·No text on this page.

·Kāvyādarsa of Dandin
NOTES
PARICHCHHEDA II

·No text on this page.

·PARICHOHHEDA II Notes to II, 1-(i) Compare Note (i) to i. 10. Kāvya, according to Dandin, isaalangal 961987; 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 Alamkaras which serve as decoration, must belong to the word-element, the aer, exclusively; for, the faequrs, the subordinate elements of the Body, have also their own decorations. Thus there is no inconsistency in Dandin's having defined Kävya as he has done and then having divided the Alamkáras (and impliedly the Gunas also--op. Note (i) to i. 41) into those belonging to word and those belonging to sense. Modern Alamkārikas such as Mammata, haying once subordinated both the word as well as the sense to Rase, are constrained to regard the Gunas as well as the Alamkāras as belonging to Rasa, the angın. For a criticism of this view see our Note (iii) to i 41 and the Sanskrit Commentary to the present stanza. (ii) The distinct function of the Gunas and the Alamkäras is brought out by Dandin by calling the former the life-breaths and the latter the ornaments of poetry. The Gunas abide in poetry #HOTTESTET while the Alamkāras FerTETIT ; there is between them a distinction in kind,-a distinction which later became one of degree, as with ath (iii. 1. 1-2) or with air (p. 17)-गुणाः खलु काव्यशोभाहेतवो धर्माः । येषां तु गुणोपजनितशोभे काव्ये शोभातिशयहेतुत्वं तेलंकाराः। Compare however the following from अलंकारशेखर, p 20- अलंकृतमपि श्रव्यं न काव्यं गुणवर्जितम् । गुणयोगस्ततो मुख्यो गुणालंकारयोगयो । अलंकारसहस्रः कि गुणो यदि न विद्यते । विक्रीयन्ते न घण्टाभिर्गावः क्षीरविवर्जिताः ॥ Compare also (Agnipurāna, 346. 1)- अलंकृतमपि प्रीत्यै न काव्यं निर्गुणं भवेत् । वपुष्यललिते स्त्रीणां हारो भारायते परम् Mammata's अनलंकृती पुनः कापि implies the same thing. 11 ·ii. 1-1 Kävyādarsa (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 note. Our Introduction has attempted a rapid review of the main stages reached during the process, to which the reader is therefore referred. It would be noted in this place that Dandin must have lived at a time when the development of the Alamkāras in the way of progressive division and subdivision was in full swing; and he seems to have been anxious rather to give an epitomized statement of the principal results arrived at than to add his own quota to the process of amplification. In fact he has even had to reject some of the Alamkāras recognised by his predecessors (cp. ii. 358-359 and notes thereon). 9 Notes to II. 2-(i) The fundamenta divisionis of the Alamkāras have been variously stated in different texts. The simplest division into शब्दगत and अर्थगत, even after the addition of a third class of 347a, 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 Alamkārasarvasva, and particularly the following list based upon the Pratāparudriya (pp. 338- 339) (wherein the Alamkāras not recognised by Dandin are shown in square brackets |-- रूपक, [ परिणाम, संदेह, भ्रान्तिमत् , उल्लेख, ] अपहृति,- based on 3THESTETIST दीपक, तुल्ययोगिता, [ दृष्टान्त,] निदर्शना, [प्रतिवस्तूपमा,] सहोक्ति, [प्रतीप,] व्यतिरेक,-based on भेदप्रधान- साधर्म्य; उपमा, [अनन्वय, उपमेयोपमा, स्मरण,]-based on भेदाभेदसाधारण- .

·69 ] Notes 1-11.2 . उत्प्रेक्षा, अतिशयोक्ति,-based on अत्यवसाय विभावना, विशेषोक्ति, [विषम, चित्र, असंगति, अन्योन्य, व्याघात, अतद्गुण,] भाविक, [विशेष,]--based on विरोध; यथासंख्या, [ परिसंख्या, अर्थापत्ति, विकल्प, समुच्चय, ]-based on वाक्यन्यायः परिवृत्ति, [प्रत्यनीक, तद्गुण, समाधि( = समाहित), [सम,] स्वभावोक्ति, उदात्त [विनोक्ति,]-basd cn लोकव्यवहार ; [काव्यलिङ्ग. अनुमान,] अर्थान्तरन्यास,-based on तकन्याय ; [कारणमाला, एकावली, मालादीपक, सार,]-based on शृखलावैचित्र्य; [व्याजोक्ति, वक्रोक्ति, मीलन,]-based on अपह्नव; and समासोक्ति, परिकर,]-based on विगेपणचिच्य. 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 Dandin the following 14 are not included in the above list -आवृत्ति, आक्षेप, हेतु, सूक्ष्म, लेश, प्रेयस् , रस- वत , ऊर्जस्विन् , पर्यायोक्त, लिष्ट, 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, अप्रस्तुतप्रशमा, व्याजस्तुति and आगीः will have to be classed as नाट्यालंकारs, i.e., merely as effective modes of expression, such as those enumerated by Bharata in the beginning of the 16th chapter of the Nātyaśāstra. The tendency towards a wanton increase merely in the number of the Alamkāras (and of subdivisions within an Alamkāra), which marked the latest phase in the history of the Alamkāraśāstra, made any attempt to trace the Alamkāras to their aimsuch as Dandin contemplates-au altogether hopeless task. (ii) But already in some quarters, as in the case of the Gunas,-see note (ii) toi 41-a revolt against this gratuitous multiplication of entities had begun to assert itself. Thus Hemachandra rejects परिकर, यथासख्य, विनोक्ति, भाविक, उदात्त, रसवत् , प्रेयस्. ऊर्जस्विन् , भाव, समाहित, आशी:, and rate as distinct Alamkāras--and some of them, it will be seen, are recognised even by Dandin and Bhāmaha. Udbhata's Kāvyālamkārasārasamgraha is . . क .

·Kävyädarta [ 70 APELERDE 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 Sauddhodani) lays down with emphasis (p. 29).-- Få erreicforTzee21 9 4192 stating further (p. 38) that he has justified the position he has taken in his 37037rfa, a work which apparently has not come down to us Dandin, it will be noted, holds a middle position between the two extremes of needless amplification and unwarrantable curtailment (iii) Who the getards are that Dandin had in his mind it is difficult to decide. As the treatment of the Alamkāras in Bharata, or in the Agnipurāna for the matter of that, is very meagre these cannot have been intended by him; and as to Bhāmaha, since his list of Alamkāras (cp. ii. 4, ii. 66, ii. 86, i1. 88, ii. 93, 1ij 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 Dandın, it is doubtful if Dandin would regard Bhamaha-even though he be his predecessoras one of the geniaris referred to in the present stanza. On this point see further our Introduction It seems that a large mass of literature known to Dandin is now lost to us. Cp. note (ii) to i. 2. The Commentary argue enumerates, amongst Dandin's predecessors, 79, ब्रह्मदत्त, and नन्दिस्वामि, names otherwise almost unknown. Notes to II, 3-(1) Dandin here admits that as regards the Alamkāras there is no difference of practice between the Vaidarbhas and the Gaudas (साधारणमलंकारजातम्); 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 947124 Tus 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 Alamkaras (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, e. g. Mammaţa, have not obliged their would-be students in this manner, and just as in the case of Mammata a commentator bas added a versified enumeration at the beginning of the tenth Ullasa (although never as a part of Mammata's own work), so, it seems to us, must have been the case with Dandın. 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. 59, 315768AFTS) appear under strange, and others (e.g Pagt for at under misleading, names. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that Ächārya Dandin could not have avoided such solecisms and ambiguities if he had meant it. (1i) Vibhāvana is often rendered as Presumption, --but that is a name that we must reserve for sferici, which is 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 Tender the figure antallet as it is ordinarily defined. Dandin's account of the figure is however a little bit different. See below. (ii) The latter half of this stanza is identical with Bhãmaha ni 66, first half. Notes to II. 5-(i) The second half of this staza is identical with Bhämaha iii. 1, first half. We have already commented upon the name 'Lava' Later Alam få rikas make a distinction between the figure called ·المعما ii. 5a Kavyadarsa ( 72 FHTO (which is the same as Dandin's HHTES) and the figure समाहित which is a रसमूल Alankara 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 HIT approaches the hipaju ( cp note (ii) to i. 93-92), while he does not at all recognise the 155 Alamkāra called hita in other texts. Bhoja, however, agiees with Dandin in calling by the name 716 the figure named समाधि by मम्मट and others. Notes to II. 6-(i) We have already commented upon the use of the abbreviated name feste for faster. Višesha as a figure distinct from a tien is recognised, amongst others, by Rudrata, Ruyyaka, Mammata, Viśvanātha, and Jagannatha 7 Notes to II.7-(i) The figure 33ft. recognised by Dandin is recognised by no other Alamkārika except Bhämaha and Vägbhata the author of the Kävyānusāsana. It should be noted, however, that the name OCCUIS amongst the 36 effective literary devices mentioned by Bharata in the beginning of the 16th Chapter Bhävika usually translated by Vision will have to be rendered, consistently with Dandin's explanation of the term, by some such expression as Sustained- Intuition. 9 Notes to II, 8(i) Besides the two names for this figure given by Dandin the figure is also called Fara (aran कारशेखर, p. 35) and स्वरूप (अग्निपुराण 344. 3); while रुदट groups this figure along with a number of others under the head of grede figures, i. e., those that have the portrayal of the thing-as-it-is as their object. Compare (viii. 10-12)- वास्तवमिति तज्ज्ञेयं क्रियते वस्तुस्वरूपकथनं यत् । पुष्टार्थमविपरीतं निरुपममनतिशयमश्वेषम् ॥

·731 Notes [-11.8 तस्य सहक्तिसमुच्चयजातियथासंख्यभावपर्यायाः। विपमानुमानदीपकपरिकरपरिवृत्तिपरिसंख्याः ।। हेतुः कारणमाला व्यतिरेकोन्योन्यमुत्तरं सारम् । सूक्ष्मं लेशोवसरो मीलितमेकावली भेदाः ॥ The first question that has to be determined in re. gard to this figure is whether a mere photographic faithfulness to the object under description is what is demanded. Can we for instance regard the following from भामह (ii. 94)- आक्रोशन्नाह्वयन्नन्यानाधावन् मण्डलै रुदन् । गा वारयति दण्डेन डिम्भः सस्यावतारणीः ।। as a valid example of स्वभावोक्ति ? On this point opinion seems to have been divided. at any rate, some of the earlier writers did not think it necessary to specifically formulate the requirements of this figure, although it must have been all along assumed that वैचित्र्य, strikingness, that sane gua non of all अलंकारs, would be demanded in the case of this 3470TT also. When the question was actually asked, there was no doubt as to the answer to be given. Thus Ruyyaka says (p. 177)-इह वस्तुस्वभाववर्णनमात्रं नालंकारः । तत्त्वे सति सर्व काव्यमलंकारः 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)-स्वभावोक्तिर्दुरूहार्थस्वक्रियारूपवर्णनम् । (11) Bhoja finds it necessary to distinguish this figure from the [Artha-guna called अर्थव्यक्ति, which he understands in a sense different from that of Dandin (compare our Sanskrit Commentary to i. 73, p. 83). But his distinction- अर्थव्यक्तेरियं[-जातिः] भेदमियता प्रतिपद्यते । जायमानमियं वक्ति रूपं सा सार्वकालिकम् ॥ is not always observed, and Mammata was perhaps justified in regarding the अर्थव्यक्तिगुण defined as वस्तुस्वभाव- स्फुटत्वम् as comprehended under the figure स्वभावोक्ति. 10 K.'yadarsa) ·ii. 9. teret Kāvyādarta [ 74 Notes to II. 9-13–(i) Besides the classification given by Dandin, which has for its basis the fourfolds #9 of words recognised by the grammarians (cf. = 316Tai प्रवृत्तिः । जातिशब्दा गुणशब्दाः क्रियाशब्दा यदृच्छाशब्दाश्च । Mahabhashya I. 19), Svabhāvokti can also he differentiated into various sorts according to its आश्रय, स्वरूप, and हेतु. The आश्रय is the theme ; and this can be अर्भक, तिर्यक्, मुग्धागना, and the like. Svarūpa indicates the particular aspect which is chosen for description, and this can be (A) बुद्धिपूर्वक शरीरावयवसंनिवेशः or संस्थान, (B) अबुद्धिकारितः शरीरावयवसं- निवेशः or अवस्थान, (C) वेष, and (D) व्यापार By are meant the particular conditions of I, I, I, etc. which are adduced to lend probability to the theme under description. For details see Bhoja iii. 6-8 and the examples there given. (ii) The tendency of most writers is to make short shrift with this figure, which is rather a pity, for, apart from simile and other embellishments, there is & considerable skill involved in the process of observation and the subsequent operation of chosing the details and marshalling them out in an effective order It is the presence of this very skill in a pre-eminent degree which makes those long descriptive passages in writers like Scott such fascinating reading. Not that there is no nature-description in Sanskrit poetry ; poets like Kālidāsa and Bhavabhūti- and the Epics above all contain many a descriptive passage that can stand comparison with the best in other literatures ; but quite as often the description has been vitiated by the intrusion of the subjective factor and a penchant for pretty turns and quaint conceits which lend an unpleasant artificiality to the whole. Primitive poetry depends for its effect almost exclusively upon Svabhavokti. (iii) There are two figures more or less allied to Svabhāvokti that have to be distinguished from it. The figure 5GTET (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] Notes [-11.14 tinctly laid down (Bhoja, iii. 8)-मुग्धाइनार्भकस्तिर्यड्नीचपात्राणि चाश्रयः। Further, as understood by later writers, the exalted theme in the case of the EGIT must always be brought in subordinately (उपलक्षणतया), although Dandin does not lay down this condition. The other figure allied to Svabhāvokti is Bhāvika (ii. 364), taking it in the sense in which भामह, उद्भट, मम्मट and others understand it and not in the peculiar sense which Dandin 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 reha. bilitate the past or to visualise the future. For further remarks on the subject compare our Notes to ii. 364ff. Notes to II. 14-(i) A few leading definitions of Upamă given by other writers are- Bharata (Nātyaśāstia xvi. 42) --- यत्किचित् काव्यवन्धेषु सादृश्येनोपमीयते । उपमा नाम मा बेया गुणाकृतिसमाश्रया ।। Agnipurāna (344 6)- उपमा नाम सा यस्यामुपमानोपमेययोः । सत्ता चान्तरसामान्ययोगित्वेपि(?) विवक्षितम् ॥ किचिदादाय सारूप्यं लोकयात्रा प्रवर्तते । Udbhata in the Kavyālamkarasamgraha (P. 16)-- यच्चेतोहारि साधर्म्यमुपमानोपमेययोः । मिथो विभिन्नकालादिशब्दयोरुपमा तु तत् ॥ Rudrata (Kavyālamkara, viii. 4)- उभयो समान के गुणादि सिद्धं भवेद्यर्थेकत्र। अर्थन्यत्र तथा तत साध्यत इति मोपमा द्वेधा ॥ Bhamaha (ii. 30)---- विरुद्धेनोपमानेन देशकालक्रियादिभिः । उपमेयस्य यत् साम्य गुणलेशेन सोपमा ।। Vāmana (Kāvyālamkārasūtra, IV. ii. 1)- उपमानेनोपमेयस्य गुणलेशतः साम्यमुपमा !

·ii. 14-] Kavyadarsa 176 : WINGuna Bhoja (Sarasvatikanthābharana, iv. 5)-- प्रसिद्धरनुरोधेन यः परस्परमर्थयोः। भूयोवयवसामान्ययोगः सेहोपमा मता ॥ Ruyyaka (P. 25) उपमानोपमेययो. साधम्ये भेदाभेदतुल्यत्वे उपमा । Mammata (x. 1)-- साधर्म्यमुपमा भेद। Vagbhatalamkara (1v. 50)----- उपमानेन सादृश्यमुपमेयस्य यत्र सा। प्रत्ययाव्ययतुल्यार्थसमासैरुपमा मता ॥ Vagbhata (Kavyanusasana, P. 33)- चमत्कारिसाम्यमुपमा । सा प्रत्ययाव्ययतुल्यार्थसमासैश्चतुर्धा । Hemachandra (Kavyanusasana, P. 239)- हृद्यं साधर्म्यमुपमा Vidyādhara (Ekāvali, viii. 2) विलसति सति साधम्र्ये स्यादुपमानोपमेययोरुपमा । Vidyānātha (Pratāparudrīya, P. 351)- स्वतःसिद्धन भिन्नेन समतेन च धर्मतः । साम्यमन्येन वर्णस्य वाच्यं चेदेकदोपमा । Visvanātha (Sahityadarpana, x. 14)- साम्यं वाच्यमवैधर्म्य वाक्यक्य उपमा द्वयोः । Appayyadikshita (Chitramimansa, P. 6)- उपमानोपमेयत्वयोग्ययोरर्थयोईयोः । हृद्यं साधर्म्यमुपमेत्युच्यते काव्यवेदिभिः ।। Jagannātha (Rasagangādhara, P. 157) माझ्यं सुन्दर वाक्यार्थोपस्कारकमुपमालंकृतिः । Visvesvara (Alamkarakaustubha, P.4)---- एकवाक्यवाच्यं सादृश्य भिन्नयोरुपमा । . (ii) It will be noticed that all these definitions of the Alamkarikas agree in the main. The यथाकथंचित् in Dandin's definition, which has its analogue in the definitions of the Nātyaśāstra and the Agnipurāna, implies that the similarity is largely staratetafenn and that it may hold in respect of any conceivable aspect or aspects of the two things to be compared. This neces- ·77] Notes [-i1. 14 sarily requires that the objects be two in reality; and it is this implication that has been expressly brought out by qualifications such as मिथो विभिन्नदेशकालादिशब्दयोः, द्वयोः, भेदे or भिन्नयोः । The word 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 ययोस्तो सधर्माणौ तयोर्भावः) for the simpler सादृश्य, as also some late qualifications like, एकवाक्यवाच्य (उपमेयोपमायां वाक्यद्वयम् तदतिव्याग्तिवारणाय), उपमानोपमेयत्वयोग्ययोः, etc. serve to exclude from the sphere of 39HT such varieties as अन्योन्योपमा, अद्भुतोपमा, मोहोपमा, संशयोपमा, निर्णयोपमा, प्रतिषेधोपमा, असाधारणोपमा, प्रतिवस्तूपमा, and तुल्ययोगोपमा which Dandin embraces under the general term 4T but which later Alamkārikas raised to the dignity of independent figures. Dandin's conception of 341, and of JEA which is its basis, is thus very wide and general. (iii) We have already given above (Note (i) to ii. 2) Vidyānātha's list of figures based on similarily, and the extracts in our Commentary (P 129) sufficiently illustrate this point. The fundamental importance of the relation of semblance was indeed very early perceived. The Agnipurana for instance divides सादृश्यम (defined as धर्मसामान्यम् ) into उपमा, रूपक, सहोक्ति and अर्थान्तरन्यास and रुद्रट similarly defines औपस्यम् as (viii 1)- सम्यक् प्रतिपादयितुं स्वरूपतो वस्तु तत्समानमिति । वस्त्वन्तरमभिद याद्वक्ता यस्मिस्तदौपम्यम् ॥ and enumerates the following figures as based upon that relation- उपमोत्प्रेक्षारूपक अपह्नतिः संशयः समासोक्ति। मतमुत्तरमन्योक्ति प्रतीपमर्थान्तरन्यासः ॥ उभयन्यासभ्रान्तिमढाक्षेपप्रत्यनीकदृष्टान्ताः । पूर्वसहोक्तिसमुच्चयसाम्यस्मरणानि तद्भेदाः ॥ The justification for the enumeration of these and others) as distinct figures (and not mere varieties of उपमा) should consist in the circumstance that the सादृश्य- मूलकवैचित्र्य in these figures is subordinated to some other वैचित्र्य (of identity, doubt, error, contrast, etc.). Dandin at least, as we will presently see, brought in this ·iii. 14--1 Kavyadarsa 178 other fast as the basis for a distinctive figure none too frequently; and hence it is that Dandin has been able to get on with fewer figures but with larger subvarieties under each figure than most writers. (iv) 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 34H in the sense of the highest: cp.-दधो यत् केतुमुपमं समत्सु (vii. 30. 3); or preeminent : cp, ईयुषी'णामुपमा शव॑तीनाम् (i. 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 (xii 5 1.5). (v) The Niruktakāra Yāska has an elaborate note on the use of 4 in the Rigveda. After pointing out (i. 4, iii. 15f.) that the निपातs इव, न, चित् , and नु as also यथा, था, आ. वत् are under certain circumstances used उपमार्थे he says (iii. 13ff.)-यदतत् तत्सदृशमिति गार्यः । तदासा कर्म । ज्यायसा वा गुणेन प्रख्याततमेन वा कनीयासं वाप्रख्यातं वोपमिमीते । अथापि कनीयसा ज्यायांसम्। Then he gives the following varieties of J4HT with their illustrations- कर्मोपमा यथा वातो यथा वनं यथा समुद्र एजति ( V. 78.8); भूतोपमा-मेषो भूतो भियन्नयः ( Viii. 2.40 ); रूपोपमा--हिरण्यरूपः स हिर॑ण्यसंदृक् (ii. 35.10 ); सिद्धोपमा-अङ्गिरस्वन्महिव्रत प्रस्कण्वस्य श्रुधी ह्वम (i 45.3); and लुप्तोपमा अर्थोपमा--सिह ( पूजायाम् ), काक ( कुत्यायाम् ). He has also elsewhere pointed out the influence of simile in the building up of the language (काक इति गव्दानु- कृतिः । तदिदं शकुनिषु बहुलम्, iii. 18, दुन्दुभिरिति शब्दानुकरणम् , ix. 12); in the formation of technical terms (उणाषिणी वेत्योपमिकम् , vii. 12, पिपीलिकम येत्योपमिकम् , vii. 13); and upon the growth of Vedic mythology in general (अपां च ज्योतिषश्च मिश्रीभावकर्मणो वर्षकर्म जायते तत्रोपमार्थेन युद्धवर्णा भवन्ति, ii. 16). , PAN ·Notes ii. 14 (vi) Only two of these varieties recognised by Yåske deserve a particular attention. What he calls 371147 is the 64 of the Alamkärikas, and Dandin's definition of that figure is suggestive in that connection: 342 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 fea of Yāska is what might be called a well-known or 9772 analogy. Compare in this connection the definition of the quoted above. This fhETHI contained in it the germ of what are known as graff fathers or popular rfs which, as we saw, were made the basis or act of a number of Alamkaras Interpreted more scientifically the 1471 eventually became a regular Shin called yafa which is a process of analogical knowledge from the known and the familiar to the unknown and the unfamiliar. Bhoja who recognises a distinct figure of speech corresponding to each of the several Pramānas of the Mimäñsakas (572727 Eithe gamut hat, iii. 3) defines the alamkāra called 34414 as follows: सदृशात् सदृशज्ञानमुपमानं द्विधेह तत् । स्यादेकमनुभूतेर्थेननुभूते द्वितीयकम् ॥ His example is - तां रोहिणी विजानीहि ज्योतिषामत्र मण्डले। समूहस्तारकाणा यः शकटाकारमाश्रितः ॥ Most people would probably fail to see any figure in the example or at least any valid ground for regarding it as a new figure. (vii) Having defined 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 नाट्यशास्त्र (Madras Govt ms. fol 390) observes:- Free fear उपमाभेदास्तत्र यो भेदकोशः आचिख्यासासंशयनिर्णयादिरर्थः स तादृक् पृथगलं- ATTHET Tiuia: 1 Bhāmaha's criticism (ii. 37 f.) is in the same vein, no matter whether it is directed against Dandın or soine other writer ·. . ७ ii.14-] Kavyādarsa 180 यदुक्तं त्रिप्रकारत्वं तस्याः कैश्चिन्महात्मभिः । निन्दाप्रशंसाचिख्यासाभेदादत्राभिधीयते ॥ सामान्यगुणनिदेशात् त्रयमप्युदित ननु । मालोपमादि सर्वापि न ज्यायान् विस्तरो मुधा ।। It has to be noted however that the Agnipuräna gives a classification of the 34hs analogous to that of Dandin [ viz:-धर्म, वस्तु, परस्पर, विपरीत, नियम, अनियम, समुच्चय, व्यतिरेक, बहु, माला, विक्रिया. अद्भुत. मोह, संशय, निश्चय, वाक्यार्थ, गमन ( रशना ?), प्रशंसा, निन्दा, कल्पिता, सदशी, and असदृशी], besides giving another classification into 18 sub-varieties similar to those of Mammata (344. 7-9 )- समासेनासमासेन सा द्विधा प्रतियोगिन. ॥ विग्रहादाभिधानस्य ससमासान्यथोत्तरा । उपमा द्योतपकदेनोपमेयपदेन च ॥ ताम्या च विग्रहात् त्रेधा ससमासान्तिमा त्रिधा । विशिष्यमाणा उपमा भवन्त्यष्टादश स्फुटा' ।। The varieties called निन्दा and प्रशंसा are even mentioned and illustrated by Bharata himself ( xvi 48 ff.), though neither Bharata nor the Agnipurāna mentions the EETTA1971, the main butt of attack. The author of the Alamkārasekhara gives the following ten subvarieties of उपमा (xi.3)- वाक्यार्थीतिशयश्लेपनिन्दाभतविपर्ययाः । संशयो नियम स्वं च विक्रियेत्युपमा दश ॥ But no other writer whose work is extant divides 3471 in the manner adopted by Dandin Dandin's classification is primitive and, so far as any principle underlies the division, it is just the sense intended by the speaker (अर्थानुरोधेन विभागः). (viii) We can here advantageously consider some other classifications of 4HT that have been advanced. There is one in particular which might be styled grammatical classification (व्याकरणप्रयोगानुरोधेन) which has been adopted by उद्भट (p 16), रुद्रट (viii. 5ff ), मम्मट and most other later writers. But it seems to be not unknown to the author of the Agnipu rāna (cp. 344. 8-9) who gives, as just mentioned. 18 varieties based on this principle as against Manmata's25. 'These last we will 110w exhibit in a tabular form- ·उपमा, 25 Kinds 81 ] Lavana 11 Kavyadarsa] quit, 6 Kinds लुप्ता, 19Kinds श्रीती, 3 Kinds आर्थी, 3 Kinds १ वाक्ये । २ समासे ३ तद्धिते ४ वाक्ये ५ समास ६ तद्धिते एकलप्ता, 13 Kinds द्विलुप्ता, 5 Kinds त्रिविाचकधर्मोपमान लुप्ता, 1 Kind २५ समासे वाचालुप्ता, 6 Kinds (all आर्थी) वनलप्ता, 5 Kinds उपमानलुता, Kinds Votes १२ आर्थी वाक्ये १३ आर्थी रामासे वाक्ये समासे ११ तद्धिते (आर्थी) । ७ श्रौती ८ आर्थी ९ श्रौती १० आर्थी । १४ समासे १५ कर्मक्याच १६ आधारक्यचि १७ क्यडि १८ कर्मणमुलि १९ कर्तृणमुलि वाचकधर्मठप्ता, 2 Kinds धापमानलुप्ता, 2 Kinds वाचकोपमयलसा, 1 Kand [ -ii. 14 २० विगा । २१ समासगा २२ समासे २३ वाक्ये २४ क्यचि ·ii.14-1 Kāvyādarsa [82 ७ Later writers have introduced further subtle complexities in this classification which is in the first place made to contain 7 more varieties, 3 under qui and 4 under gar and in the next place there is introduced a further principle of five-fold sub-classification : इयं चैवं- भेदोपमा वस्त्वलंकाररसरूपाणां प्रधानव्यगयाना वस्त्वलंकारयोर्वाच्ययोश्वोपस्कारक- नया चधा । इतश्चान्येपि प्रभेदाः कुशाग्रीयधिषणैः स्वयमुद्भावनीयाः। तत्र क्वचिदनगाम्येव धर्म. । क्वचिच्च केवलं बिम्वप्रतिविम्बभावमापन्न । क्वचिदुभयम्। क्वचिद्वस्तुप्रतिबस्तुभावेन करम्वितं विम्वप्रतिविम्बभावम् । क्वचिदसन्नप्युपचरितः । कचिच्च केवलशब्दात्मकः । एभिर्भेदैः प्रागुक्ताना सधर्माणां भेदाना यथासंभवं गुणने बहुतरा भेदा भवन्ति ( रसगङ्गाधर, p. 172 ff ) (1x) Another principle of division is suggested by Bhalata. (xvi 43)- एकस्यकेन सा कार्या एकस्य वहुभिस्तथा । अनेकेषा तथैकेन बहूनां बहुभिस्तथा ॥ For illustrations see अलंकारकोस्तुभ 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 a 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 497 where the सादृश्य (usually defined as तद्भिन्नत्वे सति तद्गतभूयो- धर्मवत्त्व) is तिरोभूत; and from उत्प्रेक्षा wherein, in spite of the occasional presence of words like 59, the matter of the similarity is not ofte but purely a creation of the poet's imagination Compare- यदायमुपमानांशो लोकतः सिद्धिमृच्छति । तदोपमैव येनेवशब्दः सादृश्यवाचकः ।। यदा पुनरयं लोकादसिद्ध कविकल्पितः । तदोत्प्रेक्षेव येनेवशब्दः संभावनापर। (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 मादृश्यस्य प्रतीयमानतामानाभिप्रायेणोपमाव्यवहारः । He has in fact .

