोगोस्याश्च तद्यथा ॥ Hemachandra (p. 294) declares himself against the recognition of this figure in the words-आशीस्तु प्रियोक्तिमात्र भावज्ञापनेनं गुणीभूतव्ययस्य विषयः। See his commentary on the passage. भ [Kavyadarsa] ·ii. 357 ) Kavyādarta ( 210 (ii) At the same time it is necessary to point out that the 36 embellishments of speech involving specific emotional modes which are enumerated by Bharata at the beginning of the 16th Chapter of the Natyaśāstra, and which occur also in Jayadeva's Chandraloka, Mayūkha iii, include (along with such things as गुणकीर्तन, प्रोत्साहन, आक्रन्द, प्रतिषेध, परिदेवन, etc.) आशीः or benediction Now it must be admitted that, in a given situation, benediction can become a very effective mode of expressing ore's thoughts; and a dramaturgist has every right to collect all such effective modes of expression together. But why Dandin should have selected only one of them for inclusion amongst the regular starts cannot be determined. We may however point out in passing that some others out of the 36 have been universally regarded as forming the basis of some of the regular figures. (ii) It is worth notingas pointing to an independence of tradition and perbaps an absence of interdependence between Dandin and Bhämaha-that Dandin takes groft: as a regular benediction. Bhāmaha gives two illustrations for the figure. In the first (see our Com. ii. 3578–11) two friends, who have been estranged 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 Hemachandra remarks-तत्रच तस्य चेतोवृत्तिविशेष' स्नेहात्मा रतिभावविशेषरूप आशीद्वारेण प्रतीयत इति भावध्वनिरेवायम् । ............ । अत्र आशास्यमानस्य मैत्रीसंबन्धस्योपनिबन्धो न त्वप्राप्तप्राप्तीच्छात्मिका आशिष. In the second example also (see our Com. il. 35712-13), Hemachandra points out that the hostile cities have already been vanquished. Hence, तथाविधानां शत्रुनगरीणां दर्शनमत्र प्राप्तकालतया- zegara I The illustration given by Dandin is of course अप्राप्तप्राप्तीच्छामिका आशीः। And the same is the case with Vāgbhata. · Notes to II, 358-359ab(i) Before winding up his treat ment of the regular alamkāras and passing on to a consideration of the mixed alamkāras (ii, 360), Daņdin ·211 ) Notes [ -il, 358 vindicates the completeness of his list, by remarking that अनन्वय, ससंदेह, उपमारूपक, and उत्प्रेक्षावयव, which are normally given by Alamkarikas as independent figures, have been the first three-included by him as subvarieties of regular figures, while the last, though not actually so included, can easily be subsumed under a regular figure. Compare also in. 309. See note (ii) to ii. 37; Note (ii) to ii. 26 (where in the last line on p. 90 read 'Dandin' for 'Bhāmaha'); and Note (iii) to ii. 88. (ii) The alamkāras para and ICE, though not separately given by Dandin, are treated as independent alamkāras by almost all other writers, including Bhämaha. The figures 34H1647 and Jiletaera are however given by Bhāmaha alone amongst extant writers; and Dandin's specific rejection of them raises the question as to Dandin's chronological position with reference to Bhāmaha. In our notes to ii. 88-90 we have adduced reasons to show that Dandin's posteriority to Bhāmaha need not be regarded as an inevitable conclusion so far as the treatment of 34A79427 by these two writers is concerned. As to seega, in as much as Dandin gives us no, indication as to his own idea of the figure, the means for forming any opinion one way or the other are unfortunately lacking. (iii) An ofteaia is—to judge from the illustration of it given by Bhāmaba (see our Com ii. 3594-5) is a combination of उत्प्रेक्षावैचित्र्य with श्लेषवैचित्र्य and रूपकवैचित्र्य, and as Dandin's sub-varieties often exhibit such combined eft, Dandin is justified from his own point of view in regarding उत्प्रेक्षावयव as उत्प्रेक्षाभेद. Abhinavagupta in his first tilata (p. 41) discusses Bhāmaha's illustration for staropera and regards it as a regular variety of संकर. . (iii) That a very large number of alamkāras recognised by modern writers are absent in Dandin's book is no impeachment of it. Science must grow.