·831 Notes 1 --ii. 16 given many a variety where no 9700646 is given and where the सादृश्य is only तात्पर्यपर्यालोचनया गम्यम् ; cp i1 25, 26,27 etc Dandin's whole conception of thT and his attempted olassification of it is very crude and unoriti. cal. Nor is there any attempt to present a systematic grouping of the varieties given. RaRASIRENSabwar mom Notes to II. 15-(1) This and the next variety have been thus defined in the Agnipurana (344 10)- यत्र साधारणो धर्म कथ्यते गम्यतेथवा । ते धभवस्तुप्राधान्याडर्मवस्तूपमे उभे ॥ The point of distinction between the two seems to be the fact that while in the first the 34414 is summoned up merely to bring out the nature of the उपमेयगतधर्म, in the second the GTG as a whole is compared with the guy as a whole, the two being regarded as entirely alike. (ii) The intended FreeTT can be expressed in various ways. by a simple word as in 11 15 (आताम्रम्), by श्लिष्ट epithets which are शब्दपरिवृत्तिसह as in ii. 28 ( see Com.), or by श्लिष्ट epithets which are शब्दपरिवृत्त्यसह as in ii. 29 (सालकानन) Again the साधारणधर्म may be made the theme of a solitary sentence as in 200 अम्भोरुहमिव आताम्रम् or of compound or coordinate sentences as in यथा करतलम् आताम्र 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 रक्तिमोद्भासितं चाम्भोरुहम् or the बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव ( वस्तुतो भिन्नयोधर्मयो. परस्परसादृश्याभिन्नयो. पृथगुपादानम् ) as in-अम्भोरुहं भ्रमद्भगं लोलनेत्रं मुखं तव where नेत्र and भृङ्ग 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 ROMANCHEENIMAuRem Notes to II. 16-(1) The first line gives two separte examples of वस्तूपमा. If we were to read the line-राजीव इव ·ii. 16-1 Kavgadarsa [84 ते वक्त्रे (Loc. case) नेत्रे मधुकराविव it would be the second kind of वाक्यर्थोपमा illustrated in ii. 45. Notes to II. 17-(1) This is recognised as distinct Alamkāra by रुद्रट, मय्यक, मम्मट, विश्वनाथ, जगन्नाथ and most other modern writers. The Sāhityadarpana defines it as (x. 87)- प्रसिद्धस्योपमानस्योपमेयत्वप्रकल्पनम् । निष्फलत्वाभिधानं वा प्रतीपमिति कथ्यते ॥ Dandin's enumeration of it as a variety of 34T has been thus criticised by Jayaratha, in his Alamkārasarvasva-Vimarsini (p 165)-उपमाप्रकारत्वं चानयोन वाच्यम् । उपमानस्याक्षेपादुपमेयकल्पनाच्च । न हि तत्र तदस्तीति ततोनयोः (प्रतीपप्रकारयोः) सुप्रत्यय एव भेद. । This in effect means that the satu has a. वैचित्र्य which does not necessarily go to the formation of the real essence of an उपमा But as Dandin began by making his definition of 3441 rather very wide, he had no option but to regard the said as a sub-variety It is so recognised by Bhoja (iv. 23) and by the Agnipurana (344. 12) where it is called विपरीतोपमा. (ii) This विपर्यासोपमा is to be distinguished from निन्दोपमा ( 11. 30) and प्रतिषेधोपमा (ii. 34) from the circumstance that the degradation of the HT469 is only implied in faueuletynt but is explicitly brought out in the other two varieties, stating points of inferiority in the उपमान. of उपमा. Notes to II. 18-(i) A good example of this variety would be हास प्रसूनमिव हास इव प्रसून पाणिः प्रवाल इव पाणिरिव प्रवालः । केशो द्विरफ इव केश इव द्विरफः 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 यामिन्यः । यामिनयन्ति दिनानि च सुखदुःखवशीकृते मनसि ॥

·851 Notes [-ii. 18 cannot constitute an अन्योन्योपमा, as the साधारणधर्म in सविता विधवति is गीतलत्व and that in विधुरपि सवितरति the दाहकत्व. (ii) This variety is raised to the dignity of a distinct figure called ETHTHT by later Ālamkārikas It has been defired by उद्भट as (p. 67)- अन्योन्यमेव यत्र स्यादुपमानोपमेयता। उपमेयोपमामाहुस्ता पक्षान्तरहानिगाम् ॥ Regarding the qualification पक्षान्तरहानिगाम् in the above definition प्रतीहारेन्दुराज observes-नात्र उपमानोपमेयभावे तात्पर्य कितु एतदेव द्वयमेवंविध विद्यते नत्वन्यदेतयो सदृशं वस्त्वन्तरं विद्यते इति । अतश्च एत. त्पक्षद्वितयव्यतिरिक्तस्य पक्षान्तरस्यात्र हानेर्विवक्षितत्वात् परस्परमुपमानोपमेयभावो न दुष्यति । It is doubtful however whether Dandin is here thinking of the तृतीयमदृशव्यवच्छेद as much as of the heightening of their mutual excellence - अन्योन्योत्कर्षशंसिनी. This implies that both the उपमेय and the उपमान must be प्रकृत, as nobody would spend any effort in showing forth to advantage the charm of what is not the theme on hand. Compare the examples given by हेमचन्द्र and अप्प- गदीक्षित as quoted in our Sanskrit Commentary. Bhoja ( iv. 23) calls this उभयोपमा. (iii) In नियमोपमा (ii. 19 ) the तृतीयसदशव्यवच्छेद is express. ly made. Here it is implied only. The implication is to be explained as follows-चन्द्र इव मुखमिति मुखे चन्द्रसाम्ये वर्णिते चन्द्रपि मुखमादृश्यमर्थतः सिव्यति साधारणधर्मस्योभयानुगामित्वात् । तत्र चन्द्रे मुखसाम्ये शब्दतो वर्ण्यमाने मुखचन्द्रयोः परस्परमेव साम्यं न त्वन्येनेति सदृशान्तरव्यवच्छेदः फलति ( अलंकारकौस्तुभ, p. 176). (iv) Bhāmaha recognises suhiqal as a distinct figure and it is worth observing that Dandin does not feel the necessity of criticising the recognition of the उपमे- योपमा as a distinct figure as he has done for instance in the case of अनन्वय, ससंदेह, उपमारूपक, and उत्प्रेक्षावयव (in 358- 359) all of which are figures admitted by Bhāmaha. Nor does Bhāmaha for his part offer any justification for regarding 342141 as a distinct figure. As for as this circumstance goes therefore we cannot establish any conclusion either way regarding the chronological retation between दण्डिन् and भामह.

·ii. 19-] Kavyddarsa [ 86 Notes to II. 19-20-(i) In अनियमोपमा the तृतीयसहशव्यवच्छेद is made highly probable but is not agreza In pratar it is openly asserted. In 342 1941, as we saw, it was left to be inferred Both these varieties are recognised by the Agnipurāna. The 37Note defines a 1971 as--7 इतरव्यावृत्त्या साम्यलाभ' । GMBH Notes to II, 21-(i) In The there is only a single common quality sought to be expressed; in the present variety a large number of these are mentioned ; in 3DTATTF1, 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 CE4HT ( ii. 40 ) more than one gun is adduced. The result is that while in the former between the 347 and the 94476 a number of distinct common qualities are sought to be conveyed, in the latter it is the intensity of the one self-same quality that stands out prominently The variety is recognised by the Agnipurāna. Notes to II. 22-(i) See Note (i) to ii. 21. This variety fails to produce the impression of an identity between the उपमेय and the उपमान because the भेद is not entirely failea, as happens in a ETF ( see ii 66, below). At the same time it must be remembered that the solitary 4 between the #1 and the 34474 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 arata (ii. 180) (ii) This variety is not recognised by the Agnipuräna, unless we choose to identify it with what the Purāna styles aracealal which is thus defined ( 345. 13) बहोर्धर्मस्य साम्येपि वैलक्षण्यं विवक्षितम् । यदुच्यतेतिरिक्तत्वं व्यतिरेकोपमा तु सा ।। The Agnipurāna, be it noted in passing, does not recognise offers as a distinct figure-of-speech, whereas ·87 ) Notes ii. 24 Dandın 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)- कल्पद्रुमो 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 fara as a sub-variety of Upamā. We have already indicated in a general way (cp. Note (x) to 4. 14 ) the distinction between star and out. 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 Tegular Utprekshā it is the actual TIJ between the He and the 34979-or some aspect connected with it -that is poetically conceived. In the variety before us there is an Ta; but it has nothing to do with the साम्य between मुख and पद्म which is the immediate subject of assertion. The EU 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 मुखश्रीः न केवलमिन्दावेव अपि तु पञपि सा अस्त्येव । The introduction of the bragging Moon lends an added surprise-element which is not disagreeable. Hence this is not a regular उत्प्रेक्षा but merely an उत्प्रेक्षितोपमा. The Com श्रुतानुपालिनी however explains-यस्यकस्यचिदन्य- थावस्थिताया वृत्तेरन्यथाकथनमुत्प्रेक्षा । अत्रापि मुखश्रियं चन्द्र निरस्य पद्मपि तदुत्प्रे- क्षाकथनात् उत्प्रेक्षितोपमेति । AAC Notes to II. 24–(i) 57, 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 57. (ii) This variety has been admitted by the Agnipurāna and is thus defined (344. 16)— त्रैलोक्यासंभवि किमप्यारोप्य प्रतियोगिनि । कविनोपमीयते या प्रथते साद्भुतोपमा ॥

·ii 24- Kavyādarsa 88 To assert that the प्रतियोगिन् ( = उपमान) resembles or can resemble the shit only under conditions impossible of fulfilment is in effect to say that the he is without a peer. As the conditions are अद्भुत or त्रैलोक्यागंभवि the variety is called अद्भुतोपमा, the अद्भुतता consisting not in the component elements ( उद्गतभ्रूकुटित्व, विभ्रान्तलोचनत्व etc. ) taken by themselves, but in the peculiar combination of them that is demanded . अद्भुतोपमाया सिद्धस्य धर्मिणो धर्म्यन्तरा- वयवैर्योगः अद्भुतः as Ca remarks The Alamkārasekhara calls this same variety 3WTHT ( defined, p 30, as--471- संसृष्टज्ञानेन संसर्गमारोग्य साम्यप्रसञ्जनं सा), a name which Dandin has reserved for another distinct variety (see il. 38, below.) (ii) Adbhutopamā is to be distinguished from Abhūtopamā and from Asambhavitopamā; and the distinction is rather subtle In अभूतोपमा the presumptive उपमान is not a fasiquiar Tata wherein the faztquis cannot coexist with the विशेष्य, but rather' a single simple वस्तु which is nowhere to be met with in nature, as for instance the concentrated essence of the charms of all lotuses; cp. उपमानस्य वस्तुन उपमेयेसंभाव्यमानस्य कथनादभूतन्वेनाभू- तोपमामिति (श्रु पा., p 36). In असभावितोपमा it is not the धर्म of a new a which is ascribed to the seaauhand which is inconsistent with it (as happens in the 315 at- पमा), but the प्रस्तुतधार्मिन् is itself said tc haveaquality 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 अद्भुतोपमा an existing and wellknown Art is associated with impossible lasqus brought over from another afit. The ultimate result is that the Ehe remains without peer. Such is not the case in an fhaITHT where the point of comparison is just the fact of the incompatibility of the is that the af (the 39777 ) is expected to possess; and the comparison does become possible in that respect. (iii) The CTT1YHT as recognised by Ha and the Agnipurāna (which merely quotes a) comes most near to 346714H. Bharata thus illustrates it (xiv. 51)- ·89 Votes ii. 25 सरन्तो दानसलिल लोलामन्थरगामिन । मतगजा विराजन्ते जगमा इव पर्वताः॥ Here जगमताविशिष्टपर्वतs or moving mountains is an अद्भत phenomenon. What is calls he is no other than this 395019AT Bhoja's illustration is the verse 1 atilor etc; regarding which he remarks (p 352)-351991- नार्थमुत्पाद्योपमेयन प्रतीयमानमभिधीयमान च सादृश्यमभिहितमिति सेयमुत्पाद्यो- 4H11 Hemachandra (p 247) unsuccessfully atteinpts to make a sort of a distinction between उत्पाद्योपमा and कल्पि- 99H1 ; but the most clear presentation of that view is to be seen in Rudrata viii 13-16 Mammata regards Dandin's अद्भुतोपमा as a subvariety of अतिशयोक्ति Notes to II, 25-(i) Mohopamā springs from the close similarity between the उपमेय and the उपमान, soclose thata rational being would go to the length of actually mistak. ing the one for the other. This variety is accordingly not only a step in advance of stífari97 (where the element of difference was consciously realised) but in advance of 542, 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 TİYAT (11, 26) the person is struck hy 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 #19 as 99-1, the result would be HTHT. Again, if after a temporary but actual error the person corrects himself and perceives the thing as it is, the result would be 77TCHT19HT (1i 36). As between निर्णयोपमा and तत्त्वाख्यानोपमा It is to be noticed that while in both the ultimate perception is a real perception, in the former it is preceded by a moment of doubt or hesitation, in the latter by one of actual blunder (iii) All the four varieties of 59fr just considered must be based upon सादृश्य. If the doubting or the bluna dering is the result of normal causes mentioned in- कामशोकभयोन्मादचौरस्वप्नायुपप्लुता । अभूतानपि पश्यन्ति पुरतोवस्थितानिव ।। 12 Kävyādarsal ·ii.25- Ravena } Kūryāuorsa [90 Evam the result cannot be an 3100m. It goes without saying also that the सादृश्य ougn's to be कविप्रतिभानिर्मित. (1) The सोहोपला . Dandir has given rise to two independent Alambras of laver writers : Faria and ऊंज. Ullekha 1,6 be said to he a FiraTa and is ther dened by जगत्राथ (2 2710}--एकस्य वरतुनो निमित्तवशायदने- कैनानुमिका महत ले। Iné com non property belo iz 10-! th: 37TT which has been the source of che sr. Or is woi stated in the ezamole ; but it can be sia... also QuizDa e नीलामति माल्या विलासितावेलोचनम् । अनुधावति मुग्धाक्षि पश्य धो मधुव्रतः ॥ And this circunsia ice makes it possible for us to inclaile ander मोहोपमा the fisures of speech called मीलित, सामान्य, तर तगुण, for definitions of which and for their mu'ual distinctions see particularly hIETIGHOY 89-90. aaaaaar NEGIRLAN १ Noles to 17,20-20- (1) This and the next variety of 3471 have sivan ise try an independent Alainkāra called साना नदेह ७ सयदVith its sub-valleties of शुद्ध, निश्चयगर्भ, ard निश्चयान Sucdba is an ordinary RTUITÆT a good e emple oi which is furnished by Rudrata (viii 60 )- विमिन सीनाजिलकमल किवा मुन्त नीलकचम् । इति सोते लोकस्वयि मुन्न गरोवतीर्णायाम् ॥ will निश्चचान्त 15 निर्णयोपमा Of निश्चयगर्भ the stock example IS HIRO अयं मार्तड: कि स खल तुल्गैः सातभिरितः कृानु दि. मागत् प्रसरति दिशो नेप नियतम् । कुन त दिसालासहिनवनोमाविति चिरात् - र" वय वा विदधतिमान् प्रतिभटाः ॥ S:/7.3 मिलर (USD) illustrated in- संगजनयनेमानते इह गा.पा.-। म सा कि रिभ्रमसि ॥ isitightiy dirte remi Eroin निनोपना निश्चयान्तससंदेह. As Vi3Vasutra himself xena'न ह्ययं निश्चयान्तः संदेहः । तत्र मगनिश्चययोरेकाश्रयत्वेन्नावस्थानात् । अत्र तु भ्रमरादेः संशयः नायकादेनिश्चयः । (ii) Troji, .7.8 Kelow i soems clear that some predecessus of Bhānala did regard Ad as an inde- ·91 ] - 30 pendent figuro. HTC Dlām 1114 Ara 073 11- lustrates the figure (132.113- उपमानेन तत्त्वं च मे न वदत पुन । ससंदेहं बच. स्तुले वद विदुर्य का ? किमयं गशी डिवा पिराउने कुसुमाधीन धाय मोगुनन् । इति विस्मयाहिमोलिनन- स्वाय वाक्षिते - लमंथनिया But we do not have 30.977 in 8t PLM contain indication that candidatulo 10 lat 20 other writer but Bhāmaha Notos + II. 28-29) I'rese two varicties differ from THIQET ( 11. 15) only in the added circumstance that the grah is here expres»cd by paronomastic words, the ring being re in the corner and Te in the latte. ( खलु अर्थवशेन साम्यम् अत्र शन) The two varieties can therefore both of them in a sense be pelled I, as has been done by the author of the Te who cives the joint example'p 30 !-- तमालपत्राभरगा राजने विलसद्वयाः । वालेवोद्यानमालेगमालकाननशोभिनी।। (ii) The variants सरपोपमा and दानोपमा : समानापमा are worth noting The first is an attempt to bring the first word of the definili rinto the işi, wolls the second (which has the high a thority of J 200 Y and which therefore we might bare adoptec) implies that the 34- #y and the 39777 are in this variety tied together (like miscellaneous cattle in a cowpen, to one and the same rope in the form or similarly-sounding words, and resemble each other only in that accidental circumstance, TIRATES Notes to II. 30-31-i A normal AIF Cuntains ine common quality in a more pronounced degree th in a normal #; and this is the reason why in a favou (Li 17) the mere reversal of that relation inplied the lowering of the 4719 in respect of that common quality. The ·ii 30- Kavyādars 92 fight for superiority between the उपमान and the उपमेय about pre-eminence in this quality is represented as still undecided in fatratah (ii. 33). In AFGTFT the claim of the 39FR is allowed in regard to the common quality, but certain extraneous facts are adduced (e. g. बहुरजस्त्व, क्षयशालिव, etc.) which should lower it and consequently the उपमेय also in our estimation. In प्रति- 9211791 (11. 34) the 39777 is represented as fighting a forloro fight for regaining its normal pre-eminence in respect of the common quality. All these varieties there fore can be regarded as 391 varieties, because underlying them all is the presupposition that the 347777 and the 3477 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 azia (11. 180) has also to be distinguished from these 3TAT Varieties, in regard to which see our Notes to ii. 180. (ii) As observed before, 6 and the author of the Agnipurāna mention these two varieties of 5971, 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 तां विशालाक्षी तुतोष मनुजाधिपः । मुनिभिः साधितां कृच्छात् सिद्धि मूर्तिमतीमिव ।। निन्दा यथा- सा तं सर्वगुणीनं सस्वजे कर्कशच्छविम् । वानकं नकिनं [ ? वने कण्टकिनं ] वल्ली दवदग्धमिव द्रुमम् । From these it would seem that Vāmana is probably right when he says (iv. 2.7, air - Fergiei Aranei areIT TIIT: 1 What is intended by this three-fold division is therefore उपमानमात्रस्य विषयप्रदर्शनम् as the कामधेनु observes. Dandın 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 Arch as defined and illustrated in the Alamkārasekhara comes near to the cat (ii. 34); for there the definition ·Votes ( -1.37 15 यत्रोपमानस्य निन्दया प्रतिक्षेप. मा निन्दोपमा, and the illustration- नागेन्द्रहस्तास्त्वचि कर्कशत्वादेकान्तशैत्यात् कदली विशेषाः । ल-वापि लोके परिणादि रूपं जातास्तदूर्वोरुपमानवाह्याः ॥ Notes to II. 32-See note (vii) to il. 14 above. Because no other Alamkāra wriier known to us (except Vamana) mentions am 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 Bhāmaha and even mentioned by him by name is no longer available to us ANAS Notes to II. 33-34-See Note (i) to ii 30 above. The variety called GIOITAT it must be admitted comes nearest to the suit; we can possibly distinguish them from each other by supposing that in sateliaht the point at issue is the degree of कान्ति or आहादकत्व (the common quality) of the जडत्वकलङ्कित्वविशिष्ट 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 que some quality or qualities are stated wherein the 3947 and the shy are declared to be equal to one another; but at the same time another distinct quality possessed by the 37 and denied to the 9974 is adduced which serves to establish the superiority of the उपमेय over the उपमान considered as a whole. AMARE Notes to II. 35-36-The name 77aT has nothing very distinctive or appropriate about it.-For the distinction between fly and areATTHT see Note (1) to ii. 25. RANCA Notes to II, 37-Dandin uses both F&(i. 53,95 ) and in the sense of area, region, boundary-line, province, equality, similarity, etc The reading FCA (which our Sanskrit Commentary explains) seems to be merely an ·ii 37--] Kävyädarsa 194 easier substitute for GITA The word wat is Vedic, regarding which see Nirukla il.2. (ii) As Dandin himself tells us (ii. 358), this variety was regarded by others as constituting a distinct alamkāra called 37777 Bhamaha thus defines and illustrates it (iii. 44-45)--- यत्र तेनैव तम्ब स्यादुपमानोपमेयता। असादृश्यविवक्षातस्तमित्याहुरनन्वयम् ॥ ताम्बूलरागवलय स्कुरहानदीधिति । इन्दीवराभनयनं तवेव वदनं तव ।। The stock example of this alamkāra is the one given by Vamana (iv. 3.14.)- गगनं गगनाकारं सागरः सागरोपमः । रामरावणयोयुद्धं रामगवणयोरिव ।। (iii) As अन्योन्योपमा results in नृतीयमदशव्यवच्छेद 50 असाधारणो- पमा results in देतीयसहाव्यवच्छेद In the अन्योन्योपमा example in il 18 आनन is both उपमान and उपमेय, but in different sentences; whereas in TATTITUTIYHT 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 stat 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 सुन्दरमहिलामहरभरितेपि । अनुहरति सुभग तस्या नामाधे दक्षिणार्धस्य ॥ does not contain an असाधारणोपमा, but is merely a वस्तूपमा. Nor again does the verse given by Dandin later (ii,276)- अद्य या मम गोविन्द जाता त्वयि गृहागते । कालेनेपा भवेत् प्रीतिस्तवेवागननात् पुनः ।। regarding whih अपय्यदलित observes (चि० मी. p. 42)- अत्र गृहागतं श्रीकृष्णं प्रति विटुरवाक्ये इयं त्वदागमनप्रभवा प्रीतिर्बहुकालव्यवहितेन पुनरपि त्वदागमनेनैव भवेत नान्य नेत्युक्तिभड्या त्वदागमनप्रभवप्रीतेः सेव सदृशी न वितरप्रभवेति व्यज्यते । constitute an example of this variety.

·95 Notes [-ii.40 (1v) In असाधारणोपमा although the face is declared to be without a peer the forin of the assertion is conceived outwardly in the manner of an उपसा. Where however even this outward form is 200 preserved that is recognised by जगन्नाथ as a distinct figure called असम As he says (p. 2105.)--सर्वथैवोपमानिषेधोसमायोलंकारः । यथा- वनत्रितयेपि नानवे परिणे विद्युधेश्च दानवैः । न भविष्यति नास्ति लाभवया यते गजते तुलापदम् अत्र सर्वथैवोपमाननिषेधेन सादृश्यम्याप्रतिष्ठानानोवपागन्धोपि। This however is over-subtlet for which Jagannātha has been taken to task by the author of the Alamkāra-kaustubha (p. 174) ॥ terraENESS Notes to II, 38-39-See Note (11) ion 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 अविवक्षितत्वात कितु यथा चन्द्रविम्वाद्विषमसंभावितं तथा त्वन्मुखात् पुरुषा वाग् इत्युपमास्वीकारात् । एवं च असभावितोपमा इत्यस्य असभावितोपमा- नकन्वं नार्थ कितु असंभावितत्वं तदुपमायाः मावारणधर्म इत्येव । marwAtmagram ७ Notes toII. 40--(1) Compale Note (i) to in 21 above. Bharata already tells us (xvi 43 )-- एकस्यैकेन सा कार्या एकस्य वहुभिस्तथा। अनेकेषां तथैकेन बहूनां बहुभिस्तया । And his examples in order are--तुल्यं ते शशिना वक्त्रम् , शशा- इवत् प्रकाशन्ते ज्योतीषि, श्येनवर्हिणभासानां तुल्याक्ष and घना इव गजाः । Here of course, in its most primitive form, the distinction is made to depend upon whether the 37 or the उपमेय or both are in the singular or the plural gender. Now मालोपमा (ii 42) is एकस्य बहुभि. उपमा, and in Dandin's statement the distinction between वहूपमा and मालोपमा is this In बहूपमा a number of उपमानs are adduced in the hope that in their cumulative effect at least they would approximately convey the extent of the common quality possessed by the 3472, which they are unable to do singly. In 4731471 on the other hand any one of the several 39717S is conceived as being adequate by .0 ·ii. 40-] Kavyudarsa 196 itself to bring out the common quality, and the wealth of illustration serves merely to show off the poet's प्रतिभा. MEENPINCOMouTuDCOMSANILERS Notes to II. 41-(i) The Alamkārasekhara thus defines and illustrates this variety (p 31)-यत्रोपमेयमुपमानविकारतयो- च्यते सा विक्रियोपमा यथा- हरिणादथ तन्नयनादथ पद्मात् पद्मपत्राच्च । आहृत्य कान्तिसारं विधिरसृजत् सुनुवो दृष्टिम् ॥ Notes to II. 42-See Note (i) to ii. 40 above. The illustiation in the text is based upon identical साधारणधर्म; but this is not essential With 127TAROT a good example of 7701471 is the familiar stanza- मातेव रक्षति पितेव हिते नियुक्ते कान्तेव चाभिरमयत्यपनीय खदम् । कीर्ति च दिक्षु वितनोति तनोति कीर्ति कि कि न साधयति कल्पलतेव विद्या ॥ The अलंकारकौस्तुभ gives also the following example- अलक्षितगतागतैः कुलवधूकटाक्षरिव क्षणानुनयशीतलैः प्रणयकेलिकोपैरिव । मुवृत्तमसृणोन्नतैर्मृगदृशामुरोजैरिव वदीयतुरगोत्तमैर्धरणिचक्रमाकम्पते ।। Apparently it is a series based upon भिन्नसाधारणधर्म which alone is recognised as ATSITHT by the author of the Agnipurāna. Compare (344. 14-15) -- यत्रोपमा स्याद्वहुभिः सदृश. सा बहूपमा । धर्मा प्रत्युपमानं चेदन्या मालोपमेव सा ॥ (ii) Dandin does not recognise what is known as रशनोपमा defined by the Agnipurana (344. 20) as- उपमेयं यदन्यस्य तदन्यस्योपमा मता। यद्युत्तरोत्तरं याति तदासौ गमनो(? ग्गना)पमा ॥ and thus illustrated by रुद्रट (vil. 28)-- नभ इव विमलं सलिलं सलिलमिवानन्दकारि शशिबिम्बम् । शशिविम्वमिव लमद्द्युति तरुणीवदनं शरत् कुरुते ॥ For other varieties see रसगङ्गाधर pp. 181 ff. and अलंकार- कौस्तुभ pp. 146 ff PatanARIUDHARY ·971 Notes [-ii. 45 Notes to II. 43-45-(i) By Eyepes 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 agaiast which is placed the lotus, the bees, and the pollen in ihe 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 31221-with the trifling subsidiary distinction of the presence or absence of an additional independent 212 for each अवयव-the result is a वाक्यार्थापमा. Hence it is that after dividing was as shown below GRUNN उपमा निरवयवा सावयवा परंपरिता शुध्दा सालारूपा समस्तवस्तुविषया एकदेशविवर्तिनी श्लिष्टा आश्लिष्टा = भेदे मालारूपा TECT मालारूपा the author of the Alamkārakaustubha cites stanza ii. 45 as an example of Hariat, the comparison between one pair of 39777 and 34# leading on to and depending upon the next pair. (ii) In the two exainples of air given by Dandin the समानधर्म between the various pairs of उपमान and he's 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- कामिनीनयनकज्जलपड्वादुत्थितो मदनमत्तवराहः । कामिमानसवनान्तरचारी कन्दमुत्खनति मानलता पा. !! 13 Kavyódaráa] ·ii. 45-] Kavyādarsa [98 (iii) It is perhaps necessary to draw attention to the fact that वाक्योपमा is different from वाक्यार्थोपमा. We have Just seen what वाक्यार्थोपमा is. The nature of वाश्योपमा 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 वाक्यार्थोपमा given by Vamana is- पाण्डयोयमंसार्पितलम्बहारः क्लातागरागो हरिचन्दनेन । आभाति वालातपरक्तसानुः सनिझरोद्गार इवाद्रिराजः॥ - Notes to II. 46-47-Although in this variety the साम्य is always implied and never actually expressed, there being no उपमावाचकशब्द present, Dandin is perhaps justi. fied, in view of his own general conception of 3471, in not regarding afyaT as a distinct Alamkāra. It is not recognised as such by भोज, भामह, and रुक्ट. The further subsidiary difference as to the manner of implying the साम्य (by वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव or by बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव, regarding which see Note (ii) to ii. 15 above) upon which the distinction between प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त turns is also not of consequence enough to give rise to a new alamkāra, and Jagannātha practically concedes this (pp 337-8)-अस्य चालंकारस्य प्रतिवस्तूपमाभेदकमेतदेव यत् तस्यां धर्मो न प्रतिबिम्बितः कितु शुद्धसामान्यात्मनैव स्थित इह तु प्रतिबिम्वितः । ......... । एकस्यैवालंकारस्य द्वौ भेदौ प्रतिवस्तूपमा दृष्टान्तश्च । यच्चानयोः किचिद्वैलक्षण्यं तत् प्रभेदताया एव साधकम् नालंकारताया इति सुवचम् । Hence Dandin's प्रतिवस्तूपमा as an उपमा variety may be said to stand in the place of both प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त of later आलंकारिकs. (ii) The following quotation from जयरथ's Alamkārasarvasvavimarsini (p. 28) is illuininating as to the distinction between वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव, where the things are really one but two only in the phrasing, and lasagata- भाव, where the two things are really distinct but have to be temporarily identified-लोको हि दर्पणादौ विम्बात् प्रति- विम्बस्य भेदेपि मदीयमेवात्र वदनं मकान्तमित्यभेदनाभिमन्यते! अन्यथा हि प्रति- ·99 : Notes [ -ii. 49 विम्बदर्शने कृशोहं स्थूलोहमित्याद्यभिमानो नोदांयात् भूषणविन्यासादो नायिका नाद्रियेरन् । (iii) Some remarks of the garguiferit on this stanza are also worth quoting-प्रतिवस्वूपमा । प्रतिशब्दः सदृशार्थवाची तेन सदृशवस्तूपमेत्यर्थः । ननु इवादिरहितसदृशोपन्यास अर्थान्तरो नाम भवति । तथाहि- ज्ञेयः सोर्थान्तरन्यासो वस्तु प्रस्तुत्य किचन । तत्साधनसमर्थस्य न्यासो योन्यस्य वस्तुनः ॥ इति वक्ष्यति (ii 169)। अत्रापि-वस्तु किचिदुपन्यस्य सदनं (v l.) तत्सधर्मण इत्युक्तम् । तस्मादयमर्थान्तरन्यास एवं कथमुपमेत्याह-साम्यप्रतीतिरस्तीति । सदृशप्रतिभानं विद्यते इत्युपमेत्युच्यते । एतदुक्तं भवति । इवाद्यभावे समानताप्रतीतिः उपमानवादिना (१) तद्द्योतनाय प्रयुक्ते । अर्थान्तरस्त्वलंकार असदृशस्योपन्यासेन वस्त्वन्तरसाधनमिति तत्साधनसमर्थस्येतिवचनात् न तत्सधर्मण इति । In other words-अर्थान्तरन्यासे समर्थ्यसमर्थकभावो विवक्षित अत्र पुनरुमानोपमेयभावः । (iv) In order to give adequate account of a number of devices other than 4HT and E. 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 भेदानामसंख्यं तस्य तूक्तयः । दृष्टान्तोक्तिः प्रपञ्चोक्ति' प्रतिवस्तूक्तिरेव च ॥ तत्रेवादेः प्रयोगेण दृष्टान्तोक्ति प्रचक्षते । इवादेरप्रयोगेण प्रपञ्चोक्ति मनीषिणः ।। वस्तु किचिदुपन्यस्य न्यसनात् तत्सधर्मणः । माम्यप्रतीतिरस्तीति प्रतिवस्तूक्तिरुच्यते ॥ This alamkara accordingly would do duty for प्रतिवस्तूपमा and 21 of the alamkārikas For the various subdivisions of afatite and the illustrations followed by Bhoja's illuminating critical remarks see Sarasvatikanthābharana itself. Sāmgā as an alamkāra is recognised by Rudrata also (vill. 105ff). .. Notes to II. 48-49-(i) How to distinguish this variety froin the figure-of-speech called तुल्ययोगिता which Dandin defines and illustrates in ii. 330-332 is a rather subtle question. Both are attempts at HIFRU between ·11.49] Kavyādarsa [ 100 two things one of which is distinctly superior (317 or yulit), and the common property adduced is some Fall, 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 Jeparat 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 relat would come nearer to the varieties निन्दोपमा and प्रशंसोपमा (ii. 30-31). We can probably bring out the distinction by supposing that in the 341 variety the ata is consciously realised as the उपमेय or the प्रकृतवस्तु while in the figure तुल्ययोगिता the उपमान-उपमेय relation, even though actually present (as in ii. 331), is deliberately set aside, the lat being only गम्य or implied and not शब्दोपात्त as in the other case ; and this agrees with the later definitions of तुल्ययोगिता like that of मम्मट (नियतानां सकृद्धर्मः । नियतानाम् = प्राकरforma 3454 Tüfatarea ar). Udbhata is even more explicit (p. 60) उपमानोपमेयोक्तिशून्यैरप्रस्तुतैर्वचः । साम्याभिधायि प्रस्तावमाग्भिर्वा तुल्ययोगिता ॥ (ii) If this statement of the difference between तुल्ययोगोपमा and तुत्ययोगिता is correct it follows that Dandin's TPLIITTTHT 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 उपमेय and उपमान. Compare रुय्यक (p. 71)-प्रस्तुताग्रस्तुतयोर्व्यस्तत्वे तुल्ययोगिता समस्तत्वे दीपकम् । From Dandin's view of the case however the distinction between 14 and 19t is clear. In JEPITH there is an attempted समीकरण between अधिक and हीन things; this is absent in the city of HFHE. At the same time the 14 requires the atfe to be expressed only once for all; in altat 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 aq here spoken of is not the site as Dandin dew ·101] Notes [-ii. 50 fines it (ii. 97ff.) which is more a शब्दालंकार than an अर्थालंकार. See Notes to the figure in question. (iii) We have so far attempted to set forth the distinction that Dandin probably must have made between तुल्ययोगोपमा and तुल्ययोगिता; but writers who do not admit this 34H1 variety have defined Tatat in terms that Dandin might have reserved for TFTTTTTTTHT The definition of Bhamaha is (ii1.26)- न्यूनस्यापि विशिष्टेन गुण्यसाम्यविवक्षया । तुल्यकार्यक्रियायोगादित्युक्ता तुत्ययोगिता ॥ That of Ruyyaka (p 70)- औपम्यस्य गम्यत्वे पदार्थगतत्वे नप्रस्तुतानामप्रस्तुतानां वा समानधर्मा- भिसंबन्धे तुल्ययोगिता। That of Vāmana (iv. 3. 26) विशिष्टेन साम्यार्थमेककालक्रियायोगस्तुल्ययोगिता। Bhoja, finally, while giving for unitat a definition identical with that of Dandin, further adds (iv. 55) अन्ये सुखनिमित्ते च दुःखहेतौ च वस्तुनि । स्तुतिनिन्दार्थमेवाहुस्तुल्यत्वे तुत्ययोगिताम् ॥ for which his illustration is- आहूतस्याभिषेकाय विमृष्टस्य वनाय च । न मया लक्षितस्तस्य स्वल्पोप्याकारविभ्रमः॥ (iv) The distinction between प्रशंसोपमा (il. 31) and तुल्ययोगोपमा seems to be the circumstance that in the former some extraneous facts not germain to the intended साम्य (e.g. शम्भुशिरोधृतत्व) are adduced for heightening the value of the उपमान while in तुल्ययोगोपमा the superiority is based upon the degree or intensity of the self-same TF3I as measured by marked difference in results achieved, difficulties encountered, eto In other respects the two varieties seem allied We do not think that the fact of the सादृश्य being वाच्य in the one (तौ तुल्यौ) and व्यङ्गय in the other would have been adduced by Dandin as the additional distinctive feature. - Notes to II. 50--(i) An ordinary उपमा-अम्भोरुहमिवातानं करतलम् can be put in the form of a 99ht in this manner:

·1). 50- Kāvyādarsa 1 102 करतलमाताम्रत्वेन अम्भोल्हमनुकरोति In समुच्चयोपमा (ii. 21) we had a similar presentation of the similarity; only there a number of es were adduced to bring out the ATRI between the same shy and 3977; while in the example before us a number of eas are adduced to bring out the fire between one and the same 3447 and a series of 347778 with which it is to be compared.-As in caut (ii 40) or H1C14H1 (ii. 42) a series of successive उपमानs are here given but that वैचित्र्य upon which this variety primarily turns is the presentation of the Ara in the form of a . It is perhaps not essential that the हेतुs (and the उपमानs) in a हेतूपमा be always more than one. Notes to IL. 51-56-(1) Like yuis the eas 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 ii 125-185 In regard to the Upamādoshas our Sanskrit Commentary supplies the needful supplementary information from Vāmana, Bhoja, and other writers. (ii) The extra line in ii. 56 which we have enclosed in square brackets, like a number of other lines and verses, is clearly an interpolation; but having been once aecepted in the editio princeps of Premachandra and so passed on into works of reference it would have been most inconvenient to omit them and so change the subsequent verse-numbering In one place (ii. 158–163) where a transposition of stanzas was felt by us to be on critical grounds absolutely called for we have for the same reason transposed the stanzas aud 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. LAKA ·103) Notes ii. 66 Notes to II, 57-65-(i) Dandin's list of ETHET words is helpful and is in any case borrowed from him by most subsequent writers, and naturally with variations and attenipts at completion. Thus the अलंकारकौस्तुभ supplies words like a, a, 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 a view to determine the text of Dandin's list, especially as it would have been necessary not only to refer to the printed editions but even the Ms. material of these other alamkāra works. (111) The colophon 94412757 (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 and substitution of synonyms like 99 etc. for 25 and other small varıants We have ignored the variants and have generally followed best Ms. authority in giving the colophons or omitting them. TWITTER अपगुति Notes to II 66-(i) The name of this figure is thus explained-यदा तु विषयी (उपमानमप्रकृतम् ) विषयं (प्रकृतमुपमेयम् । रूपवन्तं करोति TCT Statiftari 3477 Rūpaka has to be carefully distinguished from 5471 (especially the varieties of it called अतिशयोपमा and मोहोपमा), from समासोक्ति (ii 205), from Bazenih (il 214), from Jan (11. 221), and froni (ii. 304)--amongst alamkāras recognised by Dandin; and from परिणाम, ससंदेह, भ्रान्तिमान् and उल्लेख-amongst alamkāras not recognised by Dandin. The various definitions of 549 given by ālamkārikas (we quote a few of the more important of them below) are an attempt merely to sharpen the outline of the figure with a view to this differentiation. Thus Bharata (xvi. 57) defines the figure as under- स्वविकल्पैर्विरचितं तुल्यावयवलक्षणम् । किचित्सादृश्यसंपन्नं यद्रूपं रूपकं तु तत् ॥ Bhāmaha (ii. 21)- उपमानेन यत् तत्त्वमुपमेयस्य रूप्यते । गुणानां समतां ** रूपकं नाम नदिद ·ii.66-] Kavyādarsa 1 104 HAMAND Udbhata (p. 9) श्रुत्या सवन्धविरहाद्यत् पदेन पदान्तरम् । गुणवृत्ति प्रधानेन युज्यते रूपकं तु तत् ॥ Rudrata. (viii. 38,40)- यत्र गुणानां साम्ये सत्युपमानोपमेययोरभिदा । अविवक्षितसामान्या कल्यत इति रूपकं प्रथमम् ।। उपसर्जनोपमेयं कृत्वा तु समासमेतयोरुभयोः । यत्तु प्रयुज्यते तद्रूपकमन्यत् समासोक्तम् ॥ Vamana (iv. 3.6)--- उपमानेनोपमेयस्य गुणसाम्यात् तत्त्वारोपो रूपकम् । Bhoja (iv. 24)- यदोपमानशब्दाना गोणवृत्तिव्यपाश्रयात् । उपमेये भवेद्वृत्तिस्तदा तद्रूपकं विदुः ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 34)-- अभेदप्राधान्ये आरोपे आरोपविषयानपह्नवे रूपकम् । Vidyānātha (p 371) आरोपविषयस्य स्यादतिरोहितरूपिणः । उपरजकमारोप्यमाणं तद्रूपकं मतम् ॥ We have already quoted the definition of agannāta in the Sanskrit Commentary. (ii) The distinction of 445 from 34HT Dandin has given in his very definition of yes 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 (op HTETTAT and the remarks made in our Notes to ii. 25 regarding भ्रान्तिमान् and उल्लेख); or because he wants purposely (poetically speaking) to deceive some one (e. g. in अपह्नति, cp our Notes to ii.95 also); or because he is himself in doubt (e g. संशयोपमा and the figures ससंदेह etc.); or because, in a poetic fancy, he imagines them to be identical (as happens in an उत्प्रेक्षा). It may also happen when, for purposes of poetic effect and with a view to bring out the extreme similarity of the उपमान and the उपमेय, the उपमान is made not only to lend its रूप to the उपमेय but actually to usurp its place so that only one word and ·105 ] Notes [-ii.66 A. रूपक one name-that of the 574G-is used instead of two. As the प्रतापरुद्रीय (p 37L) trenchantly remarks-संदेहालंकारे विषयस्य संदिह्यमानतया तिरोधानम् । भ्रान्तिमदलंकारे भ्रान्त्या विषयतिरोधानम् । अपहृत्यलंकारे अपह्नवेनारोपविषयतिरोधानम् ।-to which we might add-उत्प्रेक्षायां कविसभावनया विषयविपरिणोग्भेदाभ्यवसायः । अतिशयोक्तौ कविप्रौढोक्तया विषयस्य विपयिणा निगरणात्मको यवसाय । Regarding our last statement it will be noted that Dandin's conception of staeritie is somevhat different from the one given above after the manner of सम्मट; but on this point see our Notes to ii. 214. (111) As to the rest, it may be observed that while रूपक involves an आरोप or superimposition of the उपमान upon the grey, that the has to be based upon similarity and not upon कार्यकारण relation as in आयुर्वृतम् , but the ground of the आरोप-the common property-can never be expressed as such in the Rapaka (अविवक्षितसा- ArraT as Rudrata says : see below, Note ix) and there is also an absence, naturally, of the सादृश्यवाचकशब्द 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 मौभाग्यं वितनोति वक्त्रशशिनो ज्योत्स्नेव हासद्युतिः । इत्यत्र मुख्यतया अवगम्यमाना हासातिर्वक्त्रे एवानुकूल्यं भजते इत्युपमायाः साधकम् शशिनि तु न तथा प्रतिकूलेति रूपकं प्रति तस्या अबाधकता । वक्त्रेन्दौ तव सत्ययं यदपरः शीतांशुरभ्युद्यतः । इत्यत्र अपरत्वमिन्दोरनुगुणं न तु वक्त्रस्य प्रतिकूलमिति रूपक्रस्य साधकतां प्रति- पद्यते न तूपमाया बाधकताम् । राजनारायणं लक्ष्मीस्त्वामालिङ्गति निर्भरम् । इत्यत्र पुनरालिङ्गनमुपसां निरस्यति सदृशं प्रति परप्रेयसीप्रयुक्तस्य आलिङ्गनस्या- संभवात् । पादाम्वुजं भवतु नो विजयाय मञ्ज- मञ्जीरशिजितमनोहरमम्बिकायाः। 14 Kavyadarsa] ·ii. 66 Kāvyūdarśa ( 106 इत्यत्र मञ्जीरशिजितम् अम्बुजे प्रतिकूलमसंभवादिति रूपकस्य बाधकम् नतु पादेनु- कूलमित्युपमाया साधकमभिधीयते विन्युपमर्दिनो बाधकस्य तदपेक्षया उत्कटत्वेन प्रतिपत्तेः । एवमन्यत्रापि मुधीभिः परीक्ष्यम् । (1) A Ti (see ii 205, below) involves an assertion about the 2017 which suggests a corresponding assertion about the an, one assertion being made to do duty for both on the basis of an implied it of the 33€upon the sea based upon E. However, in a समासोक्ति the प्रस्तुत is not actually expressed as in a रूपक, and it is because the व्यवहार predicated of the अप्रस्तुत resernbles the व्यवहार of the प्रस्तुत which is intended to be described that the stejaucila results by way of an implication In Rūpaka, on the other hand, the 3774 in its entirety (Ey, azers, and all) is identified with the 997 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- संनिवेगेन प्रकृतस्य रूपमवच्छादयति । इह तु स्वावस्थासमारोपेणावच्छादितस्वरूपमेव तं पूर्वावस्थातो विशेषयति । अत एवात्र व्यवहारसमारोपो न तु स्वरूपसमारोप इत्याहुः For further iemarks see our Notes to ii 205. (v) The figure called OfOTT, which not only our author hut even the does not recognise and regarding which, even between those that recognise it-lo, विश्वनाथ, विद्याधर, जगन्नाथ and अप्पय्यदीक्षित-there seems to be a slight difference of opinion, is in our opinion a matter of over-subtlety. In the line-he ETCSTG tad मदिरेक्षणा if दृगज is regarded as a रूपक the lotus or अब्ज must transfer its 14 completely to the eye or The eye, in other words, must lose all its character as an eye and take upon itself the character of the lotus. Accordingly nos can bloom but cannot see. This is not a year therefore. It cannot also be an 34FT, for Taà or share cannot become a common property residing more prominently on the 3471 lotus and less prominently on the 974 eye. We must hence invent a new figure in which the ug between the 3447 and the उपमेय is तिरोभूत, but the result is not that उपमान has transferred its sy to the 344, but rather FH has itself assumed the Eu of the # so that the lotus can 1 ·107 ] Notes [-ii.66 see. This therefore is the figure called परिणाम. Compare the Chitramimansa (D.59)-रूपके प्रकृतमप्रकृतरूपापन्नं भवात परिणामे तु अप्रकृतं प्रकृतरूपापन्न भवति । In this connection it has to be observed that न्यायपञ्चानन (as quoted by the अलंकार- कास्तुन, p. 161) 1egards गज 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 conside: 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 zie based upon TP, and the question is, is the 114 primarily of the word upon the word, or of the thing-denored-by-the-word upon the thing-denotedby-the-word, or of both simultaneously. Says Prati. harenduraja (p_11)-तत्र त्रयो दर्शनभेदाः । केचिदत्र शब्दारोपपूर्वकम- थोरोपं ब्रवते अपरे त्वारोपपूर्वकं शब्दारोपम् । अन्यैस्तु गदारोपार्थारोपयोयोग- पामभिधीयते । अयमेव च पक्षो युक्त इव दृश्यते । तदाहुः-- शब्दोपचारात् तद्पं रूपके कैश्चिदुच्यते । ताद्रूप्यारोपतश्चान्यैः शब्दारोपोत्र कथ्यते ॥ उपमानगुणैस्तुल्यानुपमेयगतान् गुणान् । एश्यतां तु सकृद्भाति तत्र तच्छब्दरूपता ।। तत्रेति उपमेये इत्यर्थः तच्छब्दरूपतेति उपमानशब्दारोप उपमानशब्दारोपश्च । (vii) As Dandin himself observes (in. 96) Rūpaka, like Upamā, is capable of infinite divisions made more or less on the same basis. There is first of all the merely grammatical aspect of it which gives the first three varieties of Dandin : समस्त, अससस्त 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 (11. 84), हेतुरूपक (ii. 86), उपमारूपक (ii. 89), and व्यतिरेकरूपक (ii 90), where it will be seen that Rūpaka proper is associated with some other additional rhetorical de. vice. The usual divisions of 54a 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 साङ्गसमस्तवस्तुविपयरूपक while his अवयव, अवयविन् , and ·ii. 66-) Kāvyādarsa | 108 एकाङ्गरूपकs (with the further subdivisions of युक्त, अयुक्त and विषम) may roughly correspond to एकदेशविवर्तिरूपक. What is known as yra Te Te with its two sub-divisions of अश्लेपमूल and श्लेषमूल are practically one with Dandin's F4569 (ii 93) and Play (ii. 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 595 called वाक्यार्थरूपक on the analogy of the वाक्यार्थोपमा described in ii 43ff -वाक्याथै विपये वाक्यार्थोन्तरारोपः वाक्यार्थरूपकम् । यथा विशिष्टो- पमायां विशेषणानामुपमानोपमेयभावोर्थगम्यस्तथानापि वाक्यार्थघटकपदार्थानां रूपकमर्थगम्यम् । तद्यथा- आत्मनोस्य तपोदानैर्निर्मलीकरणं हि यत् । क्षालनं भास्करस्येदं सारसैः सलिलोत्करैः ।। This however is regarded by the majority of Alamkārikas as faciat. Compare the familiar example of it- त्वत्पादनखरत्नानां यदलक्तकमार्जनम् । इदं श्रीखण्डलेपेन पाण्डुरीकरणं विधोः ॥ After a long and technical discussion the अलंकारकोस्तुभ- कार decides against the acceptance of वाक्यार्थरूपक, the instances quoted for it being merely those of निदर्शना. See further our Notes to ii. 348. (ix) We have said above (Note iii) that in a Rūpaka the common property can never be expressed as a common property. For a common thing has to be shared by more than one while in a 14 the 3471 and by are conceived as but one thing. All the same there is always a common properly implied as the very basis of the आरोप required for रूपक, and if this धर्म is expressed as belonging to G9HE alone, or primarily to the 3-7 and secondarily in a sort of a reflex fashion to 34, that does not violate the requirements of the figure. Consider for example the illustration in ii. 87. The compound word rugs is to be dissolved here in a manner so as to give more prominence to 377(i.e. 97#arigh according to Pānini II. i. 72) and therefore the adjectives राजहंसोपभोगार्ह and नमरप्रार्थ्यौरभम्, must be ·109] Notes [-ii. 72 primarily predicable of 37797 alone, which they are, seeing that the senses of राजहस and मर that suit वक्त्र are only secondarily suggested and that too after an eflort With this important condition governing the expression of the common property, therefore, we can obtaie for the various sub-yarieties that turn upon the malinai of eIpressing the common property. Says Jagannatha (p. 243)- साधारणधर्माश्चात्रा थुपमायामिद वचिदनुगामी कचिद्विम्वप्रतिविम्वभावमापन्न कचिहुचरित' ऋचिच्च केवलशाव्दात्मा । मोपि क्वचिच्छब्देनोपान कचित प्रतीयमान नया नोपात्तः। For the corresponding examples see रसगदाधर itself. Hamtatrnanditatute Notes to II. 67-68-(1) The अलकारोखर thus versifies Dandin's examples of समस्तरूपक- तस्या वाहुलता पाणिपन्न चरणपल्लवम् । मुखेन्दुरक्षित्रमरो सर्वस्वं पुष्पधन्वनः ॥ It will be noted that the illustration in ii 67 is also a सकलरूपक, but it is adduced merely to illustrate the nature of the Metaphor-out-of-Compound DaANDLALTERNA Notes to IT. 69-70--(i) The compound ताम्राङ्गुलिदलश्रेणि should rather have been dissolved as अङ्गुलिरेव दलम् अङ्गुलिदलम् । तानं च तत् अङ्गुलिदलं च ताम्राङ्गालिदलम् । ताम्राङ्गुलिदलानां श्रेणयः यस्मिन् तत् ताम्राङ्गुलिदलश्रेणि। This mode connects is primarily with दल the उपमान. Compare Note (ix) to ii. 66 above.- Similarly the common property between चरण and पङ्कज- मूर्ध्नि धारण-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. SAMAdamagemumtakum Notes to Il. 71-72-(1) In the example given it will be inoted of course that मुत्तारुच' the adjective qualifying मञ्जरी:, involves just an ordinary Upama. What object the poet intended to superimpose upon yer does not clearly appear. It cannot be this as we do not assoclate पल्लव and सजरीs with it. PulantsEMEDIETARIABAD ·ii. 73-] Kāryādursa | 110 Notes to II. 73-74-(i) The compound 29777H can be dissolved so as to result in JqHT as well as in 592. If the other adjectives ( वल्गितभ्र, गलद्धर्मजलम् , आलोहितेक्षणम् ) as well as the predicate ( मदावस्थां विवृणोति ) had been such as to apply primarily to me and only secondarily to any that would have been 57ETATEH As it is, unless we accept Premachandra's proposed emendation into AGGHETETF, it would be very hard io establish a 54" here. Appearances point towards J4FT based upon an extraneous # such as 34TE a (see our Note (v) to ii. 66); and if an extraneous FF has to be after all brought in why not imagine it to be, say, F or faldt, 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 + all 37qyas - सकलरूपक, ii. 70 अवयविन alone अवयवs alone = अवयविरूपक, ii. 74. अवयविन् + some अव- यवs alone विषमरूपक, ii. 79. all 3tagas = 379905409, ii 72. sorme अवयवs alone एकाङ्गरूपक, ii.76. युक्तरूपक ii. 77 Brytho47 ii. 78. (ii) The word 347 in ii. 76 cannot refer to Th19 6478 seeing that in the examples given all the 3724as or constituent parts have the 3TĪy; it can refer to constituent parts, and the divisions into thi and the are divisions of E92 involving 3TTIC on (some or all) ·111 ) Notes -ii. 86 3tq9s. They cannot be divisions of 592 according to a fresh fundamentum divisionis seeing that we can have incompatibility between अवयवs and अवयवs, and between the अवयविन and some of its अवयवs, but never between the अवयविन् and all its अवयव; the अवयविन् cannot in fact be called aia at all in that case. Notes to II. 79-80-(i) In the example given the faqat consists in the fact that while 2017 and 7 are the अवयवs of मुख the उपमेय, इन्दु the उपमान has only some अवयव corresponding to it that are actually stated (or are suggested) but not all. For instance, 4105 suggests the greiface reddened at moon-rise, but as 301 cannot be associated with the moon the ཤ s should in this example have been conceived of as the time set. In spite of this circumstance the general impression is that of the superimposition of the 3446 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-(1) This IQS TUE45 can be distinguished from 73614 by reason of the circumstance that in the latter it is possible to have the 377014 on the अवयविन् (e g. चरणे पड्कजत्वम् ) independently of the अवयवारोपs, which merely serve to heighten the charm of the अवयव्यारोप In the present variety the आरोप of वजत्व upon E the last becomes meaningless taken by itself. It can become plausible only if e as well as the '95 are taken as विशेषणविशिष्ट The विशेषणविशेष्यभाव is a more intimate relation than the अवयवावयविभाव. Notes to Il. 83-84-(i) The facta would have been more pointedly brought out iſ for the word sy in the illustration had been substituted the synonym अमृतांशु. Notes to II, 85-86-(i) The distinction between 64 and YAT (11-50) is of course sufficiently obvious.