·ii.35921 Kavyādarsa [212 Notes to II. 359cd to 360-(i) It will be remembered that ' in ii. 7 संसृष्टि was designated संकीर्ण. Later writers make a distinction between these terms, reserving it for co-ordinating or HAFT mixture and shape for preponderaing mixture or mixture with the ha relation. Although Dandin is aware of this two-fold method of mixture he has not deemed it necessary to appropriate a distinct name for each. Bhāmaha, Rudrata, Vāmana, Bhoja, Hemachandra, and the two Vāgbhatas have likewise contented themselves with just one name . Bhāmaha, Vāmana, and Bhoja choosing here the others having fixed upon it. The later alamkārikas including रुय्यक, मम्मट, विश्वनाथ, and otheis clearly distinguish between संसृष्ठि and संकर, some adding also a third category of संदेह or अनिश्चय. (ii) The more important statements of these Alamkarikas are here assembled for easy reference Bhāmaha (iii. 48) वरा विभूषा संसृष्टिर्बहलंकारयोगतः । रचिता रत्नमालेव सा चैवमुदिता यथा ॥ Vamana (IV. iii.30f)- अलंकारस्यालंकारयोनित्वं संसृष्टिः । तद्भेदावुपमारूपकोत्प्रेक्षावयवौ । Rudrata (25) - योगवशादेतेषां तिलतण्डुलवच्च दुग्धजलवञ्च । व्यक्ताव्यक्तांशत्वात् संकर उत्पद्यते द्वेधा ॥ Bhoja (iv. 88 ff.) संसृष्टिरिति विज्ञेया नानालंकारसंकरः । सा तु व्यक्ता तथाव्यक्ता व्यक्ताव्यक्तेति च त्रेधा। तिलतण्डुलवश्यक्ता छायादर्शवदेव च । अव्यक्ता क्षीरजलवत् पांशुपानीयवञ्च सा ।। व्यक्ताव्यक्ता च संसृष्टिनरसिंहवदिष्यते। चित्रवर्णवदन्यस्मिन् नानालंकारसंकरे । Hemachandra (p. 289) स्वातन्त्र्याङ्गत्वसंशयैकपद्यैरेषामेकत्र स्थितिः संकरः। परस्परनिरपेक्षत्व स्वातन्त्र्यम् । उपकारत्वमङ्गत्वम् । एकस्य ग्रहेन्यस्य त्यागे साधकबाधक प्रमाणाभावादनिर्णयः सशयः । एकस्मिन् पदेर्थाच्छन्दालंकारयोः समावेश ऐकपद्यम्।

·ii. 361-3 Kavyādarsa [ 214 Notes to II. 361-362-(i) In the first half of ii. 361 there is an 39 statement which can stand by itself. The H is thus the principal figure. The stargyfeat considers the figure in the first half to be tar; but sayia can be an 3471977 though not actually enumerated by Dandin. In the second half we have an alarme based upon . The particular statement about the invasion of the beauty of the face by lotuses is corroborated by the general fact that, given that and cus, .any body can invade. The awkwardness of the general statement containing a pronoun (9) referring to a noun in the particular statement can be got over by making एषाम् - एषा लोकानाम्, Nor is the difficulty so very serious at all. We need not accordingly make the figure a la instead of an arra, as suggested by some commentators. (ii) Dandin has not apparently given an illustration for at ETAT. The stanza zi. 362 (op. i1. 226ab) supplies the deficit. But it is omitted in most Mss. and Cb quotes the stanza with the remark - CTET अप्युदाहरणमन्यत्र द्रष्टव्यम् । It may be added in passing that Bhoja gives as his example for this kind of gult (which he calls तिलतण्डुलसंसृष्टि) the extra stanza पिनष्टीव तरङ्गाप्रैः etc. mentioned in the variants to ii. 226 above. Even the YLEY at does not notice ii. 362; and surely it would have been possible for Dandin, without repeating himself, to give another instance for Ferdafe if he had thought it necessary. We should in this connection recall the fact that Dandin has not given illustrations for all the act or the recruit varieties. Compare our Commentary to ii. 104 ff. Notes to II: 363.-(i) Of the three figures-of-speech contained in ii. 361 the relation between and aperti is perhaps much more immediate than that between अर्थान्तरन्यास and उपमा; but it would be incorrect to suggest that the former is अङ्गाङ्गिभाव.and the latter समकक्षता. All the same, w forms, 48 Dandin himself says ii. 313, the ingredient of quite a large number of figures, with ·215 ) Notes" [M. 363 which it generally has an FIFH19 relation. Compare our Note to ii. 313 and the illustrations in ii. 28, ii. 87, ii. 159, ii. 185, etc. In fact there is no figure-of-speech the charm of which cannot be heightened by introducing an element of money into it somewhere. Of course the charm resulting from paronomasia is artificial and so cannot be said to reflect accurately the charm of