·ii. 87-1 Kāvyādarsa ( 112 Notes to II. 87--(i) See note (in) to ii. 66. The stanza is omitted by M. The usual explanatory stanza is lacking in this case, regarding which the yargarfsar observes- स्पष्टलात् [श्लिष्टरूपकं] शास्त्रकृता न व्याख्यातम् । This might seem to raise a suspicion about the genuineness of ii. 87, but it is given by the best Mus. Compare also il 313 ZIRBEREIRA Notes to II, 88-90-(1) Our Sanskrit Commentary follows THE But 149has not been able to explain the varieties satisfactorily and had to give a new example of his own to suit his own explanation of the definition in ii. 88 A better explanation perhaps would be to take गौण = the secondary or आरोपित (moon) and मुख्य = the actual moon. As in both the varieties illustrated in ii. 89 and i1. 90 the year at is compared (or contrasted) with the actual moon it is evident that such a comparison can only take place if and after the grea is superimposed upon the face. The 42 must therefore already exist, and all that is done in addition is to bring out the similarity of the FedEAT: (and impliedly but not expressedly of the wa) with the actual moon in an 39H154F and the dissimilarity between them in a व्यतिरेकरूपक The श्रुतानुपालिनी apparently so interprets these varieties; for it says- गोणोप्रधान मुख्यः प्रधान'। मुख- चन्द्रस्य साक्षाचन्द्रस्य चेति । And we can accordingly take प्रतिगर्जति =आडानं करोति तेन सदृश इत्यर्थ following again the same commentary. For a similar use of athu and 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 alamkārikas accepts उपमारूपक as distinct alamkāra He thus defines and illustrates it (iii. 34-35) उपमानेन तद्भावमुपमेयस्य साधयत् । यां वदत्युपमामेतदुपमारूपकं यथा ॥ समग्रगगनायाममानदण्डो रथाङ्गिणः । पादो जयति सिद्धस्त्रीमुखेन्दुनवदर्पणः ॥ Here Vishnu's foot is declared to be a novel mirror. The conceipt is quite out of the common; and while ·113 ) Notes [ -ii. 92 the आरोप of दर्पणत्व upon पाद does give rise to the Rūpaka, yet in so far as the cuo is said to be a new or strange ego, the full force of the 547 does not show itself, being thwarted by a possible 3TT 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 Bhāmaha 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 Bhāmaha are the only two writers extant who have anything to say of 39415475 Bhāmaha accepts it as an independent figure, Dandin (cp. ii. 358) turns it into a sub-variety of Rūpaka. but there is nothing of the nature of a dispute or controversy between the statements of the two concerning this figure. It is likely therefore that the two writers are following independent traditiocs in regard to their explanation of this figure (iv) The tenth canto of the Bhattikāvga is composed to illustrate figures of speech Amongst them उपमारूपक is illustrated by x. 60-- गिरिपरिगतचञ्चला'गान्तं जलनिवहं दधतं मनोभिरामम् । गलितमिव भुवो विलोक्य राम धरणिधरस्तनशुक्लपट्टचीनम् ॥ Here the foaming river-mouths as they fell into the ocean, are compared to the dropped upper-garment (गलितं पट्टचीनमिव ) from the mountain-breasts (धरणिधरस्तन) of the earth at the sight of her lord Rāma. The comparison of the streams with the garment is based upon the tre of them on the mountains; and so this is उपमारूपकम्-उपमासहितं रूपकमित्यर्थः the commentator HECHIES says It would be difficult to apply Dandin's definition to the present example. as Notes to II. 91-92-(i) The distinction between TT&TEY+ and fatig 47 is sufficiently obvious. Premachandra understands ii 91 all wrong, and Bohtlingk follows Premachandra, An BT414674 is an iraq following up- 15 Kävyadarsa] ·ji. 92-) Kavyādarsa [ 114 on a 640 and serving to weaken the full effect of the आरोप required for the रूपक, while a समाधानरूपक is, so to say, an आक्षेप of an आक्षेपरूपक Thus in ii. 91 the aften, while calling the face the moon, suggests that in as much as the face is 37274gaI while the real moon is शीत्तल, the चन्द्रत्वारोप made upon the मुख is not completely justified. The ATIT69 adds to all this a further remark to the effect that possibly the face-moon might be stato in reality (and so the rit might be fully justified): only his own ill luck comes in the way of his realising the शीतलत्व or the आह्लादकत्व of the face moon. Premachandra (perhaps under the influence of the ideas in the two earlier stanzas) thinks that in ii. 91 the 1277 wishes to say that the researt is derogatory to the मुखचन्द्र because the real moon is अन्योपतापिन् while the face-moon is not so. Any ECU 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 INIGYTIS is quite explicit-अत्र मुखस्य पङ्कजत्वेन रूपितस्य पुना रङ्गत्वेन रूपणात् भ्रुवोर्लतात्वेन रूपितयोः नर्तकीत्वेन रूपणात् रूपकरूपकमिति संज्ञा । It will be observed however that रङ्ग is not an अवयव of the नर्तकी as दल was of the us in ii 69, the example for 4856425. The acclara is helped by, and is only rendered possible by the arua; hence this variety comes nearer to the fa 4 of later writers, which has been defined as (साहित्यदर्पण, x 29)-यत्र कस्यचिदारोपः परारोपणकारणम् । Whether, however, Dandin intended to make every 597564 a 59 as thus explained we have no definite grounds to assert. Seeing however that the start upon the face and the garanta on the eye-brows are not based upon any definite aramed that would help the principal 31T19 in the verse, it is possible that Dandin wants us to understand रूपकरूपक as रूपकेण रूपकम् i. e. रूपकानुप्राणितरूपकम् or परंपरितरूपकम् and that the subordinate आरोपs of the पङ्कजत्व and लताव do not vitally affect the character of this Rūpaka variety.

·115 ) Notes (>ii. 95 Notes to II. 94-95-(i) Compare the nature of FEHT (ii. 36). There, subsequent to an erroneous judgment (whether of the nature of Ale or of 31€à the author does not indicate: but both are possible) based upon सादृश्य between the उपमेय and the उपमान, the real nature of the he 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 3477T 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 staia (ii. 304-309). In il. 309 he alludes to what is called yarnara by which he presumably means a sub-variety of 3971but there is none with this name amongst the given 3471 varieties and in the present stanzas he mentions a aram&q647 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 34414€ la Dandin means तत्त्वापह्नवरूपक-उपमारूपकयोरनतिभेदात् as Ca puts it. Cp. ii. 96 also. Cb thinks that by 54146la is meant अपहृतोपमा or लुप्तोपमा, adding दाशाङ्कवदने इत्यत्र द्योतकसामान्यलोपः दृष्ट एव । . Premachandra explains उपमापह्नुतिः by सादृश्यापह्नुतिः -सादृश्यापह्नवपूर्वकसादृश्यातिशयस्थापनरूपेत्यर्थः-and thinks that प्रति- 9774# (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 341 variety exemplified in ii. 36 bears an unmistakable resemblance to any ordi. nary case of 37469, and in view further of the fact that the talent may be a judgment subsequent to a तत्त्वापह्नवरूपक (as also to a मोहोपमा), it is not impossible that in ii. 309 Dandin might be equally plausibly thinking of ii. 36. And in any case we can regard the उपमापह्नति as separate from तत्त्वापह्नवरूपक If उपमापह्नुति ii. 36 we have already-Note (i) above-shown its distinction from तत्त्वापह्नवरूपक ; while if उपमापह्नति =ii. 34, as ·ii. 93-] Kavyādarsa (116 प्रतिषेधोपमा and तत्त्वापत वरूपक are quite distinct on the very face of them no attempt need be made to distinguish the one from the other. (iii) But we must learn to clearly distinguish 7797- 469647 from the figure steaia as Dandin defines it. To later writers the two are undistinguishable Some think that in the Rūpaka variety one dharmin as a whole is negated and another asserted in its place, while in the alamkāra called stalà 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 Fastruara (ii. 308). A better differentia would be what is supplied by the adjective SAGTAA UUTTAOH 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 syafa where anything can be negated and another asserted in its place : cp. Stary किंचिदन्यार्थदर्शनम् । Notes to II. 96-(i) Regarding the sub-divisions of Rūpaka Bhamaha says (ii. 22)-समस्तवस्तुविषयमेकदेशविवर्ति च । द्विधा 642 Hath I Consequently when Dandin mentions innumerable varieties of Rüpaka as being current he must have had others than Bhāmaha in his mind. MORALA 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 ciut be based upon similarity ? Bharata, Dandin, Bhāmaha, Bhoja, the author of Vāgbhatalamkāra, and Viśvanātha are quite silent on the point. Rudrata regards Dipaka as a matter-of-fact (arica) figure and not an औपम्य figure. Udbhata explicitly demands साम्य (p. 14)- आदिमध्यान्तविषयः प्राधान्येतरयोगिनः । अन्तर्गतोपमाधर्मा यत्र तद्दीपकं विदुः॥ while Vāmana (iv. 3. 18-3471Tasach ), Ruyyaka (p. 71), Mammata (p. 775--Thirt TÅRT 3C SBICH- ·117 ] Notes [-11.97 . नाम), and Jagannatha (p. 322--प्रकृतानामप्रकृताना चैकसाधारणधर्मा- न्वयो दीपकम्), do the same thing; though Mammata, for instance, admits a variety of दीपक (the so-called कारक- दीपक) where the साम्य as not in evidence. In as much however as every Dipaka demands one word syntacticaliy related to more than one sentence, we can always regard the thing connoted by that word as the it, and so we need not make much of the condition about the औपम्य being गम्य, as Ruyyaka puts it. The next issue raised is about the fits that are said to possess the गम्य common धर्म. Most writers insist that the धर्मिनs be partly प्रकृत and partly अप्रकृत but they must not be all either 417 alone or 37997 alone. This last, according to them is a case of fruitlar (see Note (i) to ii 48, above). Now Dandin is not particular on this poirt: 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 अलंकारकोस्तुभ (p. 296-297) may be said to be the last word on the controversy अत्र वदन्ति-दीपकमपि तुल्ययोगितायामेवान्तर्भवति धर्मस्य सकृद्वत्तेरुभयत्रा- विशेषात् प्रकृताप्रकृतत्वादिविशेपस्य चावान्तरभेदसाधकत्वेपि अलंकारान्तरताया- मसाधकत्वात् । अन्यथा श्लेपस्य तद्भेदयोरपि भिन्नालकारत्वापत्ते तस्मात् प्रकृतानामेव प्रकृताप्रकृताना चैकधर्मान्वय इति तुल्य योगिताया एव त्रयो भेदा वक्तुमुचिताः । तस्माद्दीपकस्य तुल्ययोगिताया भेदं वदतां प्राचीनानां दुराग्रह इति तच्चिन्त्यम् । नानाधिकरणस्थानां शब्दानां संप्रदीपकः । एकवाक्येन संयोगो यस्तु दीपकमुच्यते॥ यथा- सरांसि हंसैः कुसुमैश्च वृक्षा मत्तद्विरेफैश्च सरोरुहाणि । गोष्ठीभिरुद्यानवनानि चैव यस्मिन्नशून्यानि सदा क्रियन्ते ।। इति भगवता भरतमुनिना (xvi, 55-56) दीपकस्याङ्गीकारात् तत्रैव तुल्ययोगि- तान्तर्भावस्यौचित्यादिति दिक् । (ii) A large number of varieties of Dipaka are con. ceivable. Dandin first gives a four-fold distinction based upon the same principle as in ii. 13 and then gives three sub-varieties under each according to the position of the common word. Regarding this last principle of sub-division Jagannātha remarks (p 327) - - ·ii, 97--] Kavyādarsa [ 118 वस्तुतस्तु धर्मस्यादिम यान्तगतत्वेपि चमत्कारवैलक्षण्याभावात् त्रैविभ्योक्तिरापातमा. त्रात् । अन्यथा धर्मस्य उपायुपम योपान्त्यगतत्वे ततोपि किंचिन्यूनाधिकदेशवृत्तित्वे चानन्तभेदप्रसङ्गात् । -Mammata and others, as before ob. served, admit a variety called FC19% defined in the अलंकारकौस्तुभ (p. 291) as-यत्रैकमेव कारकमन्वयमेति क्रियासु बह्वीषु and illustrated by विश्वनाथ (p. 520) as- दूरं समागतवति त्वयि जीवनाथे भिन्ना मनोभवशरेण तपस्विनी सा । उत्तिष्ठति स्वपिति वासगृहं त्वदीय- मायाति याति हसति श्वसति क्षणेन । In connection with this variety another similar 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, संप्रदान, अपादान, संबन्धिन् , and अधिकरण -all severally illustrated in the अलंकारकौस्तुभ pp. 292 ff. Regarding for ATC Jayaratha remarks (p. 73)-अत्र...क्रियाणां प्रस्तुतानामेकाधारगतत्वेभ समुच्चीयमानत्वाच्च समुच्चयालं- कारो न तु कारकदीपकम् । तद्धि प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुतानां 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 HIT 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 Bohtlingk. 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 her illustrated in ii. 352-354 consists in the fact that while at has to be supplied severally in the ·119 ) Notes (-ii. 119 various statements in ii. 106, no such necessity exists in the FETISI illustrations. The omission of त्रयमेतत् समं would have been an improvement. Notes to II, 107-115-(i) As Dandın says distinctly, the instance in ii. 107 contains an fifcetue. Since the word Te is the common word it follows that in an 311cc14e 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 for en 14 of the moderners. See above Note (11) to ii. 97. The emendation suggested by Premachandra is good but not backed up by any manuscripts. (iii) The statement in ii. 115 testifies to the 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 H12, and the requirement that the things adduced be all ons alone, or 37545s alone, or both together, the remarks made in Note (i) to ii 97 hold true of this figure also. This figure is not recognised as a distinct figure by any other writer except Jayadeva the author of the Chandraloka (stanza 45 ) who calls it Flag14. Bhoja (iv. 78) regards it as a sub-variety of Dipaka. Notes to II. 117-(i) The figure called beforefatis illustrated in ii. 111 also employed synonyms; but they were connected with one word; here the synonyms factor, etc. are connected with separate words. Notes to II. 118-119-(i) The Toror called 79 also has words or syllabic groups repeated; but there the ·ii. 119-] Kavyādarsa [ 120 repetitions cannot be dispensed with, while in an आवृत्ति the sense of the passage does not suffer by doing away with the repetitions. In other words, salat 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 Jegannatha (p. 424) remarks- इतरे तु निषेधमात्रमाक्षेपः । चमत्कारित्वं चालंकारसामान्यलक्षणप्राप्तमेव । तच्च व्यङ्गयार्थे सति संभवतीति सव्यङ्गयो निषेधः सर्वोप्याक्षेपालंकारः । Others delimit the field of this alamkāra to the negation of the उपमान alone As Vamana (iv. 3 27) says-उपमानाक्षेप- श्चाक्षेपः । तुल्यकार्यार्थस्य नैरर्थक्यविवक्षायामाक्षेपः, as he explains the Sūtra in his Vritti. Vāmana's example is- तस्याश्चेन्मुखमस्ति सौम्य सुभगं किं पार्वणेनेन्दुना सौन्दर्यस्य पदं दृशौ यदि च ते किं नाम नीलोत्पलैः । किंवा कोमलकान्तिभिः किसलयैः सत्येव बिम्बाधरे हा धातुः पुनरुक्तवस्तुरचनारम्भेष्वपूर्वो ग्रहः ॥ This is the same as staircare which Mammata (p 894) thus defines and explains- आक्षेप उपमानस्य प्रतीपमुपमेयता। तस्यैव यदि वा कल्प्या तिरस्कारनिबन्धनम् ॥ अस्य धुरं सुतरामुपमेयमेव वोढुं प्रौढमिति कैमर्थ्येन यत् उपमानमाक्षिप्यते यदपि तस्यैवोपमानतया प्रसिद्धस्य उपमानान्तरविवक्षया अनादरार्थमुपमेयभावः कल्प्यते तत् उपमेयस्योपमानप्रतिकूलवर्तित्वात् उभयरूपं प्रतीपम्। As we have seen Mammata's second Pratīpa is the same as Dandin's fauuritaht (ii 17); while Dandin's site]471 (ii. 34) perhaps comes nearer to the first kind. The प्रतिषेधालंकार recognised by the कुवलयानन्दकारिकाकार (stanza 164) is of course a different species altogether. (ii) Others introduce other delimiting conditions. They say for instance that while आक्षेप is a प्रतिषेधोक्ति it ought not to be a real downright grada. The thing intended ought to be conveyed (in an even more telling fashion) by the apparent denial of it. As the Alamkarasarvasva (p. 114) clearly puts it- ·1211 Notes med -ii. 120 इह प्राकरणिकोर्थ प्राकरणिकत्वादेव वक्तुमिप्यते। तथाविधरय विधानाहस्य निषेधः कर्तुं न युज्यते । स कृतः बाधितस्वरूपत्वात् निषेधायत इति निषेधाभासः संपन्नः । तस्येतस्य करणं प्रकृतगतत्वेन विशेषप्रतिपत्त्यर्थम् । अन्यथा गजस्नानतुल्यं स्यात् The definitions of most later writers are framed so as to include all these conditions. Thus-- Mammata- निधो वक्तुमिष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्यया । Visvanātha (x.65)- वस्तुनो वक्तुमिष्टस्य विशेषप्रतिपत्तये । निपेधाभास आक्षेपः। Bhai maha (ii.68) and Udbhata (p.29)-- प्रतिषेध इवेष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्सया । आक्षेप इति तं सन्तः शंसन्ति द्विविधं (कवयः) यथा (सदा)। It will be seen that Dandin's example of ataq fits in with all these requirements and it would be a regular illustration for the figure as above defined. (iii) With regard to the 3214 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 अतिप्रसिद्धत्वं चcommentator observes. It is divided into four sub-varieties Compare Sahityadarpana (p. 547)- व वन्यमाणविपये कान्चत् सर्वस्यापि सामान्यतः सूचितस्य निषेधः क्वचित् अंशोक्तो अंशान्तरे निषेध इति द्वौ भेदो । उक्तविण्ये च क्वचित् वस्तुस्वरूपस्य निषेधः क्वचित् वस्तुकथनस्येति द्वो । इत्याक्षेपस्य चत्वारो भेदाः। For illustrations see the work cited. Dandin is alone, amongst extant writers, to give a classification of this figure based upon आक्षेप्यभेद. (iv) As the 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 assertion of what is sought to be negated. Compare Alamkarasarvasva (p. 120)-यथा इष्टस्येष्टत्वादेव निषेधोनुपपन्नः एवमनिष्टस्याग्यनिष्टत्वादेव विधानं नोपपद्यते । तत् क्रियमाणं प्रस्खलद्रूपत्वानिषेधे पर्यवस्यति । ततश्च विधेरुपकरणीभूतो निषेध इति विधिनायं निषेधोनिष्ठविशेष- पर्यवसाया। It will be seen that most of Dandin's exam- 16 [Kavyadarsa] as ·ii. 120] Kūryādarsa 1122 ples of Aksbepa fall under this variety. The figure of-speech called a is, as Bhoja says, (iv. 64)-771214 पृथक् । Its nature is-क्रियासूद्योगिनां हेतुद्वारा उक्त्या युक्त्या च Qanuni Some of our author's examples (e. g. adarei t, i1, 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 feat 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.--ln an Apahnuti 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 other allied figures admitted by Dandin will be dealt with in our Notes to the stanzas concerned. Notes to II. 121-126-(i) Vrittākshepa is the same as Uktavishaya Akshepa of later writers. The four-fold condition for this variety, in the words of the 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 prominently before the readers. Hence this is a regular example fulfilling all conditions. (ii) Vartamānākshepa is otherwise designated as Rodha Bhoja (p. 422) however calls it het aquarit and observes-अत्र कुतः कुवलयं कर्णे करोषि इत्यस्य निषेधवाक्यस्य ·123 ] Noles 1 - ii. 132 किमपाङ्गमित्यादिना प्रश्नपरेणापि निषेधपर्यवसायिना वाक्यन समर्थन क्रियत इत्ययं I feetata: 1 -As to Bhavishyat Akshepa it is to be noted that it is not the same as the 27th variety of the other school; for in that variety वस्तुकथनमेव निषिध्यते, whereas here it is the thing that might happen in future that is attempted to be averted by anticipation. Notes to II 127-130-(i) Compare the illustration given in ii. 127 with the illustration of Virodba in ii. 337. Most modern writers would regard both as cases of Virodha. It will however be observed that while the second line of ii. 127 is enough to make it an example of Virodha, it is the first line with its denial of tenderness' that makes the verse an example ot Akshepa. (ii) The principle underlying these two varieties is the same as that in ii. 15-16. Notes to II. 131-132-(i) The example is of the nature of an attempt to deny an actually existing fault and the consequent fear. The epithet 315251 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 [ geta or principal] cause (919), but likewise a negation of the effect ( 799). In addition, there is an assertion of subordinate causes of fear such as Errt 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 Vibhā. vanā (which is reproduced in our Sanskrit Commentary) is not very much called for. The main point of the illustration is the cool and unblushing denial of his fault by the lorer.

·ii. 132- ) Kavyadarśa ( 124 (ii) We can more reasonably attempt to distinguish this variety from Višeshokti (ii. 323), esp. the variety known as हेतुविशेषोक्ति (ii. 328). Mammata defines विशेषोक्ति as--अखण्डेषु कारणेषु फलावचः, and we have seen that in the illustration under discussion at least the subordinate FITuts are all there, but no effect ensues. But the gist of the illustration is in the epithet 3GZRT. That is what makes this a प्रतिषेधोक्ति. Notes to II. 133-134-(i) In ii. 131 the subordinate causes were present but as the principal cause was negated the effect was lacking Here in ii. 133 the causes (all of them) are present and yet the expected result does not follow This would accordingly be a case of Fatti 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 ii. 323). According to our author a विशेषोक्ति is intended विशेषदर्शनायव The act of death, the expected result, does not imply any special lagio belonging either to the fronts or the arfia that we can discover. Hence this is no EETTTTT in Dandin's acceptance of the term. (ii) An Akshepa as understood by the writers quoted in Note (ii) to ii. 120 is also for fasiqalari; compare- न निषेधमात्रमाक्षेपः किंतु यो निषेधो बाधितः सन्नर्थान्तरपर्यवासितः दाविद्विशेष- माक्षिपति स आक्षेपः। But that is not Dandin's view of the matter, and while we are trying to read Dandin's work we must lay aside all extraneous ideas. Notes to II. 135-156-(i) In these verses Dandin shows how one identical theme--the hinderance of the lover's departure can be poetically treated in various ways so as to form examples of different kinds of Akshepa. The verses are probably of Dandin's own authorship, which shows that he was not without some poetical powers. The verses have been much quoted in other writers : see the Appendix on Parallelisms, The Alamkārakaustubha gives an ex- ·125 Notes [ --ji. 156 an ple of prey 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 कुरुप्वेवाप्युदासीनता । नो जीवामि विना त्वयेति वचनं संभाव्यते वा न वा तत 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's Kadambari. (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 (ii. 142) Bhoja observes (p. 421)-अत्र गच्छ इत्यस्य विधिवाक्यस्य ममापि जन्म तत्रैव भूयात् इत्याशिषानुकुलतयैव मरणसूचनानिषेधः क्रियते इति शुद्धोयं वियाक्षेपः। The Alamkarasarvasva passes the following comment on the same stanza (p. 120)-अत्र कयाचित् कान्तस्य प्रस्थानमात्मनोनिष्टमप्यनिराकरणमुखेन विधीयते । न चास्य विधियुक्तः अनिष्ट- त्वात् । सोयं प्रस्खलद्रपूत्वेन निषेधमागूरयति । फलं चात्र अनिष्टस्य प्रस्थानस्यासं- विज्ञानपदनिवन्धनमत्यन्तपरिहार्यत्वप्रतिपादनम् । एतच्च ममापि तत्रैवेत्याशी:प्रति- पादनेनानिष्टपर्यवसायिना व्यजितम् । (1v) Regarding the illustration of यत्नाक्षेप (ii. 147) Bhoja observes (p 424)-अत्र यथोक्तमुक्त्वा कि करोमि इत्यानुकूल्ये- नैवाह ! अत्र किमः प्रश्नार्थत्वेपि युक्त्या निषेधार्थत्वं गम्यते । सोयं योक्तोनुकूलश्च विन्याक्षेपो रोध इत्युच्यते । अयमेव चास्या वैयात्योक्तिपक्षे यौक्तः 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 tratata points to the same conclusion. The interpolated stanzas were naturally placed at the end of a series dealing with the same theme We had to retain them in the text so as not to disturb the numbering of the editio princeps. .

·ii. 157-1 Kavyudaría [ 126 Notes to II. 157-158 and 161-162-(1) Even our oldest Mss J and N give in the first pāda of ii. 158 the hypermetrical reading-haaraat:1 The reading given by us is a conjectural emendation suggested by the variant given by V Our Ms. N puts stanzas ii 159, 160 after stanza ii. 162 and this fact we believe is not a pure accident. Probably this was Dandin's sequence. In any case this sequence can afford an explanation of the change of the original correct reading to the present hypermetrical reading which is clearly influenced by 37419R1219. of ii. 162, which words were probably, in the original exemplar, written immediately underneath the words सानुक्रोशोयमाक्षेपः or in such a position as to make the wandering of the eye from the one to the other quite easy. Since all our Mss. give the hypermetrical reading, it further fol lows that our present copies are traceable to one original copy, and that the variæ lectiones are accordingly subsequent to the date of J, our oldest extant copy. Notes to II. 159-160-(1) While most of the preceding varieties of Ākshepa were based upon some psychological or other attendant of the prohibition, in the varieties which follow Dandin as usual is attempting to combine the 31214fan with the 19 of some other figure. The examples are self-explaining. (ii) In view of the use of the words they and Thu in this stanza as applied to the actual and the figurative moon the explanation of the same words we gave in our Notes to ii. 88 gains additional plausibility, Notes to II. 163-164-(i) Compare ii. 26 and 27. It will be noticed that in संशयोपमा the पद्म was अप्रकृत and the मुख the 5707 ; such a distinction is not intended between शरदम्भोद and हंसकदम्बक. Further in the उत्तरार्ध of ii. 163 there is only a removal of the doubt, not an assertion as in ii 27. second line.

·127) Noles l-il. 169 Notes to II. 165-166-For Dandin's conception of 3721f=7- FOT7 see Note to ii. 169 below Notes to II. 167-168-(i) In ii. 131 the freut itself was negated; here something else is negated on the strength of a pur org adduced. Generally a aparut is कारक or productive cause and a हेतु a ज्ञापक or probatory See ii. 235. cause. 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 alamkāras or sub-varieties of them. To begin with, Dandin speaks of वस्तु प्रस्तुत्य अन्यस्य वस्तुनः न्यासः and Jeg has been here taken to mean a theme or a complete statement, so that an ordinary e of an 36H17 is naturally excluded. Compare Vāmana, Vritti on iv. 3. 21-वस्तुग्रहणात् पदार्थस्य हेतोय॑सनं नार्थान्तरन्यासः । The figures-of-speech known as TTart or faros (neither of which however our author admits) are in consequence differentiated from this figure. Between 462for and 3777F 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 Thrat there is adduced the complete paraphernalia of a logical inference including the . Both the figures nevertheless agree in this that both वह्नि the कारकहेतु and धूम the $1920 are individual objects and not statements or वस्तुs. (ii) Objections can be taken however to the above statement of the case on the ground that in an ATT the quartered is often a condensed and even complex statement, and in the flouis Mammata and others recognise a variety where the fire is a 1977. Hence a better differentia between अनुमान and कालिन ·( 128 ii. 169 ) Kūvyādarsa on the one hand and set ETA on the other is furnishied by the condition that while the relation between say aia and H 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 alamkāra. As Dandin does not lay down this condition and does not also recognise the figures अनुमान and काव्यलिङ्ग, the problem does not arise in his case at all. Dandin's or however (1i. 235) does duty for both अनुमान and काव्यलिङ्ग and in our Notes to that figure we shall attempt to distinguish it from the figure now under discussion. (iii) We will next draw attention to the word 56377 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 31stga, both sega and 3774gat being actually expressed, and that further the statement of the sea 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 वढइ स्थणआणं रोमञ्चो । अत्र साधनसमर्थ वस्तु प्रथमत एवोपन्यस्य पश्चात् तत्साध्यमभिहितमिति विपर्यासा- दयं विपर्ययो नामार्थान्तरन्यासः। Similarly when an attempt is inade to suggest (and corroborate ) the unexpressed प्रस्तुत by the expressed अप्रस्तुत or the unexpressed अप्रस्तुत by the expressed aga there results the figure of speech called समासोक्ति (ii. 205) that has to be dis. tingnished from अर्थान्तरन्यास, where both प्रस्तुत and अप्रस्तुत are expressed. With reference to this distinction it may be noted in passing that Dandin's HIGH em. braces both समासोक्ति proper (प्राकरणिकेनाप्राकरणिकाक्षेपः) and the अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा of Mammata and others (अप्राकरणिकेन प्राकराण- Fema:), and that his account of 3THECAFİAT (ii. 340) is slightly different from the one usually current [ see Notes to that figure). (iv) If we compare Dandin's definition of steia with his definition of faaragar ( ii. 46 ) we become conscious of a distinctive characteristic of this figure ·1291 Notes [--ii. 169 which must be carefully grasped. In an अर्थान्तरन्यास there is always समर्थ्यसमर्थक relation between the two aras, one being adduced in corroboration of the other. Jagannātha gives a clear exposition of corroboration' (p 471)-समर्थनं च इदमेवम् इदमनेवं वा स्यादिति संशयस्य प्रतिबन्धकः इदमित्थमेवेति दृढप्रत्ययः । In प्रतिवस्तूपमा (and in Dandin's view this embraces the so-called दृष्टान्त-compare Notes to ii. 46 ) the two atos are merely related by an element of similarity, upon which in fact the figure depends : cp. साम्यप्रतीतिरस्तीति in the definition. The साम्य or analogy, it is true, may be eventually used as a corroboration but that is not the primary and immediate object of the figure. Compare प्रतीहारेन्दुराज (p. 35)-न खलु तस्य [ दृष्टान्तस्य ] समर्थ्यसमर्थकभावपुरःसरीकारेण प्रवृत्तिः बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभावमात्रस्य शब्दस्पृष्टत्वात् । अर्थाद्धि तत्र समर्थ्यसमर्थकभावावसायः । अर्थान्तरन्यासे तु समर्थ्यसमर्थक भावनवोपक्रमः। (v) The analogical semblance required for प्रतिवस्तूपमा [and 2a ) is more likely to be found between two general statements or between two particular statements, while corroboration is usually made of a particular by a general or of a general by a particular statement. Most later writers accordingly introduce the above circumstance into the very definition of अर्थान्तरन्यास which has been accordingly defined by Ruyyaka (viii. 79)- धर्मिणमर्थविशेष सामान्यं वाभिधाय तत्सिद्धयै । यत्र सधर्मिकमितरं न्यस्येत 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- न्यासः। Our a utlaor however does not regard this as essential and accordingly in ii. 175 he makes one particular corroborate another particular (see Notes to the stanza ). Bhāmaha (ii. 71), Bhoja (iv. 67), Vāmana (iv 3.21), and others give also non-commital defini. 17 [ Kavyadarsa] .

·ii. 169-] Kavyadarsa [ 130 tions similar to that of Dandin. We give the first- उपन्यसनमन्यस्य यदर्थस्योदिताहते। ज्ञेयः मोर्थान्तरन्यास पूर्वार्थानुगतो यथा ॥ and the last- उक्तसिद्धथै 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 तत्सदृशं फलम् ), while in an अर्थान्तरन्यास there is between the two a AAPPAAT-relation based upon सामान्यविशेषसंबन्ध. Compare (ibid.)-एवं च पूर्वोत्तरवाक्यार्थकार्यकारण- भावद्वये यत्र सामान्यविशेषरूपधर्मावच्छिन्नतं तत्रैवार्थान्तरन्यास इति फलितम् । (vii) As to the divisions of अर्थान्तरन्यास Dandin's classification stands alone by itself. Other principles of division adopted are according to Bhoja (iv. 68 ) - स उपन्यस्तवस्तूनां साधम्र्येण च कथ्यते । वैधयेण च विद्वद्भिपरीत्येन कुत्रचित् ॥ Udbhata (p. 32) gives a further classification ferociar- 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. Visvanātha 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. (viii) A further varying upon the nature of this figure is responsible for the figures of speech known as विकस्वर, उभयन्यास, प्रत्यनीकन्यास, and प्रतीकन्यास. An illus. tration of विकस्वर is-स न जिग्ये महान्तो हि दुर्जयाः सागरा इव । regarding which the Alamkārakaustubha observes (p. 320)-अत्र विशेषसमर्थनाय सामान्योपन्यासेपि पुनः सामान्यसमर्थनाय विशेषोपन्यास इति विकस्वरोलंकारान्तरम् । Rudrata (viii. 85-86) thus explains and illustrates Ubhayanyāsa- सामान्यावप्यौँ स्फुटमुपमायाः स्वरूपतोपेतौ। निर्दिश्येते यस्मिन्नुभयन्यासः स विज्ञेयः ॥

·- 131] Notes [-ii.175 सकलजगत्साधारणविभवा भुवि साधवोधुना विरला । सन्ति कियन्तस्तरवः सुस्वादुमुगन्धिचारुफला ॥ Bhoja, finally, thus illustrates and explains प्रत्यनीकन्यास and प्रतीकन्यास (p. 430)- विरला उवआरिच्चिअणिरवक्खा,जलहरव्व वञ्चन्ति । झिजन्ति ताण विरहे विरलञ्चिअ सरिपवाहव्व ॥ अत्र यदिदमुपकृत्य अनपेक्षितप्रत्युपकाराणां गमनम् यच्चाकृतप्रत्युपकाराणां तद्विरहे- वसादनम् तदुभयमपि जलधरसरित्प्रवाहयोरन्योन्यातिशयितयोरुपन्यस्यसानं प्रत्यनी- कन्यासो भवति । का कथा बाणसंधाने ज्याशब्दनैव दूरत । हुंकारेणैव धनुषः स हि विनानपोहति ॥ अत्र विनप्रोत्सारणसमाया बागमोक्षणलक्षणाया क्रियाया प्रथमावयवभूतं ज्या- शब्दं धनुषो हुंकारमिवेति तत्साधनमुपन्यस्य प्रतीकन्यासमभिधत्ते । Vikasvara is admitted by the Kuvalayānandakāra (verse 123); Ubhayanyāsa as an independent Alamkara by Rudrata and Vagbhata (p 44 ), and as a sub. variety of Tea by Bhoja, who is alone in recognising the last two alamkāras as additional subvarieties of the same figure. Notes to II. 170-173-(i) Dandin's distinction between विश्वव्यापि and विशेषस्थ is not strictly logical. It turns upon the mere extent of the denotation. But the proposition-All obey Fate, and the proposition-All great men relieve suffering, are equally universal propositions as Logic understands them, and can both be adduced with equal cogency in support of the particular propositions subsumed under them. Notes to II. 174-175-(i) The eight sub-varieties given by Dandin go by pairs and hence our Sanskrit Commentary, following the commentary called stargytice, renders श्लेषाविद्ध by अविरोधिन् In the illustration the अविरोध is brought out from the circumstance that प्रियभवन and दाक्षिण्य go harimoniously together, while the विरोध is shown in as much as मालिन्य (or दोष) and आहादन do not sort together. This is perhaps possible; although in this interpretation varieties 3 and 4 have ·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 he is given the usual interpretation of the use of words in two senses. The word Erregouupon 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 the variety it is the most important word that is so used Compare Cb-दाक्षिण्यशब्दस्य स्वाभाविकार्थी बहवः । तेषु अन्यतमः साध्यतया निर्दिष्टः साधनभूतेनान्यतमेन सान्यते इति श्लेषाविद्धः। विरोधवति युक्तात्मनि युक्तायुक्ते च अर्थान्तरन्यासे श्लेषाभुबन्धे सत्यपि प्रागुक्तन्यायेन न तद्व्यपदेशः। (ii) In ii. 175 the heiata is made up of a proposition which embraces a Forte and it is corroborated by another proposition which also embraces a similar aty. The two propositions, as we understand matters, are both particular It would accordingly be an instance of 2017 in other writers; but Dandin would classify it as 3Feriestety because the idea of corroboration is evidently the leading idea of the उत्तरार्ध If the idea of RJ were the more prominent one it would be, according to Dandin, a case of sfaaramar. We consequently prefer taking the word patrat in the sense of ' a good brahman'. Notes to II. 176-17_-(i) 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 77723k and the Het propositions involve the doing of an appropriate action; in ii. 178 the action in the 7720 pioposition is accordant for one agent but discordant for another agent; and in ii, 179 the action is discordant for one agent and therefore accordant for another agent. Cb and Cs understand विपर्ययम्अन्यभावापत्तिः or अतथाभवनम् and explain इन्दोः शीततया [तस्य] संबन्धिनामपि शीतत्वेन भवितव्यम् । अतथा- #jai jaquiz:! The point is however debatable.

·133] Notes [-ii. 180 Notes to II. 180-(i) Vyatireka consists of two parts- साधर्म्यकथन and भेदकथन-both of which are essential to the nature of the figure. The Upamā-variety called अतिशयोपमा (ii. 22) aimed at bringing out the साधर्म्य alone (इयत्येव भिदा नान्या); the varieties called निन्दोपमा and प्रशंसोपमा, although mentioning with disapprobation or approbation certain points of inferiority or superiority in the Upamāna, did nevertheless content themselves with asserting, the TTF with more or less emphasis (cp 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 hip and the भेद must each concern itself with a distinct गुण. As Jagannatha observes (p. 347)--प्रतीपादौ उपमान- तामात्रकृत एवोत्कर्षः न वैधर्म्यकृतः । साधर्म्यस्यैव प्रत्ययात् । अधिकगुणवत्त्व- मात्रम् उपमानगतापकर्षमानं वा न व्यतिरेकस्वरूपम् । The same writer later likerwise remarks (p. 350)- ननु अस्यालंकारस्य वैधयं- मूलस्य उपमाप्रतिकूलत्वमेवोचितम् न तूपमागर्भत्वम् तम्या साधर्म्यमूलकत्वात् अस्य च तनिषेधरूपेणैव प्रवृत्तेः । न चेष्टापत्तिः सिद्धान्तभङ्गग्रसङ्गात् । सत्यम् । यद्णपुरस्कारेण यस्य यत्मादृश्यनिषेध उत्कर्पपर्यवगाया तस्य तद्गुणपुरस्कारेण तत्सादृश्यस्याप्रतिष्ठानेपि गुणान्तरेण सादृश्यप्रत्ययस्य दुर्वारत्वात् । यदि च तत्सादृश्य- सामान्यनिषेधो विवक्षितः स्यात् गुणविशेषपुरस्कारोनर्थकः स्यात् धनेनायमस्मादधिक इत्युक्ते विद्यया रूपेण कुलेन च सम इति सर्वजनीनप्रत्ययात् । एवं च प्रतीयमानमपि सादृश्यं गुणान्तरकृतनिषेधोत्थापितेनोत्कर्षेण हतप्रभमिव बन्दीकृतमिव न चमत्कार- विशेषमाधातुं प्रभवतीति प्राचामाशयः । (ii) The variety called प्रतिषेधोपमा (ii.34) comes nearer to this figure. As Dandin gives it as an Upamā variety some kind of my between the moon and the face must evidently have been intended. The point of the FIFTS 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 Art and संधh to be the same-say आह्लादकत्व-and interpret the exainple to mean that the moon, because of its two defects, cannot be a match to the faco as regards cbaril·ii. 180-1 Kavgadarsa [ 134 A ingness--and this is how Dandin wants us to understand the passage-we can distinguish Sath from व्यतिरेक because in the former there is not गुणविशेषवत्त्वेन उत्कर्षः as Jagannatha would say. Compare to the same effect the definition of Rudrata (vii. 86)- यो गुण उपमेये स्यात् तत्प्रतिपन्थी च दोष उपमाने । व्यस्तसमस्तन्यस्तौ तौ व्यतिरेकं त्रिधा कुरुतः ॥ As the Agnipurāna does not recognise Vyatireka as a distinct figure, what it defines as Vyatirekopamā (344. 13-14)- बहोर्धर्मस्य साम्येपि वैलक्षण्यं विवक्षितम् । यदुच्यतेतिरिक्तत्वं व्यतिरेकोपमा तु सा ॥ must be taken to include both व्यतिरेक and प्रतिषेधोपमा. (iii) As to the varieties of this figure, since one aspect of it is उपमा,-as Jagannatha observes-उपमाप्रभेदाः सर्व एवात्र संभवन्ति। But it is usual to recognise only three of them according as the साधर्म्य is शब्दोपात्त (i. e. both इवादीनामुपादाने शाब्दम् and तुल्यादीनामुपादाने आर्थम् ) or प्रतीत Next as to भेदकथनम्-उपमानस्यापकर्षनिमित्तम् उपमेयस्योत्कर्षनिमित्तं चेत्युभयमपि यत्रोक्तं तत्रैकः । अपकर्षहेतुमात्रस्य उत्कर्षहेतुमात्रस्य उक्तौ द्वयोरप्यनुक्तौ च त्रयो भेदाः इति चत्वारः। This gives by combination 12 varieties, and the introduction of श्लेष 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 (Faufa- व्यतिरेक or स्वव्यक्तिव्यतिरेक), and the last differentia is the motive for which may be simple or rendered complex by involving a further process of similarity within the difference, as in ii. 193, 194. All these principles are admitted by Dandin, though not actually illustrated. (iv) In all latter-day discussions about Vyatireka there is a theme that comes in invariably for treatment the genesis of which is to be found in the following statement of Rudrata (vii. 89-90)- यो गुण उपमाने वा तत्प्रतिपन्थी च दोष उपमेये । भवतो यत्र समस्तौ स व्यतिरेकोयमन्यस्तु ॥ क्षीणः क्षीणोपि शर्शा भूयो भूयो विवर्धते सत्यम् । विरम प्रसीद सुन्दार यौवनमनिवर्ति यातं तु ॥

·1351 Notes [-11, 184 Ruyyaka (p 80 ) explains the point of the example of this उपमानादुपमेयम्याधिकगुणत्वे व्यतिरेक by saying-चन्द्रापेक्षया च यौवनस्य न्यूनगुणत्वम् । शशिवलक्षण्येन तस्यापुनरागमात् । As against this Mammata. asserts (p. 784)~ अत्र यौवनगतास्थैर्याधिक्यं हि विवक्षितम् । Jayaratha the author of अलंकारसर्वस्वविमर्शिनी and Visvanātha the author of IEEEgo 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 वास्तवेनाध- त्वात् । यौवनस्य चाम्थिरत्वे प्रतिपाद्ये चन्द्रापेक्षयाधिकगुणत्वमेव विवक्षितम् यदेत- चन्द्रवत् यातं सन्न पुनरायातोति । [इति चेदसदेतत् । ] यतोत्र चन्द्रवद्गतं सद्यौवनं यदि पुनरागच्छेत् तत् प्रियं प्रति चिरमीाद्यनुवन्धो युज्येत । इदं पुनर्हतयौवनं यातं सत् पुनर्नागच्छतीति ईर्ष्याद्यन्तरायपरिहारेण निरन्तरतयैव प्रियेण सह जनुः सफलयितव्यम् । धिगीवा॑म् । त्यज प्रियं प्रति मन्युम् । कुरु प्रसादम् । इति प्रिय. वयस्योपदेशे प्रियं प्रति कोपोपशमाय चन्द्रापेक्षया यौवनस्यापुनरागमनं न्यूनगुणत्वेन विवक्षितमिति न्यूनत्वमपि व्यतिरेकः रसपरिपोषकतया चास्यापि हृद्यत्वम् इति ॥ [ Jagannatha replies] तदुभयम यसत् । अस्मिन् हि प्रियहितकारिण्या बचने चन्द्रादग्यधिकगुणत्वमेव विवक्षितम् न न्यूनगुणत्वम् । चन्द्रो हि पुनः पुनरा- गमनेन लोके सुलभ' अत एव न तादृशमाहात्म्यशाली । इदं च पुनयौवनमपुनरा- गमनेनातिदुर्लभतरत्वादत्युत्कृष्टमिति मानादिभिरन्तरायैः शठजनश्लाघनीवैर्विदग्धया भवत्या मुधा गमयितुमसांप्रतमिति तावदुपात्तगुणकृतमुत्कृष्टत्वं स्फुटमेव । सकल- सुखनिदानत्वाद्यनुपात्तगुणकृतोप्युत्कर्षोत्र वाक्यार्थपरिपोषाय सहृदयसरणिमवतरति । अन्यथा किमित्यस्य कदर्ययौवनस्य कृते मया मानाद्विरस्यते यातु नाम यौवनमिति प्रतिकूलेनार्थेन प्रकृतार्थस्यापुष्टतापत्तेः । Notes to II. 181-184-(i) As we have seen (Note (iii) to ii. 180) it has been customary to have, along with 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 9. The three varieties from out of these six are declared to be impossible. Says Uddyota on Kāvyaprakāśa. 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-इत्यं च चतुर्विशतिर्भेदा इति प्राचामुक्तिर्विपुलोदाहरणा- भिज्ञैर्यथाकथंचिदुपपादनीया ।

·ii. 185-] Kavgadarsa [ 136 Notes to II. 185-188-(i) These three varieties are an attempt, after Dandin's manner, to combine the afazy of this figure with that of some other figure or figures. TEASERSITY Notes to II. 189-(i) As before observed (Note (iii) to ii. 180 ), शब्दोपादानसादृश्य includes what is called शाब्दसाधर्म्य as well as 37TefhTIF. Regarding this distinction Mammata notes (pp. 664 ff)--यथेववादिशब्दाः यत्परा' तस्येवोपमानताप्रतीतिरिति यद्यप्युपमानविशेषणान्येते तथापि शब्दशक्तिमहिम्ना श्रुत्यैव षष्टीवत् संबन्धं प्रति- पादयन्तीति तत्सद्भावे श्रौती उपमा । तथैव तत्र तस्येव (पा. V. i. 116) इत्यनेन विहितस्य वतेम्पादाने ॥ तेन तुल्यं मुखम् इत्यादावुपमेये एव तत् तुल्यमस्य इत्यादौ चोपमाने एव इदं च तच्च तुल्यम् इत्युभयत्रापि तुल्यादिशब्दानां विश्रान्ति- रिति साम्यपर्यालोचनया तुल्यताप्रतीतिरिति साधर्म्यस्य आर्थत्वात् तुल्यादिशब्दो- पादाने आर्थी । तद्वत् तेन तुल्यं क्रिया चेद्वतिः (पा. V. i. 115) इत्यनेन विहितस्य वतेः स्थितौ ॥ In प्रतीयमानसादृश्य the उपमावाचकशब्द is altogether absent. SARIANP Notes to II. 190-192-(i) Compare ii. 190 with ii. 22. In the latter इयत्येव भिदा नान्या emphatically declares the साधय. In the former only the भेद is stated and the साधर्म्य is left to be inferred It should also be noted that ii. 22 mentions a circumstance that can be regarded as उपमानोत्कर्षहेतु while the जलसंरोहि of ii. 190-by an easy change into EHTIB and even without it-can constitute an उपमानापकर्षहेतु. (ii) On ii. 191, which Bhoja quotes, he observes (p. 237)-अत्र कान्तामृगेक्षणयोः प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोः भ्रूविलासमदरागौ तदभावौ च विसदृशौ भेदकाविति सोयं प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोरसदृशव्यतिरेकः । Notes to II. 193-196--(i) The essence of a सदृशव्यतिरेक consists in the fact that in it what is offered as a % or distinguishing characteristic between the 34an and the उपमेय has in it an element of सादृश्य. The सादृश्य however is sufficiently subdued to allow the #laila to gain hold upon our mind at least in the first instance. Bhoja observes on this stanza as follows (p. 305)- ·137 ] Notes [-ii. 196 अत्र मुखाम्भोजयोः फुल्ले सुरभिगन्धिनी इति पदाभ्यामभिधीयमानसादृश्ययोः सदृशमेव भ्रमद्धमरत्वं लोलदृष्टित्वं च भेदकमुपन्यस्तमिति सोयं शब्दोपात्तसादृश्ययोः सदृशव्यतिरेकः। (ii) The illustration in ii. 194 and its explanation in ii. 195 have given rise to a serious difference of opinion amongst the commentators, which is partly helped hy a difference of reading in ii. 195. The reading adopted by us is supported by strong manuscript authority while P's substitution of ITT: for faTCITAT: is hardly motivated, although he remarks--397 gatal.cat वियदम्भसोरिति उत्तरार्धान्ते चन्द्रहंसयोरिति पाठो न मनोरमः। It is even doubtful if P. had any Mss. to back him. (iii) The conmentaries A and B printed in the Madras edition are at one in regarding ii. 194 as containing two illustrations of सहाव्यतिरेक, one in each (ardha, the first being प्रतीयमान(= कथंचित् उन्नीयमान)साधर्म्य and the second प्रतीत(प्रसिद्ध साधर्म्य, both however being distinct from ii. 193, which is a case of शब्दोपात्तसाम्य. The full statement of the figure according to this view is-- पूर्वार्धे उत्तरार्धे उपमान-चन्द्र उपमान-नभस् उपमेय-हंस उपमेय-पयस् प्रतीतसाम्य-शुद्धि प्रतीयमानमाम्य-शौक्ल्य [v. 1. सौम्य] भेदक-अम्बर, तोय भेदक-नक्षत्र, कुमुद भेदकसादृश्य-नलित्व भेदकसादृश्य-मनोहारित्व. Our criticism of this view is-(i) it is not quite clear why two examples are needed : Dandin hardly ever introduces an extra. sub-variety in this way. (ii) The words प्रतीत and प्रतीयमान are given a rather unusual sense. (iii) The HERE has to be extraneously brought in. It is not likely that where the main point of the illustration is the सादृश्य of the भेदक Dandin would leave that to be entirely supplied. (iv) It is not explained why the acts of the first example are made the 34719 and 3 in the second. It cannot be a mere accident. Lastly, (v) Why should शुद्धि be प्रसिद्ध and शौक्ल्य [or सौक्ष्म] be अप्रसिद्ध ? And in any case why does ii. 195 first explain the example in the 39 and then that in the gare rather than vice versa ? 18 [Kavyadarsa] ..

·ii. 196-] 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)साम्य. Thus- उपमान-चन्द्र उपमेय-हंस शब्दानुपात्तसाम्य-शुद्धि, which is apprehended first (प्रतीत) भेदक- नमस्, 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 च could be regarded as explative. Bhoja, it must be added, favours the earlier interpretation. His remarks on this stanza are (p. 305)-- अत्र पूर्वार्धे चन्द्रहसयोः प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोरम्बरोत्तंसत्वतोयभूषणत्वे उत्तरार्धे तु नभःपयसोनक्षत्रमालित्वोत्कुमुदत्वे सदृशे एव भेदके । सोयं प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोः सहशव्यतिरेकः। . Notes to II. 197-198-(i) Bhoja remarks on this illustra. tion as follows (p. 303)-अत्र यौवनप्रभवस्य तमसः तमोजात्या सह दृष्टिरोधकरमिति सादृश्यमुक्त्वा अरत्नालोकसंहार्यमवार्य सूर्यरश्मिभिरिति व्यतिरेको विहितः । सोयं स्वजातिव्यतिरेकः । (ii) This stanza is made to support the weight of a chronological argument for the priority of Bāna's Kādambarī over the Kavyādarśa of Dandina 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 (Dasakumāra, First Edition, Preface) and Pandit Maheśchandra Nyāyaratna before him (A.S. B., Proceedings 1887, p. 193) regard Kavyadarsa ii. 197 as a reminiscence of Bana in his Kadambari, (B. S. S. p. 102, 1. 16)-केवलं च निसर्गत एव अभानु- भेद्यमरत्नालोकोच्छेद्यमप्रदीपप्रभापनेयमतिगहनं तमो यौवनप्रभवम् । Nothing need hinder us, as far as the two passages alone are concerned, from regarding the Kādambarī idea as an elaboration of that in the Kāvyādarśa. More probably the two are quite independent of each other.

·139] Notes [-ii. 199 Notes to II. 199--(i) Compare Notes (i) and (ii) to ii. 131- 132. In further distinction of कारणाक्षेप from विभावना it may be stated that while the former stops at a mere denial of the cause the main point of the latter turns rather upon the fair or imagining of the new cause (or Faruiftira) 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 Ruyyaka (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 Bbāmaha 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, Vāmana Mammata and others use the word क्रिया instead of कारण or हेतु, which is chosen by Dandin, Bhoja, Ruyyaka, Rudrata, Vaśvanātha, Jagannātha, and others. Pratihārendu rāja explains the use of the word well as follows (p 38)-इह यत्किंचित् ज्ञायते तत् सर्वे क्रिगफलम् । क्रियामुखेन कारणेभ्यः कार्यात्वत्ते. प्रातीतिकेन रूपेण परिदृश्यमानत्वात् सर्वेषां फलभूताना क्रियेवाव्यवहितं कारणम् । यत्र च क्रिया प्रतिषिध्यते अथ च क्रियाफलस्योत्पत्तिरुप- दिश्यते तत्र विभावनाख्यालंकारः। Ruyyaka's comment on this terminology is worth quoting (p. 125) इह च लक्षणे यद्यप्यन्यैः कारणपदस्थाने क्रियाग्रहणं कृतं तथापीह कारणपदमेव विहितम् । नहि सर्वैः क्रियाफलमेव कार्यमभ्युपगम्यते वैयाकरणैरेव तथाभ्युपगमात् । अतो विशेषमनपेक्ष्य सामान्येन कारणपदमेवेह निर्दिष्टम् । (ii) The production of an effect without a cause is a violation of the natural law of causation-is a सृष्टि- क्रमविरोध. As Jagannatha observes (p. 435)-विरोधमूला हि विभावनाद्यलंकाराः । विरोधस्यैव विद्युत्प्रभाववदापाततः प्रतिभासमानस्य चमत्कारofisteara! Vibhāvanā, however, is to be distinguished from the figure-of-speech called Virodha (ii.333 ff.) where the things brought in opposition to each other are equipotent and are not related to each other by any causal relation. As the Alamkārasarvasva says (p. 124)-कारणाभावेन चोपक्रान्तत्वात् बलबता कार्यमेव बाध्यमानत्वेन प्रतीयते न तु तेन कारणाभावः इत्यन्योन्यबाधकत्वानुप्राणिताद्विरोधालंकारात् भेदः । To ·ii. 199-] Kävyädarśa 1140 the same effect writes the author of the Sāhityadarpana (p.551)-विभावनाया कारणाभावेन उपनिबध्यमानत्वात् कार्यमेव बाध्यत्वेन प्रतीयते । विशेषोक्तौ च कार्याभावेन कारणमेव । इह त्वन्योन्यं द्वयोरपि बाध्यत्वमिति भेदः। 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 सुरापान is not the cause of the उत्साहविशेष and so 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 fragt 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 कार्यस्योत्पत्तिनिबन्यते । क्षाबत्वं चात्र शरत्कालजनितोत्साहविशेषः । न तु पानमत्तता । पानं च न कालजनितमत्ततायाः कारणम् । अपि तु वारुणीविकार- विशेषस्य । तथा च कथमत्र विभावना इति चेन्न । मुख्यं हि क्षीबत्वं पानमत्तता । गौणं च शरत्कालजनितोत्साहविशेषः । तयोर्गौणमुख्ययोः क्षीबयोः सादृश्यमूलेन अभेदाध्यवसानरूपेणातिशयेन सति भेदस्थगने मत्तताकारणमपि पानं शरत्कालीनो- त्साहकारणं संपद्यते । तदभावे चात्र कार्याभिन्नतयाभ्यवसितस्य पीडाविशेषस्योप- निबन्धनान्न विभावनानुपपत्तिरूपो दोषः । एवं चास्मिन्नलंकारे सर्वत्रापि कार्याशे अभेदाभ्यवसानरूपातिशयोक्तिरनुप्राणकतया स्थिता । तथा च आयसादिपिण्डवदेकी- कृतस्य वस्तुतः सदृशवस्तुद्वयकावयवसंबन्धिकारणव्यतिरेकसामानाधिकरण्येन अपरा- वयवमादाय पर्यवसानं भवति । तत्र च कार्याशः कारणभावरूपविरोधिनो बान्यतयैव स्थितः न बाधकतया । कार्याशस्य कल्पितत्वात् कारणाभावस्य च स्वभावसिद्धत्वात् । अत एव कार्याशो रूपान्तरेण पर्यवस्यति इति । तथा च प्रकृतस्थले एवं निष्पन्नम् । वस्तुतः कारणभेदात् पानादिजन्यं क्षीवत्वं भिन्नम् भिन्नं च शरत्कालजन्यम् । तच सादृश्यात् अभेदाध्यवसानेन अभिन्न भवति । तथा व पानादिकारणाभावेपि शरज्जन्यस्य ·1411 Notes -11.199 RANDRA विजातीयम्य क्षीबत्वस्य स्थितिः सभवत्येव । तस्मात् कारणाभावे कथं कार्योत्पत्तिः इति शंकाया नोस्थितिः। (iv) Vibhāvanā. can be variously sub-divided. The commonest division is two-fold: उक्तनिमित्ता and अनुक्तनि- मित्ता; but we can have more. For instance the प्रसिद्धहेतु might be itself bodily negated (स्वरूपतः) or there may be a statement of its powerlessness to discharge its function though actually present (व्यापाराभावः as in ii. 338), or its deficiency in regard to its qualities and attributes (अवच्छेदकाभावः as in ii. 324) or as regards its associated adjunct (सहकार्याभावः). 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 Kuvalayanandakāra gives six kinds of Vibhāvanā, as under (stanzas 76ff.)- विभावना विनापि स्यात् कारण कार्यजन्म चेत् । आयलाक्षारसासिक्तं रक्तं तच्चरणद्वयम् ॥ हेतूनामसमग्रत्वे कार्योत्पत्तिश्च सा मता। अवरतीक्ष्णकठिणैर्जगजयति मन्मथः ॥ कार्योत्पत्तिस्तृतीया स्यात सत्यपि प्रतिबन्धके । नरेन्द्रानेव ते राजन् दशत्यसिभुजंगमः ॥ अकारणात् कार्यजन्म चतुर्थ। म्याद्विभावना। शखाणानिनादोयसुदेति महदद्भतम् ॥ विरुद्धात् कार्यसंपत्तिष्टा काचिद्विभावना । शीताशुकिरणास्तन्वी हन्त सापयन्ति ताम् ॥ कार्यात कारणजन्मापि दृष्टा काचिद्विभावना । यश पयाराशिरभूत करकल्पतगेस्तव ॥ In criticism of this six-fold division Jagannātha says (p 434) तस्मादायेन प्रकारेण प्रकारान्तराणामालीढत्वात् षट्र प्रकारा इत्यनुप- पन्नमेव । Rudrata (ix. 16-21) in a like manner, after laying down that lāHT991 is a figure of speech based upon fear, 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 friFaela Hi991 and स्वाभाविकत्वविभावना after the manner of Dandin, gives a three-fold sub-classification as follows (iii. 10ff.)- शुद्धा चित्रा विचित्रा च विविधा सा निगद्यते । शुद्धा यत्रैकमुद्दिश्य हेतुरको निवर्तते ।।

·ii. 199- DAmasan Kavyādarsa [ 142 अनेको यत्र सा चित्रा विचित्रा यत्र तां प्रति । तयान्यया वा गीर्भङ्गया विशेषः कश्चिदुच्यते ॥ Vibhāvanā is closely allied to *Višeshokti and more comment on this figure will be found in our Notes to ii. 323. Notes to II. 200-202-(i) Bhoja regards these as examples of शुद्धा विभावना as above defined. His explanation of ii. 200 is-अत्रैकैकं कादम्बादिकमुद्दिश्य क्षीबतादेः पीतत्वादिरेकैकः प्रसिद्धहेतु- यावर्तते हेत्वन्तरं च शरत्प्रभावो विभाव्यते । सेयं शुद्धा नाम कारणविभावनायां विभावना। and of ii.201 in similar terms-अत्रैकैकं दृष्ट्यादिक- मुद्दिश्य असितत्वादेरनञ्जितत्वादिरेकैको हेतुावय॑ते स्वाभाविकत्वं चासितत्वादि दृष्ट्यादेर्विभाव्यते । सेयं शुद्धा नाम स्वाभाविकविभावनाया विभावना । Notes to II. 203-204-(i) In ii 203 there is no विभावन of anything. There is no कारणान्तर and the स्वाभाविकत्व is शब्दोपात्त. We can possibly say that the प्रसिद्धहेतु that is denied is itself fahroat; but it is a question if Dandin so understands the matter. Notes to II. 205-207-(i) The following are some of the more important definitions of Samāsokti- . Agnipurāna (345. 17) यत्रोक्तं गम्यतेन्योर्थस्तत्समानविशेषणः । सा समासोक्तिरुदिता संक्षेपार्थतया बुधैः ।। Bhainaha (ii. 79)- यत्रोक्ते गम्यतेन्योर्थस्तत्समानविशेषणः । सा समासोक्तिरुद्दिष्टा संक्षिप्तार्थतया यथा ॥ Udbhata (page 39)-- प्रकृतार्थेन वाक्येन तत्समानैर्विशेषणैः । अप्रस्तुतार्थकथनं समासोक्तिरुदाहृता ॥ Vamana (iv. 3. 3)- उपमेयस्यानुक्तौ समानवस्तुन्यासः समासोक्तिः । संक्षेपवचनात् समा- सोक्तिरित्याख्या।

·143] Notes [-11.207 Ruyyaka (page 84)- विशेषणानां साम्यादप्रस्तुतम्य गम्यत्वे समासोतिः। Bhoja (iv. +6, 49) यत्रोपमानादेवैतदुपमेयं प्रतीयते । अतिप्रसिद्धेस्तामाहुः समासोक्तिं मनीषिणः ।। संक्षेपेणोच्यते यस्मात् समासोक्तिरियं ततः। सेवान्योक्तिरनन्योक्तिरुभयोक्तिश्च कथ्यते ॥ Mammata (page 741)-- परोक्तिर्भेदकैः श्लिष्टैः समामोक्तिः । Visvanātha (x. 56)- समासोक्तिः समैयंत्र कार्यलिङ्गविशेषणैः । व्यवहारसमारोपः प्रस्तुतेन्यस्य वस्तुनः ॥ And finally, Jagannātha (page 367) यत्र प्रस्तुतर्मिको व्यवहारः साधारणविशेषणमात्रोपस्थापिताप्रस्तुत- धर्मिकव्यवहाराभेदेन भासते सा समासोक्तिः। (ii) It will be observed that while Dandin gives for this figure a most elementary definition, the advance in the various other definitions consists in introducing further conditions and qualifications in the definition with a view to delimit its sphere and to distinguish it from other allied figures such as प्रतिवस्तूपमा, तुल्ययोगोपमा, अर्थान्तरन्यास, तुल्ययोगिता, and अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. The first point to be noted is that, as far as Dandin's definition goes, it includes cases where the अप्रस्तुत conveys the प्रस्तुत or the प्रस्तुत the अप्रस्तुत; but all the writers whose definitions are quoted above-except the first two-include only the former case under समामोक्ति, designating the latter as अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. Dandin recognises the figure अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, but as he understands प्रशंसा as स्तुति and not mere कथन, his definition is not अतिव्याप्त See our note to ii. 340.. In the second place, while Dandin only requires that the two वस्तुs be तुल्य, some of the later writers want that they should be alike as regards their fasiques and that further these विशेषणs be paronomastic or श्लिष्ट. Ruyyaka's remarks in this connection are quite explicit (p. 84)-इह प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुतानां क्वचिद्वाच्यत्वं क्वचिद्गम्यत्वमिति द्वैवि- भ्यम् । वाच्यत्वं च श्लेपनिर्देशभङ्गया पृथगुपादानेन वेत्यपि द्वैविभ्यम् । एतद्विविधमपि . .