the original object in Na ture which the poem seeks to describe in the most effective and agreeable fashion. Paronomasia is like the frame of the picture. It can set off the beauty of the portrait: but the beauty of the portrait must be there. Svabhāvokti is the beauty of the portrait, Vakrokti is the contribution of the frame-maker, (ii) It is thus evident that Vakrokti is Dandin's general name for any rhetorical device used to garnish or embellish some normal matter-of-fact description or narration. As the gaiguis remarks-- FantAH 79T- वस्थितपदार्थरूपकथनम् वक्रोक्तिर्नाम यथावस्थितमन्यथीकृत्य । अत्र उपमादयः संकीर्णपर्यन्ता वक्रोक्तिषु पतिताः स्वभावोक्तिः पुनराद्यालंकार इति। We should in this connection recall Dandin's earlier assertion (ii. 13) about Fhialitatea Hirosquaalioah ! Mahimabhatta in his Vyaktiviveka (Triv. Sans. Series ed. p. 28) is more precise on the point. Quoting the view, presumably, of Kuntaka the author of Eiftrisitilaa (a work which has been brought to light only a few months ago in a solitary and fragmentary ms. from the South ) he says-IEFTIGROTTE foameaifa- रेकि यद्वैचित्र्यं तन्मात्रलक्षणं वक्रत्वं नाम काव्यस्य जीवितमिति सहृदयमानिनः केचिदाचक्षते । The वैचित्र्य of a Sastra proceeds from its description of facts as facts. In a poem the fasz is, in the words of Jayaratha (p 8), a magamfaaraa re, or as another puts it, a Hrafona:1 Compare also- प्रसिद्ध मार्गमुत्सृज्य यत्र वैचित्र्यसिद्धये । अन्यथैवोच्यते सोर्थः सा वक्रोक्तिरुदाहृता ॥ (iii) Bhāmaha's conception of staff can be gathered from the following passages in his work-(i. 36) वक्राभिधेयशब्दोत्तिरिष्टा वाचामलंकृतिः-where वक्रोक्ति is given as a part of his definition of alamkārs; (cp. Abhinava.

·ii.363-] Kavyādaria [216 gupta's comment-शब्दस्य हि वक्रता अभिधेयस्य व वक्रता लोकोत्तीर्णेन रूपेणावस्थानमित्ययमेवासावलंकारस्यालंकारान्तरभावः); (i. 30)-युक्तं वक्र- स्वभावोक्त्या सर्वमेवैतदिष्यते-where he tells us, like Dandin, that वक्रोक्ति and स्वभावोक्ति constitute the contents of all poetic writing: (ii. 34,35)-where he intends to say that the वैदर्भी style, in spite of its प्रसाद, ऋजुता, or कोमलत्व, will be no better than a sweet choppy music, if devoid of पुष्टाथता and वक्रोक्ति, and that, per contra, Gaudiya pos try with its many alamkāras, provided it is not vulgar or confusing and has some sense to convey, is also not unasceptable; and lastly the oft-quoted verse (ii. 85)-- सैषा सर्वैव (v. 1, सर्वत्र) वक्रोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते । यत्नोस्यां कविना कार्यः कोलंकारोनया विना। which, coming as it does in connection with his treatment of अतिशयोक्ति, leads to the equation अतिशयोक्ति-वक्रोक्ति which Mammata (x. p 906) and Hemachandy (p. 267) distinctly lay down-सर्वत्र विषयेतिशयोक्तिरेव प्राणत्वेनावतिष्ठते । तां विना प्रायेणालंकारत्वायोगात् । Other testimony to this extended application of the term an is Alamkārasarvasva (p.8)- वक्रोक्तिजीवितकारः पुनर्वैदग्ध्यभगीभणितिस्वभावां बहुविधां वक्रोक्तिमेव प्राधान्यात् काव्यजीवितमुक्तवान् । व्यापारस्य प्राधान्यं च काव्यस्य प्रतिपेदे । अभिधान- प्रकारविशेषा एव चालंकाराः। ........ । उपचारवक्रतादिभिः समस्तो ध्वनिप्रपञ्चः स्वीकृतः । कैवलमुक्तिवैचित्र्यजीवितं काव्यं न व्यङ्गयार्थजीवितमिति तदीयं दर्शनं व्यवस्थितम् । And again (p. 177)-वक्रोक्तिशब्दश्चालंकारसामान्यवचनी- पीहालंकारविशेषे संज्ञितः। To the same effect also अभिनवगुप्त in his ध्वन्यालोकलोचन (p. 208)- यातिशयोक्तिलक्षिता सैव सर्वा वक्रोक्तिः अलंकारप्रकारः सर्वः।...... ......। लोकोत्तरेण चैवातिशयः तेनातिशयोक्तिः सर्यालंकारसामान्यम् । Compare also Kavyadarsa ii. 220. (iv) As against this earlier conception of वक्रोक्ति (or अतिशयोक्ति) given by Bhāmaha, Dandin, Kuntaka and others, we have the subsequent restriction of it to a specific figure-of-speech defined by Ruyyaka (p. 175) as-अन्यथोक्तस्य वाक्यस्य काकुश्लेषाभ्यामन्यथा योजनम् । and illustrated by अहो केनेशी बुद्धिर्दारुणा तव निर्मिता । त्रिगुणा श्रूयते बुद्धिने तु दारुमयी क्वचित् ॥ Another illustration given by Kuvalayananda (st. 158) is मुंश्च मान दिनं [मा नन्दिनं] प्राप्तं नेह नन्दी इरान्तिके । Rudrata (ii. 14-11), Mammata dir, P.593), Hemachandra (p. 234), . ........