·ii.207-1 Kavyādarsa 144 श्लेपालंकारस्य विषयः । गम्यत्वं तु प्रस्तुतनिष्ठमप्रस्तुतप्रशंमाविषयः अप्रस्तुतनिष्ठं तु समासोक्तिविषयः । तत्र च निमित्तं विशेषणसाम्यम् । विशेष[ष्यस्यापि साम्ये श्लेषप्राप्तेः । विशेषणसाम्याद्धि प्रतीयमानमप्रस्तुतं प्रस्तुतावच्छेदकत्वेन प्रतीयते । अवच्छेदकत्वं च व्यवहारसमारोपः न रूपसमारोपः । रूपसमारोपे तु अवच्छा- दितत्वेन प्रकृतस्य तद्रूपरूपित्वादेव रूपकम् । तच्च विशेषणसाम्यं श्लिष्टतया साधारण्येनौपम्यगर्भत्वेन च भावात् त्रिधा भवति । (iii) In प्रतिवस्तूपमा, तुल्ययोगोपमा, तुल्ययोगिता, and अर्थान्तरन्यास, for one reason or another, both the प्रस्तुत and the अप्रस्तुत are शब्दोपात्त; in समासोक्ति only one of them is present, the second being that by one of the three modes described at the end of the above quotation. We have just referred to Dandin's conception of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. Dand.in does not recognise the figure called 9, regarding which the प्रतापरुद्रीय says (p. 410)-समासोक्तौ विशेषणविशेप्ययोयो- रुपादानाभावाच्छलेषाद्विशेषः। 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 रूपसमारोपापरूपितत्वाख्यमाच्छादकत्वम् इत्यनयोर्भेदः । This statement of the case has however been much criticised We would refer the curious to Sāhityadarpana (p. 530), Kuvalayananda (stanza. 60, Vriti), Rasagangādhara (pp. 373 ff.), Alamkārkaustubha (pp. 254 ff.) and Sahityasara, (pp. 446 ff.) (iv) For sub-divisions of Samasokti see Notes to ii. 208 below. Samāsokti is liable to a alor called 31991cca, which Mammata (p. 958) thus explains- साधारणविशेषणवशादेव समासोक्तिरनुक्तमपि उपमानविशेषणं प्रकाशयतीति तस्यात्र पुनरुपादाने प्रयोजनाभावादनुपादेयत्वम् । यथा स्पृशति तिग्मरुचौ ककुभः करे- दयितयेव विजम्भिततापया । अतनुमानपरिग्रहया स्थित रुचिरया चिरयापि दिनश्रिया । अत्र तिग्मरुचेः ककुभां च यथा सशविशेषणवशेन व्यक्तिविशेषपरिग्रहेण च नायकतया नायिकात्वेन च व्यक्ति तथा ग्रीष्मदिवसधियोपि प्रतिनायिकात्वेन भविष्यतीति किं दयितयेति स्वशब्दोपादानेन । Ronymsene- ·145 ] Notes [-ii. 214 Notes to IL. 208-213-(i) A detailed classification of this figure is as follows (ep. Alamkarasarvasva pp. 88f.)-- समासोक्ति शुद्धकार्यसमारोपण उभयमयत्वेन विशेषणसाम्येन श्लिष्टविशेषणैः साधारणविशेषणैः औपम्यगर्भविशेषणः धर्मसमारोपेण कार्यसमारोपेण उपनासंकरेण समासेन And this has been combined (loc. cit.) with another four-fold classification-सर्वत्र चात्र व्यवहारसमारोप एवं जीवितम् । म च लोकिक वस्तुनि लौकिकवस्तुव्यवहारसमारोपः । शास्त्रीये वस्तुनि शास्त्रीयवस्तु- व्यवहारममारोपः । लोकिके वा शास्त्रीयवस्तुव्यवहारममारोपः । शास्त्रीये वा लौकिकवस्तुव्यवहारममारोप इति चतुर्धा भवति । तदेवं बहुप्रकारा समामोक्तिः । (ii) Bhoja gives an independent eight-fold classification as under (iv. 47)- प्रतीयमाने वाच्ये वा सादृश्ये सोपजायते । श्लाघा गर्हामुभे नोभे तदुपाधीन् प्रचक्षते ॥ as also the varieties called अन्योक्ति, अनन्योक्ति, and उभयोक्ति, the अनन्योक्ति (= अध्यासविषया तद्भावापत्तिः) 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 अतिशयोक्ति of the first variety. Notes to II. 214-(i) The treatment of अतिशयोक्ति by Alamkārikas falls under two main categories. Some writers look to the etymology of the word and describe the figure in a general manner as a heightened or hyper, bolic mode of expression. The main definitions in accordance with this view are the following Agnipurana (34425)- लोकमीमानिवृत्तस्य वस्तुधर्मस्य कीर्तनम् । भवेदतिगयो नाम संभवासंभवाद्विधा । is Lav yadarsal ·ii. 214-] Kavyadarsa | 146 ARICHAR Bhamaha (ii 81) and Udbhata (p. 40)- निमित्ततो वचो यत्तु (यत्तु वचः Udbhata) लोकातिक्रान्तगोचरम्। मन्यन्तेतिशयोक्ति तामलंकारतया यथा (बुधाः Udbhata) ॥ Hemachandra (p. 264)-- विशेषविवक्षया भेदाभेदयोगायोगव्यत्ययोतिशयोक्तिः । Vāgbhata (p. 37)- अत्युक्तिरतिशयोक्तिः। Vamana (iv. 3. 10)- मंभाव्यधर्मतदुत्कर्षकल्पनातिशयोक्तिः । and Bhoja. who, besides quoting Kavyadarsa ii. 214 iind ii, 2200, gives the following extra characterisation of tlie figure (iv. 82,83)- मा च प्रायो गुणाना च क्रियाणां चोपकल्यते । नहि द्रव्यस्य जातेा भवत्यतिशयः 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 a thing-the most complete is by अप्पय्यदीक्षित, (Kuvalayanandavritti on stanza 36) into [रूपकातिशयोक्ति,] भेदकाति- शयोक्ति, संवन्धातिशयोक्ति, असंबन्धातिशयोक्ति, अक्रमातिशयोक्ति, चपलाति- शयोक्ति, and अत्यन्तातिशयोक्ति-that the later idea of the five-fold Birth as understood by Mammata comes to the fore. Some of these later division-definitions , are- Mammata (p. 762) निगीर्याध्यवसानं तु प्रकृतस्य परेण यत् । प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्यत्वं यद्यर्थोक्तौ च कल्पनम् ।। कार्यकारणयोर्यश्च पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययः । विज्ञयातिशयोक्तिः सा............॥ Visvanatha (x.47)- भेदेप्यभेदः संवन्धेसंबन्धस्तद्विपर्ययौ । पौर्वांपर्यात्ययः कार्यहेत्वोः सा पञ्चधा ततः ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 65) is most explict in the matter- अभ्यवसाने त्रयं सभवति-स्वरूपं विषयो विषयी च । विषयस्य हि विषयिणान्तर्निगीर्णत्वेन्यवसायस्य स्वरूपोत्थानम् । तत्र साध्यत्वे स्वरूप- प्राधान्यम् सिद्धत्वे त्वन्यवसितत्वप्राधान्यम् । विषयप्राधान्यमध्यवसाये ·14:J Notes [-1 214 नैव संभवति । अध्यवसितप्राधान्येवातिशयोक्तिः । अस्याश्च पञ्च प्रकाराः । भेदेभेदः। अभेदे भेदः । संवन्धेसंवन्धः । असंबन्धे संवन्धः । कार्य- कारणपौर्वापर्यविध्वंसश्च । Rudrata perhaps marks the middle stage in this pro. cess of evolution in as much as he regards to not as an independent figure-of-speech but as a rhetorical devise of the same kind as comparison or contrast and giving rise to a number of figures (12 in all) which he thus enumerates (ix. 1-2) यत्रार्थधर्मनियमः प्रसिद्धिबाधाद्विपर्ययं याति । कश्चित् बचिदतिलोकं स स्यादित्यतिशयस्तस्य । पूर्वविशेषोत्प्रेक्षाविभावनातद्गुणाधिकविरोधाः । विषमासंगतिपिहितव्याघाताहेतवो भेदाः ॥ Just the opposite of this is the view of Hemachandra who says (p. 267)-एवंविधे च सर्वत्र विषये अतिशयोक्तिरेव प्राणत्वेनाव- तिष्ठते ता विना प्रायेणालंकारत्वायोगादिति न सामान्यमीलितैकावलीनिदर्शनाविशे- षाधलंकारोपन्यासः श्रेयान् । (iii) Atiśayokti understood in this extended sense is called all fri by Bhāmaha in the oft-quoted stanza (ii. 85)- सैपा सर्वैव वक्रोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते । यत्नोस्या कविना कार्य कोलंकारोनया विना ॥ Vakrokti is formally defined by Vāmana (iv. 3.8) as सादृश्याल्लक्षणा, the point being-यत्र सादृश्यलक्षणा सहृदयहृदयेष्वविलम्बन लक्ष्यार्थप्रतिपत्तिमुद्भावयितुं प्रगल्भते तत्र वक्रोक्तिरलंकार इति रहस्यम् । (iv) 'The most modern school as represented by Jagannātha (p 313) and others refuses to recognise the five or more sub-varieties for the figure put forward by the Middle School. As the Alamkārakaustubha observes (p 285)-उपमानोपमेयस्य निर्याध्यवसानमेवातिशयोक्तिः । प्रकारान्तरे त्वतिरिक्तालंकारान्नरकल्पनमेवोचितम् । न ह्येतच्चतुष्टयसाधारणमति- शयोक्तिलक्षणं संभवति यत्रैकधर्मावच्छिनत्वेनालंकारत्वं स्यात् । न चेतदन्यतमत्वमेव मवानुगतमस्ताति वाच्यम् । विच्छित्तिवैलक्षण्यसत्त्वेन्यतमत्वस्याप्रयोजकत्वात् । अन्यथा उपमानरूपकादिकतिपयान्यतमत्वं सकलान्यतमत्वं वातिशयोक्तिलक्षणं विधाय उपमार्दानामग्येतद्भेदत्वापत्तेः । This school therefore approaches the most ancient school represented, amongst others, by Dandin.

·ii.214-] Kavyadar sa | 148 (v) Bhoja's statement (iv. 82) quoted above probably differentiates अतिशयोक्ति from कान्ति (i. 85); see also our Sanskrit Commentary p. 236 ll 6-12. Amarpasas Notes to II, 215-211-(i) Verse 215 is given by Bhoja (p. 462) as an example of कान्त्यतिशय with the remark-अत्रेवं चन्दालोकस्य लोकसीमातिक्रमेण बाहुल्योत्कर्षविवक्षा येन तस्मिन् समानाभिहारेणाभिसारिका अपि न लक्ष्यन्ते सोयं कान्त्यतिशयो नामातिशयभेदः। Hemachandra (p. 265) cites this as an example of योगे अयोगः-अत्राभिसारिकाणा लक्षणक्रियायोगेपि ज्योत्स्नाबाहुल्योत्कर्षविवक्षया अयोग उक्तः । Mammata would regard the example as containing an independent figure called मीलित or पिहित ; but Bhoja observes- अथास्य पिहितात को विशेषः । उच्यत । पिहिते चन्द्रातपस्योत्कर्षणाभिसारिका- तिरस्कारो विवक्ष्यते इह त्वभिसारिकातिरस्कारेण चन्द्रातपोत्कर्ष इति । (ii) The foot-note on p. 237 contains a misprint For सर्वाङ्गीणा read सर्वाङ्गेणाई for सर्वागीणा; and for क्षोमवत्यो in the last line read क्षोमवन्त्यो. - Notes to II. 217-218-(i) Bhoja (p. 462) gives this as an example of तनुत्वातिशय with the remark-अत्रैवं मन्यस्य लोकसी- मातिक्रमेण तानवातिशयविवक्षा येन तदन्ति नास्तीति वा मंदिह्यते । सोयं तनुत्वा- तिशयो नामातिशयभेदः । Notes to II. 219-(i) Bhoja (p. 462) gives this as an example of गुणातिशयेन महत्त्वातिशय' and remarks-अत्रैवं यशोराशे- रशक्यमानस्याप्यतिशयोक्त्या विशेषविवक्षा येन त्रिभुवनोदरमपि संकीर्णमाशङ्कयते। सायं महत्त्वातिशयो नामातिशयभेदः । Mammata and others recognise this as an indeperdent figure-of-sprach callesi अधिक Notes to II. 220-(i) Bhoja gives other sub-varieties of this figure such as प्रभावातिगय, अनुभवातिशय, and अन्योन्यातिशय or क्रियातिशय. (ii) Bhäinaha also delivers himself in a similar strain (ii. 84)- इत्येवमादिरूदिता गुणातिशययोगतः । सवानिपोक्तिनु नर्कपत ना गपागमम् ॥

·149 ] Notes -ii.221 We have already mentioned Rudrata's attempt to regard STARTU as a fundamentum divisionis for classifying figures careesmawwws Notes to II. 221-225-(i) We give below some of the more important definitions of Utpreksha- Agnipurana (344.24)- अन्यथोपस्थिता वृत्तिश्चेतनस्येतरस्य च । अन्यथा मन्यते यत्र तामुत्प्रेक्षा प्रचक्षते ॥ Udbhata (p. 43)-- साम्यरूपाविवक्षायां वाच्यवाद्यात्मभिः पदैः । अतद्गुणक्रियायोगादत्प्रेक्षातिशयान्विता ॥ Bhamaha (ii.91)- अविवक्षितसामान्या किचिच्चोपमया सह । अतद्गुणक्रियायोगादुत्प्रेक्षातिशयान्विता ॥ Vāmana (iv. 39) अतपस्यान्यथाध्यवसानमतिशयार्थमुत्प्रेक्षा । Ruyyaka (p. 55)-- अध्यवसाये व्यापारप्राधान्ये उत्प्रेक्षा। Rudrata (viii. 32,36)- अतिसारूप्यादैक्यं विधाय सिद्धोपमानसद्भावम् । आरोप्यते च तस्मिन्नतगुणादीति सोत्प्रेक्षा ॥ यत्र विशिष्टे वस्तुनि सत्यसदारोप्यते समं तस्य । वस्त्वन्तरमुपपत्त्या संभाव्यं सापरोत्प्रेक्षा ॥ Vagbhata (p. 34)- अत्यन्तसादृश्यादसतोपि धर्मस्य कल्पतमुत्प्रेक्षा । Vagbhata (iv. 90)-- कल्पना काचिदौचित्याद्यत्रार्थस्य सतोन्यथा । द्योतितेवादिभिः शब्दैरुत्प्रेक्षा सा स्मृता यथा ॥ Bhoja (iv. 50)- अन्यथावस्थितं वस्तु यस्यामुत्प्रेक्ष्यतेन्यथा । द्रव्यं गुणः क्रिया चापि तामुत्प्रेक्षां प्रचक्षते ॥ Hemachandra (p. 247)- असद्धर्मसंभावनमिवादियोन्योन्प्रेक्षा।

·ii.221--] Kävyādarśa [ 150 Vidyānātha (p. 383) and Chitramīmānsā (p. 73)- यनान्यधर्मसंबन्धादन्यत्वेनोपतर्कितम् । प्रकृतं हि भवेत् प्राज्ञास्तामुत्प्रेक्षां प्रचक्षते ॥ Vidyadhara (viii 12)- अप्रकृतत्वेन स्याद यवसायो गुणाभिसंबन्धात् । साध्यः प्रकृतस्य यदा कथितोत्प्रेक्षा तदा तज्जैः ।। Maromata ( 707)- संभावनमथोत्प्रेक्षा प्रकृतस्य समेन यत् । Visvanātha (x 40) - भवेत् सभावनोत्प्रेक्षा प्रकृतस्य परात्मना । Jagannātha (p. 285)-- तद्भिन्नत्वेन तदभाववत्वेन वा प्रमितस्य पदार्थस्य रमणीतगृत्तितत्स- 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 = अन्यथोत्प्रेक्षण अन्यथाध्यवसान = अन्यथा कल्पन = अन्यत्वेनोपतर्कण = असदारोपण, i. 8 उत्कटकोटिकसंदेह. 2 That it should be deliberate or आहार्य and not due to actual error. 3 That it should be between things having similarity, and so based on similarity 4 That it should be striking or picturesque 5. And that it should concern itself with the धर्म or गुण and क्रिया or व्यापार of the thing under discussion Regarding this last requirement Pratīhārendurāja observes (p. 44)- द्रव्यधर्मः सिद्धो गुणः । साध्यस्वभावस्तु क्रिया । इदं खलु विश्वं स्वतन्त्रपरतन्त्रपदार्थात्मकत्वात द्विविधम् । यश्च स्वतन्त्रः पदार्थः रस धीत्यभिधीयते । नच्च इदं तदिति सर्वनामप्रत्यवमर्शयोग्यत्वात् द्रव्यम् । परतन्त्रस्य पदार्थस्य धर्मरूपता । तस्य च द्वैविध्यम् सिद्धसाध्यताभेदात् । तत्र यः मिद्धो धर्म स गुणः यस्तु साध्यः सा क्रिया । एतावन्तश्च लौकिकाः पदार्थाः सामान्यादीनामात्रैव भ्रातीतिकेन रूपेणान्तर्भूतत्वात् । (iii) Numerous subdivisions of this figure are given by Alamkārikas: compare Alamkārasarvasva (p. 57), ·1511 Notes [ -11, 225 Rasagangadhara (pp. 23,-37), and especially Pratiparudriya (p. 386) We 2011 exhibit them in a tabular form thus- उत्प्रेक्षा वाच्या प्रतीयमाना जातिविषया गुणविषया -- क्रियाविषया द्रव्यविपया जातिविपया गुणविषया क्रियाविषया द्रव्यविषया Further subdivisions of each of these varioties tre as under जातिविपया वाच्या भावाभिमानरूपा अभावाभिमानरूपा गुणनिमित्ता क्रियानिमित्ता गुणनिमित्ता क्रियानिमित्ता ! उपाननिमित्ता अनुपात्तनि० उ०नि० अ०नि० उ०नि० अ०नि० उ०नि० अ०नि० The four main divisions of Fat are in this way divi. sible into 8 sub-varieties, thus giving rise to a total of 32 varieties under area. Each of these varieties can be further sub-divided into three sorts thus- उपात्तभावरूपगुणनिमित्ता जातिविषया वाच्या । स्वरूपोत्प्रेक्षा हेतूत्प्रेक्षा फलोत्प्रेक्षा Thus we have-- वाच्या जातिविषया of 24 varieties%3B वाच्या गुणविषया of 24 varieties%3; वाच्या क्रियाविपया of 24 varieties%3B वाच्या द्रव्यविषया of 8 varieties (द्रव्यस्य प्रायः स्वरूपोन्क्षणमेव): प्रतीगमाना जातिविषया of 12 varieties (निमित्तस्यानुपा- दानं तस्यां न संभवति);

·ii. 225_1 Kāvyādarśa | 152 STATTHI Tufaqat of 12 varieties; Tatra 155Tlaqat ot 12 varieties; प्रतीयमाना द्रव्यविषया of 4 varieties; Total 120 varieties. Illustrations for all these varieties, especially the statant varieties, are not always quotable. Jagannătha's criticism of these manifold varieties is also worth quoting. He says (p. 295)-- STATGETT FE #ET: प्राचामनुरोधादुदाहृताः। वस्तुतस्तु नैषा चमत्कारे वैलक्षण्यमस्तीत्यनुदाहार्यतैव । चमत्कारवैलक्षण्यं पुनर्हेतुफलस्वरूपात्मकानां त्रयाणां प्रकाराणामेव । (iv) For the distinction between उत्प्रेक्षा and उत्प्रेक्षितोपमा compare our Note to ii. 23. Bhoja, however, considers (iv. 51) उत्प्रेक्षोपमा as उपमाग त्प्रेक्षा and says that it is 101 distinct from your proper. His example is-- किशुकव्यपदेगेन तरुमा ह्य सर्वतः । दग्धादग्धामरण्यानी पझ्यतीव विभावसु ॥ अत्र व्यपदेशशब्देन किशुकनुसुमानामग्निसादृश्यमभिधाय दर्शनक्रिया उत्प्रेक्ष्यते । This however is distinct from the 3471 variety recognised by Dandin. (v) As to rentgga being rue compare our Notes to ii 359. Notes to II. 226-234-(i) This famous discussion of the festacia stanza which has been taken over from our author by most subsequent writers such as Ruyyaka, Mammata, Visvanātha, Jagannātha, etc, raises certain side issues which we shall first dispose of. Dandin refers to this stanza as having been already, before his days, the subject of discussion: it cannot therefore be of Dandin's own composition, and he cannot be reasonably supposed to have been the author of the work from which the stanza is taken The next question is to determine the source of the quotation Until the discovery of Bhāsa's (Daridra-]Chārudatta all were content to assign the Mrichchhakatika i 34 as the source for Dandin; but there are reasons tu suppose that the Mrichchhakatika is itselt an elaboration 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 Śūdraka. (or of Bhāsa). If Sūdraka is to be assigned, say to cir. 600 A. D., and if reasons exist to assign Dandin to an earlier date, we can do so by making him refer to Bhāsa who gives our stanza in Chārudatta i. 19 as well as in Bālacharita i. 15. If on the other hand Bhāsa turns out to be a ninth-century play-wright (I have seen this only asserted but not actually proved or even made probable) and if Dandin comes earlier, we can still preserve our countenance and make Dandin borrow from Sūdraka. Dandin here quotes the first balf of the stanza. One of our Mss. quotes the full stanza in this place and gives besides another extra stanza which is noticed in the Chitramimansā (p 77). The full stanza is repeated also as lii. 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 qeten in ii. 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 functions, which is obviously a mistake. (iv) In the above gave the verb Fastigla was interpreted as afir following the usual practice of the Vaiyākaranas or Grammarians. According to them [ 20 Kavyādarśa ·Can we ii. 228-] Kavyādarśa [ 154 लिम्पति = अमुककर्तृक-अमुककर्मक-लेपनव्यापार. Now we have seen that we cannot make the व्यापार the उपमान. make the simile turn upon the subordinate elements of the re, the the and the part? This is the point considered in ii. 230. The answer is in the negative; for if the nation interpretation of forura is to be retained, the Tiv factors are lost in the principal and can have no independent locus standi. This is quite obvious. (v) The decay in ii 231 suggests that, following the Naiyāyikas, we should so interpret the verb forma as to give a non-subordinate position to the stands of the लेपनक्रिया. In this view लिम्पति-अमुक[ कर्म]वृत्तिफलजनक- लेमनानुकूलकृतिमान-कर्ता. So the proposed उपमा statement is- उपमान-लिम्पतिकर्ता or लेपक उपमेय-तमस् साधारणधर्म-? वाचक-इव Now the question is, who is the 1990s? If the idea is यथा कश्चित् पुरुषः [भित्ति] लिम्पति तथा तमः अङ्गानि लिम्पति, we obvi. ously can connect Fifa with the hy alone and not with the 344147 also, whereas, as a matter of fact, 319G seems to be intended in the stanza as going with both. Hence Dandin says_Fafat a 1967 (or adopting the variant which also has good ms. authority: 375raifa 7 janar:). Further, the point of similarity between the proposed 39ta and 34724 (or, adopting the variant, the point in which तमस् the उपमेय is compared with the लेपक the TFF) has got to be extraneously supplied: it is not actually given in the stanza. (vi) Can we not, as a possible alternative, connect अङ्गानि with both the उपमान and the उपमेय proposed in (v) above, and in this manner ?--यथा कश्चित् पुरुषः अङ्गानि लिम्पति (or लिम्पेत्) तथा तमः अङ्गानि लिम्पति । This would obviate the first difficulty of Fra H ; 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 face and ·155) Notes [ii. 234 more or less unsatisfactory. The common property in an STAT, as Dandin says (ii, 232), ought to be evident, which is not the case here. (vii) The proper way to understand the verse is not to regard it as containing an उपमा but rather an उत्प्रेक्षा. The poet intends to ascribe to the character of a लेपक--the उपश्लेषण or व्यापन is भ्रमातिशयकारकत्वसकलवस्तुमलिनी. करणत्वादिनिमित्तेन लेपनादिरूपतया संभावितम् as it has been well observed The word इव accordingly can be a वाचक of उत्प्रेक्षा also. (viii) We have said that the line forudia etc. contains an da. There are however two possible ways of understanding the उत्प्रेक्षा We could say that here तमःकर्तृक-अड्भकर्मक-व्यापनं (which is the अनुपात्तविषयप्रस्तुत) नभःप्रभृति- भूपर्यन्तसकलवस्तुसान्द्रमलिनीकरणेन निमित्तेन (which is also अनुपात्त) तम.कर्तृक-अङ्गकर्मक-लेपनतादात्म्येन संभाव्यते । Or we could say that here-अङ्गवृत्तिफलजनकव्यापनानुकूलकृतिमत्तमः (the उपात्तविषय) व्यापनेन निमित्तेन (this being अनुपात्त) अनवृत्तिफलजनकलेपनानुकूलकृति- मत्कर्तृतादात्म्येन संभाव्यते । The first is the demon view adopted by Dandin, Mammata, Visvanātha, Appayya. Dikshita and others; the second, the entiteta view countenanced by Alamkārasarvasva, Rasagangādhara and other modern texts. The difference does not however seem to be very vital. Compare Alamkārakaustubha pp. 194-195. (ix) Some Mss. give here (after ii. 226, first half) an extra verse which can be thus rendered * The Ocean, by its billowy summits, is as-if grounding sandal-ointment-in-the-form-of-foam ; taking that by his hands Crays> the moon is besmearing as-it-were the Ladies-in-the-form-of- Quarters." (x) It is usual to render 3 by Poetic-fancy. Fancy, however, is a lighter product of our plastic or creative faculty, which generally concerns itself with associations or combinations of ideas which are remote, recondite, arbitrary, and unexpected; while Ut·ii. 234) Kavyādarsa ( 156 prekshā knows of no such limitations. At the same time, while a simile is a more or less sustained effort of the imagination to hold two things together in one consciousness with a view to establish a complete picture, an Utprekshā is a passing suggestion of the intended similarity, which may occasionally be very picturesque and which, while it lasts, gives a point of view from which the poet wishes us to understand the fact, the quality, or the action described. Hence we would render the word by Poetic-Conception. Notes to II. 235–(i) The three figures ea, , and , 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 (iii. 12, iii. 21, 1. 56), Fat (vii. 82, vii. 98, vii. 100), AITHE (p 43), and $9332777166 (stanzas 166, 150, 137) Others recognise one or two of them only, subsuming the remaining under some other figure or figures. Dandin illustrates Hetu in ii. 236-259, defines and illustrates Sūkshma in ii. 260-264, and treats of Leśa in ii. 265-272. (ii) Hetu is a poetic cause, and Indian Alamkārikas recognise a number of figures of speech based upon causal relation. These are (op. Note (i) to ii. 2 also)- अर्थान्तरन्यास (ii, 169), विभावना (ii. 199), समाहित (ii. 298), विशे- gift (ii. 323), façaia (ii. 348),-amongst the alamkāras recognised by Dandin-as also the alamkāras known as काव्यलिङ्ग, अनुमान, कारणमाला, अहेतु, विषम, विचित्र, समुच्चय, समाधि, व्याघात, असंगति, etc., not to mention alamkaras like दृष्टान्त, प्रतिवस्तूपमा, or तुल्ययोगिता (where similarity serves to illustrate as well as to corroborate), or some sub-varieties like कारणाक्षेप or Mammata's last variety of अतिशयोक्ति (where causal relation comes in only secondarily).

·157 ) Notes [ -ii. 235 Ignoring the last two groups of alamkāras, and considering first the alamkāras not found in the Kāvyādarśa, it is to be noted that I = THIỆC, Dandin preserving the first word for the Tur and the second for the alamkāra. Writers like Bhoja (iii. 34, iv. 44), Ruyyaka (p. 163, p. 189), and Visvanātha (x. 86, x. 96), it is true, recognise both HITET and WHIRT as two distinct alamkāras, but the fea of the last two writers is a thic, while we have already commented upon Bhoja's Samādhi as an alamkāra (see Note (ii) to ii. 99). About are we shall have something to say in the Notes to ii. 298, while FRUFICT is only the lead with f7g-emaneza super-added. The figure 31ed as recognised by Bhoja (iii 18), Rudrata (ix. 54), and arihe (p. 44) comes very near to our author's factalle (ii. 323). The figure काव्यालङ्ग (defined by Mammata as हेतोर्वाक्यपदार्थता) is practically the same as Dandin's ed, while an is the same da set forth with the usual aya and other paraphernalia of a logical inference. For the rest compare Notes (i) to (vi) to ii. 169. The other figures need not be here considered in details. See however Notes on faze varieties. (iii) Dandin has given illustrations for 16 varieties of te of which 14 are illustrations of them and only 2 (viz. ii. 244, ii. 245) are of the 1747e. We have already (p. 127 above) explained the distinction between for 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 fog (e. g. a) which in its most valed from is actually the कार्य of the ज्ञाप्यवस्तु (viz. (वह्नि). But a poetic 5146 need not always have that rigorous validity in its own, which logic requires. For instance in ii. 245 the व्याप्ति-यत्र इन्दुपादाबाध्यश्चन्दनाम्भसामसाध्यश्च देहोष्मा तत्र efTHIO94-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-] Καυγάdarέα [ 158 (iv) An teica, 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 7te and the area 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 eis, accordingly, the causal relation between the two statements (even where it is demonstrable) is ignored and attention is fixed upon the effe relation between them. In aeg, even in the area variety, the causal relation is naturally what comes to the fore; and as the two gets in question are normally two particular objects (e. g. 5541 and 17 in ii. 245) and not two statements as in an FITA, the distinction between that figure and 24hea is generally not very difficult to make. (v) Some important definitions of rare 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 ॥ Vāgbhata (iv. 105)-- यत्रोत्पादयतः कंचिदर्थे कर्तुः प्रकाश्यते । तद्योग्यतायुक्तिरसौ हेतुरुक्तो बुधैर्यथा ॥

·159 ] Notes [-ii. 235 . Rudrata (vii. 82) हेतुमता सह हेतोरभिधानमभेदकृद्भवेद्यत्र । सोलंकारो हेतुः स्यादन्येभ्यः पृथग्भूतः ।। Vägbhata (p. 43) कार्यकारणयोरभेदो हेतुः। Visvanātha (x.64)- अभेदेनाभिधा हेतुहेतोर्हेतुमता सह । Kuvalayānanda (stanzas 166-167) हेतोर्हेतुमता सार्ध वर्णनं हेतुरुच्यते । ............ हेतुहेतुमतोरैक्यं हेतुं केचित् 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 afasy to the figure besides the mere fact of one thing being the fun of another. Bhamaha, it will be remembered, had already raised his voice against the recognition of as a distinct figure in as much as there was no solat fara in it at all; and this criticism has so much weighed upon later Ālamkārikas that even so astute a writer as Jagannātha questions the validity of ours (which with these later writers does duty for ca) as a distinct figure-of-speech. The view is thus set forth and criti. cised by Visvesvara (p. 340 f.)-यत्तु [ रसगङ्गाधरे]-काव्यलिङ्गं नालंकारः कविप्रतिभानिर्मितत्वप्रयुक्तचमत्कारविशेषात्मकविच्छित्तिविरहात् । हेतु- हेतुमद्भावस्य लोकसिद्धत्वात् । श्लेषादिसंमिश्रणजन्यस्तु चमत्कारः श्लेषप्रयुक्तत्वात् तदंशस्यैवालंकारतां कल्पयति न तु काव्यलिङ्गस्य तत्प्रयोज्यचमत्कारान्तराभावादिति तत्तुच्छम् । लौकिकत्वेपि कविप्रतिभामात्रजन्यतया चमत्कारजनकत्वात् । . ....। एवमुपमादेरप्यलंकारत्वं न स्यात् सादृश्यस्य वास्तवत्वेन कविप्रतिभाकल्पितत्व- विरहात् । (vii) The sixteen varieties of Hetu illustrated by Dandin are exhibited in the following Tabular statement. Bhoja has elaborated Dandin's own scheme adding minor sub-varieties.- ·हेतु ii.235-] । । कारक ज्ञापक ii. 244,245 । भावरूपहेतु चित्रहेतु अभावरूपहेतु । दूरकार्य कार्यसहज कार्यानन्तरज अयुक्तकार्य युक्तकार्य ii. 255 ii. 256 ii257 ii. 258 ii259 Kāvyādarśa निवत्ये विकाय ii. 242 प्राप्य ii 243 भावप्रतियोगिकाभावरूप अभावप्रतियोगिकाभावरूप । अत्यन्ता . भावरूपकाये li.236 अभावरूपकाये ii. 238 Y प्रागभावप्रति० प्रवंसा अन्योन्या० ii. 251 not illustrated wom प्रागभाव ii. 247 प्रध्वंसाभाव ii.248 अन्योन्याभाव ii,249 । अत्यन्ताभाव ii. 250 [ 160 ·161 ] Notes [-ii. 240 Notes to II. 235-237-(i) Bhoja thus explains the illustration-सोयं यथोक्तो मलयमारुतः प्रीत्युत्पादनक्रियासमावेशात प्रवर्तको नाम कारकहेतुभेदः। ......... Notes to II. 238-239-(i) Bhoja thus explains the illustration -अत्रैवंविधस्य पवनस्य पथिकप्रमाथसाधनक्रियायां कर्तृत्वेनावेशान्नि- वर्तको नामायं कारकहेतुभेदः। (ii) In ii. 239d the reading आरोचक, as being the lectio difficilior and as yielding a very good sense has to be naturally preferred to the other variants available. m . Notes to II. 240-(i) The threefold division of the here given by Dandin is also to be found in the Vākya. padiya of Bhartrihari (iii. 45-88, कर्माधिकार), some pertinent stanzas from the section being- निर्वत्यै च विकायै च प्राप्यं च त्रिविधं मतम् । तत्रेप्सिततमं कर्म चतुर्धान्यत्तु कल्पितम् ॥ ४५ ॥ औदासीन्येन यत् प्राप्तं यच्च कर्तुरनीप्सितम् । संज्ञान्तरैरनाख्यातं यद्यच्चायन्यपूर्वकम् ॥ ४६ ॥ सती वा विद्यमाना वा प्रकृतिः परिणामिनी । यस्य नाश्रीयते तस्य निर्वय॑त्वं प्रचक्षते ॥ ४७ ॥ प्रकृतेस्तु विवक्षायां विकार्य कैश्चिदन्यथा। निर्वत्यै च विकार्य च कर्म शास्त्र प्रदर्शितम् ॥ ४८॥ यदसज्जायते सद्वा जन्मना यत् प्रकाशते । तन्नित्यं विकार्य च कर्म द्वेधा व्यवस्थितम् ॥ ४९ ॥ प्रकृत्युच्छेदसंभूतं किचित्काष्ठादिभस्मवत् । किंचिद्गुणान्तरोत्पत्त्या सुवर्णादिविकारवत् ।। ५० ॥ क्रियाकृतविशेषाणां सिद्धिर्यत्र न गम्यते । दर्शनादनुमानाद्वा तत् प्राप्यमिति कथ्यते ॥५१॥ विशेषलाभः सर्वत्र विद्यते दर्शनादिभिः । केषाचित् तदभिव्यक्तिसिद्धिदृष्टिविषादिषु ॥ ५२ ॥ यथा चैकमपादानं शास्त्रे भेदेन दर्शितम् । तथैकमेव कर्मापि भेदेन प्रतिमदितम् ॥ ७७ ॥ निर्वत्या वा विकार्यो वा प्राप्यो वा साधनाश्रयः । क्रियाणामेव साध्यत्वात् सिद्धरूपोभिधीयते ॥ ७८ ॥ (ii) Professor K. B. Pathak (Ind. Ant. xLI, Oct. 1912, p. 237) has argued that this three-fold division of कर्म- 21 [Kavyadarsa] ·ii. 240-) Rävyādarsa [ 162 unknown both to Panini and Patanjali-was evolved out of Panini's sūtra I. iv. 49 by the genius of Bhartrihari himself, Dandın having borrowed it from Bhartrihari. No definite proof, however, has been adduced to prove that the three-fold division of all was first made by Bhartrihari himself. The fragmentary Berlin Ms. of Bhartrihari's commentary on Patañjali's Mahābhā. shya--the only Ms. of the work hitherto discovered unfortunately does not go beyond I. i, 53, 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. So far as the evidence goes therefore it is not proved that Dandin lived after 650 A. D., the traditional date of Bhartrihari's death. (iii) A निर्वय॑कर्म is कट in the sentence भृत्यः कटं करोति । Here the causal activity consists in the manufacture of the fat, 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 faire or संस्कार effected. As distinct from these is the प्राप्यकर्म, viz. ग्राम in the sentence रामो ग्रामं याति or रामो ग्रामं पश्यति. Here the गमन or दर्शन involves the same kind of activity whether its object is r or something else. Hence Dandin says that in निवर्त्य and विकार्य कर्मs the हेतुत्व is कर्मापेक्ष ; while in प्राप्य it is generally (प्रायःशब्देन बुद्धिसुख- दुःखादिषु च प्राप्येषु तदपेक्षयैव हेतुत्वमिति ज्ञाप्यते-says Ca) क्रियापेक्ष only. As a further consequence'it follows that in the first two instances other साधनs (expressed by other कारक cases) are required; but they are unnecessary for the last. It will be incidently noted that para involves the *747 or the issuing out of the UN to its objects, in accordance with the sig schar theory of senseperception. ;

·163 ) Notes [ --ii. 241 Notes to II. 241-245-(i) In ii. 242 the forests have been transformed into poison. A farfare involves a change of form and quality, the inner substance remaining the same. (ii) Bhoja has given ii. 243 as an illustration of what he calls प्रयोजकः क्रियानाविष्टो हेतुः। For explanation see Sarasvatikanthābharana, p. 274 f. (iii) Dandin has given for 14h an illustration that depends upon our understanding the doctrine of FraTi OTTOTITAT. 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 164. Bhāmaha 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-ichiga (ii.244)-expressing his dissent from Bhāmaha's unjust condemnation of the roa; or is Bhämaha criticising Dandin by refusing to allow as poetry what Dandin gives as good poetry. At first blush both views seem to be equally correct; but it seems to us that if one of the two writers is quoting the other at all, it is Bhāmaha who is criticising Dandin, though it is possible that the verse was one of the floating traditional lines-like many another in Patañjali's Mahābhā. shya-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 $for indicating the time. Mammata thus brings out 'the suggestion about the कालावस्था (P. 290)-गतोस्तमर्कः इत्यतः सपत्नं प्रत्यवस्कन्दनावसर इति अभिसरणमुपक्रम्यतामिति प्राप्तप्रायस्ते प्रेयानिति कर्मकरणान्निवर्तामहे इति सांध्यो विधिरुपक्रम्यतामिति दूरं मा गाः इति सुरभयो गृह प्रवेश्यन्तामिति मंतापोधुना न ·ii. 245] Kavyādarsa [ 164 भवतीति विक्रेयवस्तूनि संहियन्तामिति नागतोद्यापि प्रेयानित्यादिरनवधिर्व्यङ्गयोर्थ- स्तत्र तत्र प्रतिभाति । (v) Dandin uses the words nighſ arce to explain why he has not taken a regular verb implying motion as his illustration for strap. A mere motion as that of birds to their nests has no afaza if understood as an illustration of a tree with step. But, says he, the instance can be a good illustration for a 14. After this Dandin proceeds to give a regular example of a 3197€ in ii. 245. Similarly Bhāmaha can be understood as criticising the line in question even as the illustration of a ज्ञापकहेतु It then becomes mere वार्ता, mere report of the weather, and hence void of any alamkāra. The chronological relation between Dandin and Bhâmaha 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. 247-347 fara TIC: SITTH1964 Harleefarcurahi ii. 248-37 कामकथोन्मादगमनादेः प्रध्वंसाभावस्य पुण्याश्रमानुसंधानकारणत्वम् (with the variant गतो for क्षतो ). ii. 249-अत्र वनानि अमूनि न गृहाणीत्यादेरि- तरेतराभावस्य मनःप्रमोदकारणत्वम् । ii. 250-अत्रानालोचितचेष्टितस्यात्यन्ताभावो विभूतीनां निर्विघ्नवृद्धिहेतुः (with the variants तेषु for तेषां and निर्वि- बन्धा विभूतयः 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 commentary also gives the other three illustrations not given by Dandin. Notes to II. 253-254-(i) A fe is a violation of the law of Nature. Hence Dandin suggests that the violation should not be prominently expressed but should be conveyed in a secondary or subdued tone, Otherwise it would be a different figure-of-speecli.

·165] Notes hairmanee -ii.257 Notes to II. 255-(i) The example given involves only स्थलकृतदूरता; Bhojagives also an example of कालकृतदूरता in the verse 37 alata etc. quoted by us in our Sanskrit commentary to ii. 255. (ii) Several writers who do not recognise Hetu as a distinct alamkāra designate the foaiagra between कारण and कार्य as a distinct figure-of-speech known as असंगति. Mammata thus defines it (p. 869)- भित्रदेशतयात्यन्तं 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 नागदेशतया युगपदवभासनम् सा तयोः स्वभावोत्पन्नपरस्परसंगति- त्यागादसंगतिः। 0 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 faz variety under अतिशयोक्ति, and particulaily that variety of it known as कार्यकारणयोः पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययरूपा. विपर्ययश्च द्विविधः कार्यस्य प्राथम्येन सहभावेन चेति-as a commentator explains. Thus this variety of state would include also the next or the कार्यानन्तरज variety of चित्रहेतु. . Notes to IT, 25-(i) Bhoja thus explains the illustration- अत्र चन्दोदयलक्षणाद्धेतोः पूर्वकालमेव रागसागर उदीर्ण इति कार्यस्योदयलाभः । स इह गुणवृत्त्यानयणे हेतावतिशयं पुष्यतीत्ययं कार्यानन्तरजो नाम चित्रहेतुः ।

·ii. 258-) Kavyādarsa 166 Notes to II. 258-259-(i) The figure called far as recognised by F777 (who defines it, P. 133, as-faragtagora- पत्तये प्रयत्नः), by विश्वनाथ, and by most later writers differs from these two varieties, if at all, only in the circumstance that the force 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 faqe in its several varieties, thus defined by Mammata (p. 875) - क्वचिद्यदतिवैधान्न श्लषो घटनामियात् । कर्तुः क्रियाफलावाप्ति वानर्थश्च यद्भवेत् ।। गुणक्रियाभ्यां कार्यस्य कारणस्य गुणक्रिये । क्रमेण च विरुद्धे यत् स एष विषमो मतः ॥ or, the figure of speech known as olema, if the agent of the unexpected or disconcerting result is different from the original agent. Cp. Mammata (p 911)- यद्यथा साधितं केनाप्यपरेण तदन्यथा । तथैव यद्विधीयेत स व्याघात इति स्मृतः ॥ (ii) Bhoja quotes Kāvyādarśa ii. 83 as an illustration for the starth variety of fameg. Dandin apparently regards the ta alamkāra in the stanza as subordinate to the 597. Probably there is a mixture (fe) of both these figures in that stanza. The sea alamkāra defined by Bhoja as (iii. 18) वस्तुनो वा स्वभावेन शक्तेर्वा हानिहेतुना । अकृतात्मीयकार्यः स्यादहेतुाहतस्तु यः ॥ can also be-यथासंभवम्-subsumed under Dandin's चित्रहेतु. Notes to II, 260-264-(i) Ruyyaka, Rudrata, Mammata, Vāgbhata, Visvanātha and most subsequent writers recognise Sūkshma as a distinct alamkāra. It is not easy to understand why Bhāmaha found the alaṁkāra void of all the orafas. Sūkshma involves a process of inference, but it is not to be confused with repèn since the r is here suhtle and disoovered only by shrewd observation of gestures or postures.

·Question 167 ] Notes il. 267 (ii) A figure-of-speech called itrag and defined in the कुवलयानन्द (151) as-पिहितं परवृत्तान्तज्ञातुः साकूतचेष्टितम् । is very difficult to distinguish from Fent. The affre thus formulates the distinction (ibid, p. 191)-BTCFT Ter- भिप्रायमवगत्ल माकूतचेष्टितेनोत्तरसमर्पणम् । पिहितालंकारे तु गुढं परवृत्तान्तं ज्ञात्वा साकूतचेष्टया तत्प्रकाशनमिति भेदो बोध्यः । Normally, however, पिहित is understood differently. Vägbhata (p. 43) defines it as-एकत्राधारे यत्राधेयद्वयस्यैकेनैकं पिधीयते तत् पिहितम् । Rudrata on the other hand defines it as (ix. 50)- यत्रातिप्रबलतया गुणः समानाधिकरणमसमानम् । अर्थान्तरं पिदध्यादाविर्भूतमपि तत् पिहितम ॥ 9 Notes to II. 265-267-(i) In there is the discovery of the hidden thing, but not disclosure. In (No. 1) there is (a) a concealing, (b) a discovery leading to imminent disclosure, and (c) an attempt to prevent the disclosure under some other pretext. This figure is known in other writers as defined by Rudrata (p. 174) as-31,5hargaan and by Visvanātha (x. 92) asmärgiftnia 215TEES TRITT area: 1 Vāmana's definition (iv. 3. 25) -GFT FUTTER Stift: is tantamount to the same thing. (ii) This figure has to be distinguished from 344&ia (ii. 304). As will be clear from Dandin's definition of the latter figure (cp. also Note (iii) to ii. 95) he does not regard Hift as the invariable basis of an 34@la; and so the usual distinction between these two figures cannot be stated as it is generally stated by commen. tators-साम्यमूलकापह्नवोपह्नुतिः । अत्र (i. e. व्याजोक्तौ or लेशे) तु न FTGaeta #6:1 We can perhaps formulate the distinction between them by saying that in an अपहृति neither the thing negated nor the thing asserted is anything like subtle or mysterious. In the subtlety of the thing constitutes the very essence of the figure. (iii) Vāmana's example for the figure is शरच्चन्द्रांशु(v. 1. च्छशाङ्क)गौरेण वाताविद्धेन भामिनि । काशपुष्पलवेनेदं साश्रुपातं मुखं कृतम् (v. 1. मम) ॥

·ii. 267-] Kavyadarka [ 168 This is from Bhasa's Svapnavasavadatta (iv. 7). Our example (ii. 267) uses the same व्याज but under entirely 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 । म लेशः स्यात ततो नान्या व्याजस्तुतिरपीध्यते ॥ Rudrata. (vii. 100)- दोपीभावो 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 व वर्णन लेशः। But none of these writers are earlier than Dandin, and it is difficult to ascertain what writers Dandin designates by vet. Bhāmaha cannot be one of them, as he rejects wat in both the alternative forms. (ii) Bhoja already has raised the question of the distinction of this figure from व्याजस्तुति (ii. 343). We have already quoted the view of Appayya Dikshita on the point in our Sanskrit Commentary (p. 26918 - p. 27061). Dandin who recognises both लेश (No. 2) and व्याजस्तुति as distinct figures makes the distinction turn naturally upon the word लेशतः in ii. 2684. The Alamkarakaustubha (p. 407 f.) would subsume लेश (No.2 under व्याघात, an alamkara. not recognised by Dandin. (iii) The fact or fara may at times involve a similarity between things; and Bhoja .accordingly gives ·1691 Notes [-ii.274 exaniples involving what he calls a FTTH and also not involving it (see p 409). For further remarks see Notes to ii. 343. - Notes to II. 273-274-(i) Except Bharata, Agnipurāna, Hemachandra, and Alamkārasekhara this figure-ofspeech is recognised by all extant writers Some distinctive definitions may here be collected- Bbāmaha (ii 89) and Udbhata (p. 42)- भूयसामुपदिष्टानामर्थानामसधर्मणाम् । क्रमशो योनुनिर्देशो यथासंख्यं तदुच्यते ॥ Rudrata (vii.34)-- निर्दिश्यन्ते यस्मिन्नर्था विविधा ययैव परिपाट्या । पुनरपि तत्प्रतिवद्धास्तयैव तत् स्यायथासंख्यम् ॥ Vāmana (iv. 3. 17)- उपमेयोपमानानां क्रमसंबन्धः क्रमः । Bhoja (iv. 79) शब्दस्य यदि वार्थस्य द्वयोरप्यनयोरथ । भणनं परिपाट्या यत् क्रमः स परिकीर्तितः॥ and Mammata (p. 803)- यथासंख्यं क्रमेणैव ऋमिकाणां समन्वयः । (ii) It will be noticed that while Vāmana requires that the things mentioned in succession should have between them a relation of similarity, Bhamaha contrarywise holds that the things should not be so related. Jagannātha, as also Hemachandra before him, argues (p. 478) that यथासंख्य should not be recognised as a distinct figure. His words are-यथासंख्यमलंकारपदवीमेव तावत कथमारोढुं 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 a fat 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 alamkāra. 22 [ Kavyadarsa] ·ii. 275-1 Kūvyādar śn ( 170 Notes to II. 275-(i) Dandin now defines together a group of three Alamkāras known as TOITS. Bhāmaha (iii. 1-7) and Udbhata (p. 49, generally following Bhamaha in his treatment) are alone amongst ancient writers to recognise these three alamkāras in the sense li wł ich Dandin understands them. Ruyyaka (F 18 ) Viśl'alātha (*. 95-96) and one or two later w it. I's acceut these alamkāras and even add to their number the alamkāras designated as Samā. hita, Bhāvodaya, Bhāvasamdhi, and Bhāvasabalata (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, 777, etc. ought to be introduced in subordination to another artist and not prominently and for their own sake. This view was first propounded by the author of the tablets (cp. ii. 5, p. 711- प्रधानन्यत्र वाक्यार्थे यत्राझंतु रसादयः। काव्ये तस्मिन्नलंकारो रसादिरिति मे मतिः॥ Ananda vardhana's Aloka on this kārikā runs as follows:-यद्यपि रसवदलंकारस्यान्यैर्दर्शितो विषयस्तथापि यस्मिन् काव्ये प्रधानतयान्योर्थो वाक्यार्थीभूतस्तस्य चाङ्गभूता ये रसादयस्ते रसादेरलंकारस्य विषय इति मामकीनः पक्षः। Dandin, Bhāmaha, or some predecessor of them is perhaps intended to be alluded to in the kārikā in question : Abbinavagupta in his pricehaga to the passage actually mentions Bhāmaha. Our Sanskrit Commentary on ii, 275 lines 123ff. quotes Premachandra's attempt to defend the position taken by Dandin and Bhāmaha as against the new school. (ii) We have explained in a general way in our Note (i) to i. 18 the nature of Rasa, but it is 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 is or life-breaths (i. 42). And as a body can have extraneous ornaments to set forth its natural charm so poetry also had its " ornaments or alamkāras, these being specific turns of expression or thought which could not be covered by the usual yus (and cias) For a time advance in the science of Poetics consisted mainly in an elaboration of the guts and 370rts, their number and mutual distinction. The next step of importance taken was the formulation of the doctrine of irras 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, qat, 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 fas had each an element of good and of evil in it. (iii) All this time however no attempt was made to explain why certain Tus or 375rts afford pleasure more than others. A mere external labelling and classification was naturally felt to be inadequate in a science of Æsthetics. Help was sought at first from the sister science of Dramaturgy. The Nātyaśāstra had led down the Sutra-विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोगाद्रसनिष्पत्तिः (Adhyāya vi, p. 62, where this ancient theory is quoted and explained). The generating and intensifying factors (आलम्बन and उद्दीपन विभावs) are सीता, शकुन्तला, etc. and वसन्त, ज्योत्स्ना, मेघोदय, etc. And they produce in राम, दुष्यन्त etc. in the first place one or more of the 8 सात्त्विक 375thtas, which are somewbat involuntary and physiological in origin, and along with them a number of psychological moods or feelings through which the hero passes. These latter are some of them dominent feelings or FTITUTES of which there are nine enumerated; and somo, cuncurrent feolings or ayfairs of ·ii. 275– ) Kāvyādarga [ 172 The अनुभाव, CO which no less than 33 are enumerated. 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 audience by sympathy the nine tas or sentiments. This is the theory of the Nātyaśāstra which can be graphically thus presented :- 8 at faah 37772778 produce 8(9) आलम्बन (विभावs produce 8 (9) FTITTATAS TES. उद्दीपन (in Actor) 33 व्यभिचारिन (in Audience ) The eight 37Turas are enumerated in our Sanskrit Com. ii. 27575–76, the FIFTHras in ii. 27558-59, and af atras in ii. 27582–40. The eight (or nine) 77 correspond to the nine स्थायिभावा- रति to शृङ्गार क्रोध to रौद्र जुगुप्सा to बीभत्स हास to हास्य उत्साह to वीर विस्मय to अद्भुत शोक to करुण भय to भयानक [निर्वेद to शान्त] (iv) Dandin is aware of the existence of the in theory (cp. i. 51, ii. 280, 111. 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 theory by introducing a new variety of stars for cases where thes 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 Dandin's treatment of Ale (i. 51). This was merely borrowing a feather from the sister science. Rasa is of the nature of an inner consciousness (hence called au), and it is evident that it can be felt even in poems not containing the that alamkāra. Some Alamkārikas, as we saw, tried to get out of the problem by recognising Tat alamkāra only in those cases where the this felt as being subordinated to the वाक्यार्थ proper. (v) The 'real solution of the matter came from the grammarians. If poetry consists of words having specific sense (or words and sense), it is necessary to ·173 1 Notes [-ii. 275 determine at first the varieties of sense or stef. There is the expressed sense or the area and the figurative or indicative sense or लक्ष्यार्थ. In the stock instance it means literally and primarily the stream, which is the 911. But in statements like Try #: the word must mean not the stream but the bank. This is the secondary significance of the word or its लक्ष्यार्थ. Now why should a person be prompted to say try J1A: instead of गङ्गातटे ग्रामः? Clearly there must be a प्रयोजन (ignoring for the moment the few cases where fa 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 व्याय sense. In cases like the above where the are and the लक्ष्य senses can be clearly distinguished from the व्यङ्गय sense there is no difficulty of any kind. But there are cases where the व्यङ्गय is असंलक्ष्यक्रम ; where the 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 असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्गय (vi) One inevitable consequence of the share which the grammarians had in the formulation of the la theory was the adoption of their fhite theory by the Alamkārikas. Anandavardhana in his otsit (p. 47-48) clearly recognises this indebtedness. He says-997 F विद्वांसो वैयाकरणाः व्याकरणमूलत्वात् सर्वविद्यानाम् । ते च श्रूयमाणेषु वर्णेषु ध्वनिरिति व्यवहरन्ति । तथैवान्यैस्तन्मतानुसारिभिः सूरिभिः काव्यतत्त्वार्थदर्शि- भिर्वाच्यवाचकसंमिश्र. शब्दात्मा काव्यमिति व्यपदिश्यते व्यञ्जकत्वसाम्याद्ध्वनि- feran: 1 In other words :- वैया call शब्द = 'वनि, as being the व्यञ्जक of स्फोट (to which IỂ sounds are subordinate); आलं. call शब्दार्थ- स्वनि, as being the व्यञ्जक of व्यङ्गय (to which the area sense is subordinate). This means that there is no उत्पत्ति but only an अभिव्याक्ति of the रसs. That is to say, the gestures and movements of the actor can prevail over you only if you are her and have once experienced feelings and emo·ii. 275 - ] Kävyādarsa ( 174 9 tions answerable to those depicted or enacted. The Alamkārikas who followed this view of the case naturally gave no independent place to watch and other Alamkāras. If Mammata in one place (Ullāsa i. p. 23) mentions the रसवत् it is भामहमटोद्भट प्रभृतिचिरंतनालंकारिकमतेन, as a commentator explains it. (vii) If 270 (or TecTETT) be the body and yts the lifebreaths of poetry, the question-what is the soul of poetry--which is naturally suggested by the metaphor is answered (i) by Vāmana (I ii. 6) as faciat 12764 ; (ii) by the स्वनि school (ध्वनिकारिका 1) as काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिः and (iii) by Visvanatha (i. 3) as api THTHE OTH. On this point compare Notes to i. 10 The question can have only an academic interest once we have realised the function of रस, रीति or वनि in poetry. (viii) How this produced in the heart of the ECU 0417, its exact inodus operandı, bas given rise to a number of divergent views which it would take us too far afield to discuss here in detail. Consult on the question ध्वन्यालोकलोचन p 69, Mammaţa, Ullāsa iv., pp. 101-111, and Rasagangādhara pp. 22-31. (ix) The distinction between , रसवत् , and ऊर्जस्विन् can be thus formulated. If the 50 Hras described above (Note iii) are any of them produced by certain fahras the nature of which prevents the manifestation of a corresponding full-fledged to in the audience or the reader--when, for instance, the FEITHIa called vra is produced not by some lady-love but by Ta, ga, gyía, 97, etc.-we have an incomplete रस or rather अप्राप्तरसावस्थभाव, which gives rise to TOEFT. The alamkāra is sometimes called 2791FR also ; -cp. 3700 FTTHOFA p. 189. A रसवत् alamkāra of course exhibits the विभावs, अनुभावs, and Tatras 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, is शास्त्रसंविद्विरुद्ध, is in flagrant opposition to the normal or the convertional, purposely with a view to stamp one's own individuality upon it. Thus in the ·175) Notes ww ii. 278 example given (ii. 293-4), to allow an enemy hemned in battle to depart is what is unexpected; but the hero does it owing to his over-weening self-confidence. Notes to II. 276-277-(i) The same example is given by Bhānaha iii. 5. Cp. also our Note (iii) to ii. 37. The verse seems to be an adaptation of the last verse in the 92nd Adhyāya of the Udyogaparvan. It is difficult to ascertain whether the adaptation was the work of Bhāmaha or of Dandin or of an unknown predecessor of both. The example illustrates the sta of विदुर for श्रीकृष्ण and also of श्रीकृष्ण for विदुर. Notes to II. 278-279-(i) The example illustrates the sig on the side of the King alone. The sargyrcat gives us this information about the King-रातवर्मा नाम केरलानामधि- पतिरत्यन्तशिवभक्तः । सोपि दिग्विजयवशेन कैलासं प्राप्तः पाशुपतमन्त्रेण पशुपति त्र्यम्बकमाराध्य दृष्टवान् । The Keralas are mentioned in Rock Edict II of Asoka. Their most ancient capital was Vanji or Vanchi about 28 miles from Cochin on the Malabar Coast. But as our knowledge of their geneology is almost nil Dandin's mention of a king of that line-supposing he really belongs to that line-gives us no solid ground for any chronological conclusion. On the other hand Dandin in iii. 114 mentions a city with a name of 5 varnas, the middle one being a nasal, where rule kings with a name of 8 quis. Here although the city could be azt or as the capital of ancient Kerala) as well as fruft (Conjeeveram) the capital of the Pallavas, yet the name qua: consists of 8 quis (including the visarga) while the Kerala kings, even adopting their ancient local name of Cheralādan' do not give the required number of varpas. In the present state of our knowledge therefore Dandin seems to have definitely alluded to the Pallavas of Kanchi; and the temptation to regard रातवर्मन् as a Pallava king is irresistible. Unfortunately, in the published names of the Pallava kings, there is none of this name ; but if the variant that is adopted we can identify him ·ii. 279-] Kavyadarsa [ 176 with नरसिहवर्मा II who had राजसिंहवर्मा as his other name. Narasimhavarman's date is A. D. 690-715 (see G. Jou. veau-Dubreul, Ancient History of the Deccan, p. 70), and he is described as a devout Saiva and as a builder of several Siva 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 ककुभः कुम्भजन्मनः॥ ..... तरयां जने बुधवातध्वस्ताखिलविपल्लवः । पल्लवेषु महीपालः सिहविष्णुरिति श्रुतः ॥ ... अदृष्टपूर्वो गन्धर्वस्तं सभासदमेकदा । उदजलि महीपालमुपवीणयदार्यया ॥ श्रुत्वेनामत्युदारार्थी कुतूहलबलान्नृपः । अब्रवीद्भद्र केनेयं निर्मिता वर्णपद्धतिः॥ इत्युचिवांसं प्रत्यूचे गन्धर्वस्तं धनेश्वरम् । अस्त्यानन्दपुरं नाम प्रदेशे पश्चिमोत्तरे। आर्यदेशशिखारत्नं तत्रासन् बहवो द्विजाः ।। ततोमिनिसृता काचित् कौशिकी ब्रह्मसंतति । तस्यां नारायणस्वामिनाम्नो नारायणोदरात् । दामोदर इति श्रीमान्..