·217 ] Notes (-ii. 363 Vidyānātha (p, 410), and most later writers have the same limited conception of pallati, which some go to the length of regarding as a शब्दालंकार only Rudrata (x 9) gives besides a variety of my called me (v) As coming between these two conceptions of a starth, though not therefore necessarily forming the transition between them, is Våmana's conception of वक्रोक्ति as (IV i118)-साध्झ्याल्लक्षणा वक्रोक्तिः। A लक्षणा, the Kamadhenu explains, is possible in five ways अभिधेयेन संबन्धात् e. g. द्विरेफ-मर-भृङ्ग; मादृश्यात् e.g सिहो माणवकः (a case of वक्रोक्ति), समवायत: e.g. गङ्गाया घोषः, वैपरीत्यात् eg बृहस्पतिरयं मूर्ख ; and, Fyrima e. g. Atla HT 1977 Vakrokti is thus, according to Vāmana, a metaphorical mode of poetic expression, while Dandin regarded it as any striking mode of poetic expression. If we now recall that to Vāmana all figures-of-speech are उपमाप्रपञ्च only, while they are वक्रोक्तिप्रपञ्च or अतिशयोक्तिप्रपञ्च to the earlier school, it will be perhaps evident that between Vāmana's conception of an and that of Dandin, Bhāmaba, and others there is not that wide gulf that is sometimes made out. (vi) At the same time, comparing Kāvyādarśa il. 93–94 with Vâmapa's example for qualithi, viz. उन्मिमील कमलं सरसीनां कैरवं च निमिमील मुहूर्तात् (अत्र नेत्रधर्मावुन्मीलन- FAHISA ATERALIQ Terpal septa.) it is evident, as Jacobi has said (Z. D. M G., vol. lxiv, p. 130 ff), that Vāmana has turned what was a गुण (समाधि in Dandin, प्रसाद in Bharata xvi, 95) into an stars. Samadhi is declared, like allti and Bartlei, as the all-in-all (ii. 100) of poetry; and it is difficult to talk of more than one thing in the superlative and yet maintain a distinction between them, especially if we remember that with Vāmana the boundary-line between Gunas and alamkāras was very vague indeed (cp. II. 3. 172-EiT2TYTT: कारो धर्मा गुणाः तदतिशयहेतवस्त्वलंकाराः) As far as the facts of the case go, we have no definite ground to regard Vāmana's treatment of a fi as either a forerunner or 23 (Kavyadarsa ] ·11. 363-] Kavyādarsu 1218 a subsequent development of Dandin's and Bhāmaha's conception of the same. Even if Udbhata, Bhamaha's commentator, is to be regarded as a rival contemporary of Vāmana, yet Vāmana may have persisted in following his own indendent अलंकारसंप्रदाय. The chronological relation between Dandin and Vamana cannot be made to turn upon their account of वक्रोक्ति. (vii) The ultimate conception of वक्रोक्ति as a शब्दालंकार cannot be genetically connected with either Dandin's or Vāmana's conception of the same. The art of speaking at cross purposes was regarded as an accomplishment of a cultured beauty (महिलागुण), and it is conceivable that it was raised to the digpity of a regular alamkāra irrespective of what the Texts had already to say about the other वक्रोक्ति Notes to II 364-366-(i) Compare Note (111) to ii 13 above. The normal conception of Bhāvika found in Ruyyaka (p. 178), Mammata (x, p. 822), and Visvanātha (x. 93-94), and most later writers is contained in the fol. lowing definition of it in the Kavyaprakasa-प्रत्यक्षा इच अद्भावाः क्रियन्ते भूतभाविनः । तद्भाविकम्. Some writers add to this the further condition that the object (779) should be अत्यद्भुत, and should be expressed in vivid and nonconfusing terms (वाचामनाकुल्येन) An example of a past incident revivified is Mrichchhakatika (ili. 6)- तं तस्य स्वरसंक्रमं मृदुगिर' श्लिष्टं च तन्त्रीस्वनं वर्णानामपि मूर्छनान्तरगतं तारं विरामे मृदुम् । हेलासंयमितं पुनश्च ललितं रागविरुचारित यत्सत्यं विरतेपि गीतसमये गच्छामि शृण्वन्निव ॥ For a future incident anticipatorily glimpsed Ruyyaka (p. 182) gives the instance- अनातपत्रोष्ययमत्र लक्ष्यते सितातपरिव सर्वतो वृतः। अचामरोप्येष सत्तेव वीज्यते विलासबालव्यजनेन कोप्ययम् ॥ (ii) In accordance with this later conception of the figure its name is explained as-भावः कवभिप्रायोनास्तीति। or (अलं० स०, p. 178)-कब्गितो भाव आशयः श्रोतरि प्रतिबिम्बत्वेनास्तीति। भाची भावना वा पुनः पुनश्चेतसि निवेशनम् सोनास्तीति । This etymology ·219 ) Notes { ii. 366 probably goes back to Kāvyādarsa ii 364cd, where howevei Ha apparently is used in a rather peculiar sense We would there translate it by Sustained Intuition especially as Dandın makes it a sarayu Bhämaha also calls it (11. 52) a Taralaryu laying down for it the four-fold requirement, viz चित्रोदात्ताद्भुतार्थत्वं कथाया. स्वभिनीयता। शब्दानाकुलता चेति तस्य हेतुं प्रचक्षते ॥ But Dandin's requirements for the figure as enume. rated in 11 365-366 seem to be peculiar to him, as also his whole conception of the same, wherein he is probably following a tradition distinct from that of Bhāmaha Bhoja's conception of Bhavika (which he identifies with , 10, 85-86) is so very far removed from the two conceptions discussed hitherto that it need not be here taken into consideration at all (iii) The Bhävika of later writers is distinguishable from the गुण called प्रसाद, the रस named अद्भुत, and अलकारS like स्वभावोक्ति or भ्रान्तिमान् or अतिशयोक्ति Compare साहित्यदर्पण (r. p 574f.)---न चायं प्रसाढाख्यो गुणः भूतभाविनो प्रत्यक्षायमाणत्वे तस्या- हेतुत्वात् । न चाद्भुतो रसः विस्मयं प्रत्यस्य हेतुत्वात् । न चातिशयोक्तिरलंकार अभ्यवसायाभावात् । न च भ्रान्तिमान् भूतभाविनोभूतभावितयैव प्रकाशनात् । न च स्वभावाक्ति. तस्या लौकिकवस्तुगलसूक्ष्मधर्मस्वभावस्यैव यथावर्णन रूपम अस्य तु वस्तुन' प्रत्यक्षायमाणत्वरूपो विच्छित्तिविशेषोस्तीति। Hemachandra however refuses to admit this figure. He says (p 293)-भाविकं तु भूतभाविपदार्थप्रत्यक्षीकारात्मकमभिनेयप्रबन्ध एव भवति । यद्यपि मुक्तकादौ दृश्यते तथापि न तत् स्वदते । (10) Confining our attention to Dandin's own conception of Hifare it will be observed that Dandin's treatment of it is quite in place, coming as it does after his treatment of astri,' whereas, it is not quite clear why Bhāmaha should have called his Hifaer a saralaenu Bhāvika is the quality belonging to a poem taken as a whole, and it suggests the formulation of questions like.--Is there a meaning to the whole ? Is it consistently carried out? Is there a harmony and proportion of parts? Is it a clear and self-sufficient theme? These are questions of higher ·Kanyadarsa [. criticism; and it is creditable to Dandin that he has recognised their importance and made room for them on his treatment of poetry. Notes to II. 867-368-(i) Having considered a poem from the point of view of bigber criticism and constructive technique, Dandin is naturally led to think of the dramatic Nodes and their minor constituents, or the Rhetorioal-mudes and their further literary distribution, these being respectively treated at length in the Natyaśāstra, Chapters mix and xx. Dandin here permits the possibility of an application of similar critical canon to the appreciation of poetry It is to be wished however that Dandın had made himself more explicit. For vrittis compare our Note (ii) to 1 40. (it) Here again, as at the end of the first Parichcheda, Da din empha-1509, for an epiring poet, the necessity 05 constant practice Repetrtro mate studiorum ->