·1771 Notes pon -ii, 279 स मेधावी कविर्विद्वान् भारविः(वि) प्रभवं गिराम् । अनुरुध्याकरोन्मैत्री नरेन्द्र विष्णुवर्धने ॥ ..... .. ...... तस्यान्तिके वसत्येष तेनायेंयमुदीरिता ।। इति श्रुत्वा महीपालस्तदालोकनलोलुपः । नृपनिर्बन्धनिर्दिष्टे प्रकृष्टविभवे गृहे । वहतः पैतृकी वृत्तिं तस्यासीत् तनयत्रयम् ॥ मनोरथाहयस्तेषां मध्यमो वङ्गवंशगः (?) । ततस्तनूजाश्चत्वारः स्रष्टुर्वेदा इवाभवन् । श्रीवीरभद्र इत्येषां....... यवीयानस्य च श्लाघ्या गौरी नामाभवत् प्रिया ।। ततः कथं चत् सा गौरी द्विजाधिपशिखामणेः । कुमारं दण्डिनामानं व्यक्तशक्तिमजीजनत् ॥ स बाल एव मात्रा च पित्रा चापि व्ययुज्यत । अयुज्यत गरीयस्या सरस्वत्या श्रुतेन च ॥ सविक्रिये पुरे तस्मिन् परचक्रोपरोधत' । 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 Mahāmallapuram in Keral country adjoining the sea - महामल्लपुरे देवः स्वैरं वारिधिसंनिधौ । आस्ते मुकुन्दः सानन्दं फणीन्द्र इव मन्दिरे ॥ (iii) We need not of course take all the gossiping tales in the AGCSIT as sober history; but the present story has some verisimilitude about Dandin is here made a contemporary of Simhavishnu's successors Mahendravarman I (600-630) and Narasimhavarman I (630-668), the first of whom is famous as the king under whose orders were constructed the remarkable 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] ·ii. 279-) Kavyādarsa ( 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 A. D Mahendravarman is reported to have been a Jain originally, and to have been converted to faith in Siva by a famous Tamil saint. If therefore we can imagine that राजवर्मन् is a poetic variant for महेन्द्रवर्मन् or that महेन्द्रवर्मन् bore रातवर्मन् as an additional name, we have here all the evidence that we can expect from tradition for placing Dandin at the court of the Pallavas of 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. Ānanda pura the city I am unable to identify. (iv) The eight forms of manifestation inentioned in ii. 278 are of course the same as the 3rzaar na or sola alluded to by Kālidāsa in the benedictory verse of the Sakuntala. Notes to II. 280-281-(i) Dandin is now going to give in succession the illustrations for 1971, a separate one for each रस. (ii) Our Ms. N., in a different hand, gives the marginal note identifying 349-ci with q1HGFIT. Vāsavadatta was an Avanti Princess; compare Svapnavāsava dattā 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 Natya- Vedavivriti (Madras Ms., vol iii, p.41) speaks of a play ·1791 Notes [ii. -286 Ot.Subandhu dealing with the story of उदयन and वासवदत्ता His exact words are- तत्रास्य बहुतरख्यापिनो बहुगर्भस्वप्नायिततुल्यस्य नाट्यायितस्योदाहरणं महाकविसुबन्धुनिबद्धो वासवदत्तानाट्यधाराख्यः (?) समस्त एव प्रयोगः । तत्र हि विन्दुस्वरः प्रयोज्यवस्तुत उदयनचरिते सामाजिकीकृतोप्युदयनो वासवदत्ताचेष्टिते......तत्र ह्युदयने सामाजिकीकृते सूत्रधारप्रयोगः-तवसुचरितैरेव जयतीति । तत उदयनः-कुतो मम सुचरितानीति सार्ने विलपति । From this it appears that this particular play made use of a playwithin-the-play in the dénouement. There is also a newly discovered play called Vināvāsavadatta (?) affording analogy in construction with the Bhāsa plays. Besides there are the BTC CTS dealing with the story of Vāsavadattā which were probably known even to the author of Vyākaraḥamahābhāshya (see Kielhorn's ed., vol. ii, p. 284), which however could not have contained a verse like the one given by Dandin. Seeing that Bhāsa's Svapnavāsavadattā 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. (iii) In the variants to ii. 280 read-"R, B., सैषा तन्वी P, Rn;" instead of "P, R, B%3B (iv) The following quotation from Abhinavagupta's Natyavedavivriti (Madras ms. p. 204) is worth noting- चिरंतनानां चायमेव पक्षः । तथाहि दण्डिना स्वा(रसा?)लंकारलक्षणेभ्यधायि- रतिः शृङ्गारतां गता रूपबाहुल्ययोगेनेति । अधिरुह्य परा कोटि कोपो रौद्रात्मतां गत इत्यादि । , Notes to II. 282-285-(i) The stanzas ii. 282, and ii 284 are apparently of Dandin's own composition; and the same explanation might have been available in the case of ii. 280 also. codineKMondindia - Notes to II. 286-(i) The stanza is undoubtedly reminiscent of Raghuvamsa viii. 57- नवपल्लवसंस्तरेषि ते मृदु दूयेत यदङ्गमर्पितम् । तदिदं विधहिन्यते कथं वद वामोरु विताधिरोहणम् ।।

·i1, 287.] Kivyācursu ( 180 Notes to II. 287-291--(i) It is difficult exactly to perceive the point of ii. 290. Possibly mi is not to be construed with game 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. Si Notes to II, 292-(i) Having introduced 7 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 fire the emphasis is primarily upon 37TFCIT. (ii) Dandin apparently recognises only 8 hs, ignoring fea, the ninth. This is in conformity with the older view; compare tirer vii. 98. Notes to II. 293-294-(i) Udbhata thus defines Buffalo (p. 51)- अनौचित्यप्रवृत्तानां कामक्रोधादिकारणात् । भावानां च रसानां च बन्ध ऊर्जस्वि कथ्यते ॥ A good example of it is Mālatīmādhava iii. 12- धत्ते चक्षुर्मालिनि रणत्कोकिले बालचूते मार्गे गात्रं क्षिपति बकुलामोदगर्भस्य वायोः । 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) Vāmana is the only other writer besides a who does not recognise qyte. Bhoja and Rudrata designate it as simply are, a name which some writers reserve for a distinct alamkāra not re. cognised by Dandin. A few leading definitions are here assembled Agnipurāņa (345.18) and Bhāmaha (iii, 8 - पर्यायोक्तं यदन्येन प्रकारेणाभिधीयते। CD ·1811 Notes |-11.297 Udbhata (p. 51) adds the extra line- वाच्यवाचकवृत्तिभ्या शून्येनावगमात्मना । Rudrata (vii. 42) वस्तु विवक्षितवस्तुप्रतिपादनक्तमसदृशं तस्य । यदजनकमजन्यं वा तत्कथनं यत् स पयायः॥ Bhoja (iv. 80)- मिषं यदुक्तिभगियावसरो यः स सूरिभिः । निराकाङ्क्षोष साकाङ्क्षः पर्याय इति गीयते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. iii)- गम्यस्यापि भङ्गयन्तरेणाभिधानं पर्यायोक्तम् । Mammata (Ullasax. p. 828)- पर्यायोक्तं विना वाच्यवाचकत्वेन यद्वचः । Vagbhata (iv. 108)-- अतत्परतया यत्र कल यमानेन वस्तुना। विवक्षित प्रतीयेत पर्यायोक्तिरियं तथा ॥ Vāgbhata (p. 36)- स्वनिताभिधानं पर्यायोक्तिः । Hemachandra (p. 263) व्यवयम्योक्तिः पर्यायोक्तम् । Pratāparudriya (p. 446) कारणं गम्यते यत्र प्रस्तुतात् कार्यवर्णनात् । प्रस्तुतत्वेन संबद्धं तत् पर्यायोक्तमुच्यते ॥ Ekavali (viii. 29)- यत्र व्यङ्गयस्य सतो हेतोः कार्याभिधानभङ्गीभिः । स्यादभिधानं सुधियः पर्यायोक्तं विदुस्तदिदम् ॥ Sahityadarpana (x. 61)- पर्यायोक्तं यदा भगया व्यङ्गयमेवाभिधीयते। Kuvalayānanda (67) - पर्यायोक्तं तु गम्यस्य वचो भङ्गचन्तराश्रयम् । and Jagannatha (p. 409)- विवक्षितस्यार्थस्य भङ्ग यन्तरेण प्रतिपादनम् ।

·ii. 297---] Kävyādarści | 182 (ii) Most of the definitions (except those of Bhāmaha or Bhoja) contemplate the necessity of distinguishing an ordinary case of year from this Thus गङ्गाया ग्रामः is a round about way of saying that the ग्राम 'S cool and holy; but it is a case of pure tala or suggestion, and not an instance of ra. Why? Dandin, Bhāmaha, and the earlier writers would answer that there is no poetic pretext (T, R) that makes the periphrasis peculiarly charming. Writers who adopted the a theory would reply that if the sentence is uttered merely with the primary purpose of telling us just the location of the village, and consequently if the ti and 91779 come in only by way of a back-door suggestion, then it is not पर्यायोक्त. If, however, the direct object of the speaker were to tell us that the OTH is शैत्यपावनविशिष्ट, and if the writer merely says गङ्गाया ग्रामः or even a 9TH: with an emphasis on 7971, the case does not differ from an ordinary per except that the instance is great or unpoetic, perliaps. In other words in पर्यायोक्त the व्यङ्गयार्थ (शैत्यादि) is itself the qref 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-egtegà deg व्यङ्ग्यम् यथा तु व्यङ्ग्यं न तथोच्यते। Compare also the प्रदीप on the passage :-अत्र सन्नपि व्यङ्गयोर्थः अतिस्फुटतया न तथातिशेते यथा उत्तेवैचित्र्यमिति न वनित्वम् नापि गुणीभूतव्यङ्गचत्वम् । (iii) Ruyyaka, Vidyānātha, and Vidyahan go a step further They not only require that the pillai should convey the or the 25 sense primarily : but also that the exact mode or hate 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)-अयं चालंकारः कचित् कारणेन वाच्येन कार्यस्य गम्यत्वे कचित् कार्येण कारणस्य क्वचिदुभयोदासीनेन संवन्धिमात्रण संबन्धिमात्रस्य चेति tagataqz7:1 This last is a limitation of the spbers of the figure which is not generally recognised, (iv) Paryāyokta along with two or three other alamkāras has played in the hands of Bhāmaha, and ·1831 Notes سا -ii.299 others the same rôle that was subsequently assigned to 'चनि. Jagannatha (p 415) observes on the point as follows-'वनिकारात् प्राचीन महोद्भटप्रभृतिभिः स्वग्रन्थेषु कुत्रापि वनिगुणी- भूतव्यङ्गयादिशब्दा न प्रयुक्ता इत्येतावतैव तैर्वन्यादयो न स्वीक्रियन्त इत्याधुनि- कानां वाचायुक्तिरयुक्तैव यतः समासोक्तिव्याजस्तुत्यप्रस्तुतप्रशंसाद्यलंकारनिरूपणेन कियन्तोपि गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयभेदास्तैरपि निरूपिताः । अपरश्च सर्वोपि व्यङ्ग्यप्रपञ्चः पर्चायोक्तकुक्षौ निक्षिातः । न ह्यनुभवसिद्धोर्थो बालनाप्यपहोतुं शक्यते । 'वन्यादि- शब्देः परं व्यवहारो न कृतः । न ह्येतावतानङ्गीकारो भवति । (v) The sense intended to be conveyed and the sense actually expressed by the words used in a Paryayokta (as Dandin understands the figure) are both of them ega but they are not therefore of coordinate or equal importance; and there is not between the two any relation of het etc, as there is in Sarnasokti (including under the figure अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा as defined by modern writers-see our Note (ii) to ii. 205). Hence समामाक्ति and पर्यायोक्त are adequately differentiated from one another. (vi) Bhoja gives (p 457- मया विमुक्ता बहिरेव वल्लकी ब्रजेदवश्यायकणैश्च सार्द्रताम् । द्रुतं तदेनां करवै निचोलके कयाचिदेवं मिषतो विनिर्यये ॥ as an example of निराकाक्ष पर्यायाक्त, because there is the express statement that the friend left the room under the pretext of putting back the lute into its case. Our verse ii. 296 he quotes as an example of the IC-27 variety. Notes to. II. 298-299-(i) See Note (ii) to ii. 235. Bharata, Agnipurāna, Bhāmaha, Ubdhata, Rudrata and Hemachandra do not recognise the alamkāra at all. Ruyyaka, Mammata, Bhoja, Visvanātha and Jagannātha designate it as समाधि, making समाहित a रसालंकार, defined by Udbhata (p. 52) as- रसभावतदाभासवृत्तैः प्रशमबन्धनम् । अन्यानुभावनिःशून्यरूपं यत् तत् समाहितम् ॥ Bhamaha's illustration fronm Rajamitra (iii. 10) points to a similar conception of the ulainkára. Vāmāna ·. .. it.299-] Kāvyādarśa 184 makes in a new category altogether in as much as he defines it (iv. 3. 29) as-यत्सादृश्यं तत्संपत्तिः समाहितम् illustrating it by the verse तन्वी मेघजलाईपल्लवतया etc. from the Vikramorvasiya, Act iv, with the remark-अत्र पुरूरवसो लतायामुर्वश्याः सादृश्यं गृह्णतः सैव लतोर्वशी संपन्नति । Ruyyaka defines the figure as-कारणान्तरयोगात् कार्यस्य 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 cooperating causes, and the distinction between समुच्चय and समाधि (i. e समाहित) is thus formulated in the Alamkarasarvasva (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 निष्पद्यमानेप्यन्येनाकस्मिकमापतता कारणेन सौकर्यादिरूपोतिशयो यत्र संपाद्यते स विषयः । अस्मिस्तु समुच्चयप्रभेदे यत्रैककार्य संपादयितुं युगपदनेके खले कपोता इवाहमहमिक्रया संपतन्ति कार्यस्य च न काप्यतिशयः सः। (iii) Bhoja distinguishes between different varieties of this figure according as the सहायाप्ति is दैवकृता or अदैवकृता, and according further as each of these is 3151fat or बुद्धिपूर्वा. Dandin's example he gives as आकस्मिकी दैवकृता सहायाप्तिः। Notes to II. 300-303-(i) Most writers who recognise SGITT are agreed in giving two varieties of it similar to those of Dandin. For instance, Bhamaha (iii. 11-13)- उदात्तं शक्तिमान् रामो गुरुवाक्यानुरोधगः । विहायोपवनं राज्यं यथा वनमुपागमत् ॥ एतदेवापरेन्येन व्याख्यानेनान्यथा विदुः । नानारत्नर्धियुक्तं यत् तत् किलोदात्तमुच्यते ॥ Udbhata (p. 53)- उदात्तमृद्धिमद्वस्तु चरितं च महात्मनाम् । उपलक्षणतां प्राप्त नेतिवृत्तित्वमागतम् ।।

·185] Notes [-11.304 Ruyyaka (p. 183-184)- समृद्धिमद्वस्तुवर्णनमुदात्तम् । अङ्गभूतमहापुरुषचरितं च । Mammata (x. p. 831 ff.) उदात्तं वस्तुनः संपन्महतां चोपलक्षणम् । Visvanātha (x. 94 f.) - लोकातिगयसंपत्तिवर्णनोदात्तमुच्यते । यद्वापि प्रस्तुतस्याचं महता चरितं भवेत् ।। (ii) Some writers refuse to recognise the figure. Thus Hemachandra observes (p. 293)-उदात्तं तु ऋद्धिमद्वस्तु- लक्षणमतिशयोक्तानेर्वा न भिद्यते । महापुरुषवर्णनारूपं च यदि रसपरं तदा 'वनेर्विपयः। It will be noted-and Udbhata lays it down as a distinct condition--that the heighTarta must be in. troduced only subordinately. As Pratihārendurāja ob. serves (p. 54)- न खल्वत्र महापुरुषचेष्टितं वाक्यतात्पर्यगोचरतामनुभवति। अर्थान्तरोपलक्षणपरत्वात् । यत्र च रसास्ताप्तर्येणावगम्यन्ते तत्र तेषां वाक्य- विश्रान्तिस्थानत्वेन चतुर्वर्गतदितरप्राप्तिपरिहारोपायभूतस्थायिभावपरिपोषात्मनास्वा. द्यमानत्वाद्रसवदलंकारो भवति । This disposes of the second objection of Hemachandra and serves to distinguish उदात्त from रसवत् (iii) The उदान which is विभूतिवर्णनपर is not mere स्वभावोक्ति; cp. Note (iii) to ii. 9-13 The Alamkārasarvasva also distinguishes उदात्त from भाविक (अतीतानागतयोः प्रत्यक्षायमाणत्वम) but this last is understood by Dandin in quite a distinct sense (op ii 364 ff.). The words of Ruyyaka are these (p. 183f)-स्वभावोक्तौ भाविके च यथावद्वस्तुवर्णनम् । तद्विपक्षत्वेन आरोपितवस्त्वात्मन उदात्तस्यावसरः । तत्रासंभाव्यमानविभूतियुक्तस्य वस्तुनो वर्णनं कविप्रतिभोत्थापितमैश्वर्यलक्षणमुदात्तम् । Notes to II. 304.-(1) A few leading definitions of Apahnuti are given below- Agnipurana (345. 18) same as Dandin. Bhāmaha (iii. 20) and Udbhata (p. 59)- अपह्नुतिरभीष्टा च किचिदन्तर्गतोपमा । भूतार्थापहवादस्या क्रियते चाभिधा यथा ॥ [निवन्धः क्रियते बुधैः ॥ Udbhata]. 24 ( Kāvyādaisa ·ii. 3040-] Kamjadur ta 1 186 Rudrata (viii. 57)- अतिसाम्यादुपमेयं यस्यामसदेव कथ्यते सदपि । उपमानमेव सदिति च विज्ञेयापह्नुतिः सेयम् ॥ Vāmana (iv. 3.5)- समेन वस्तुनान्यापलापोपह्नुतिः । Bhoja (iv. 41)- अपह्नतिरपह्नत्य किचिदन्यार्थदर्शनम् । औपम्यवत्यनौपम्या चेति सा द्विविधोच्यते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 50)- विषयस्यापह्नवेपह्नुतिः। Mammata (x, p. 735)- प्रकृतं यन्निषिध्यान्यत् साभ्यते सात्वपह्नुतिः। Vagbhata (p. 39)-- प्रकृतस्य सदृशेनापलापोपह्नतिः। Vāgbhata (iv. 86). नैतदेतदिदं ह्येतदित्यपह्नवपूर्वकम् । उच्यते यत्र सादृश्यादपद्भुतिरिय यथा ॥ Kesavamisra (p. 34)- किंचिदपहृत्य यदन्यार्थप्रदर्शनं सापह्नुतिः । Hemachandra (p. 281) - प्रकृताप्रकृताभ्यां प्रकृतापलापोपहृतिः। Vidyādhara (p. 380) - निषिध्य विषयं साम्यादन्यारोपे ह्यपह्नुतिः । Visvanātha (x. 38f.)---- प्रकृतं प्रतिषिध्यान्यस्थापनं स्यादपङ्गतिः । गोपनीयं कमप्यर्थ द्योतयित्वा कथंचन ॥ यदि श्लेपेणान्यथा वान्यथयेत् साप्यपद्भुतिः । Jagannātha (p. 278)- उपमेयतावच्छेदकनिषेधसामानाधिकरण्येनारोन्यमाणमुपमानतादात्म्य- मपहतिः । Visveśvara (p, 235)- प्रकृतं निषिध्य भिन्नात्मतया प्रोक्तावपह्नुतिः कथिता । and Achutaraya (viii. 131)- विषयत्वनिषेधस्य सामानाधिकरण्यतः। आरोप्यमाणविषयितादात्म्यं स्यादपद्भुतिः ॥ । - ·187 ] Notes [-ii.305 (ii) It will be seen that while the majority of these definitions require that there should be a sort of a similarity between the thing negated and the thing asserted, Dandın does not admit that necessity. A सादृश्यमूलक अपहृति, according to Dandin, constitutes what he calles तत्त्वापह्नवरूपक (see Note (iii) to ii.95). The Alamkārakaustubha clearly states the position (p. 235) अत्र केचित् सादृश्यस्थल एवापङ्गतिः । न पञ्चेषुः स्मरस्तस्य सहस्रं पत्रिणां यतः- इत्यादौ तु नापह्नुतिः किंतु प्रकृतस्य यदन्यत्वम् इत्येवंरूपातिशयोक्तिरित्याहुः । अन्ये तु...साहित्यदर्पणोक्तदिशा किचिदपहृत्य कस्यचिद्दर्शनमपगुतिः ... इत्याहुः । Bhoja, as we have seen, admits both cases. (iii) For the distinction between अपहृति and प्रान्तिमान consult Note (ii) to ii. 66; and for that between Strefa and लेश (or व्याजोक्ति) our Note (ii) to ii. 265. । ne । . Notes toII. 305-308-(i) Dandin gives only two varieties of अपहृति, ViZ. विपयापह्नुनि and स्वरूपापहृति. Rasagangādhara gives the varieties 41929 and fraga which are based upon a different principle of division. So also are the divisions into act where the negation is directly conveyed and आर्थी where it is suggested by words like कपट, मिष, छल, छद्म, कैतव, व्याज, वपुः आत्मन, परिणाम, etc. More important is the six-fold division given by the Kuvalayānanda (stanzas 25-30), viz शुद्ध, हेतु, पर्यस्त, भ्रान्त, छेक, and कैतव Of these the first variety is a normal case of Apahnuti which can be made to include both the varieties recognised by Dandin, while the last is an आर्थी अपह्नुति. His other varieties with definitions and illustrations are as under सयुक्तिके सदारोपे हेत्वपह्नुतिरुच्यते । नेदमिन्दुरनकत्वात् किंविदं मुकरो रतः ॥ पर्यस्तापह्नुतिधर्मनिह्नवोन्यत्र सिद्धये । नायं सुधांशुः कि तर्हि सुधांशुः प्रेयसीमुखम् ॥ भ्रान्तापह्नतिरन्यस्य शङ्कायां भ्रान्तिवारणे । तापं करोति सोत्क ज्वरः किं न सखि स्मरः ।। छेकापह्नतिरन्यस्य शङ्कातस्तथ्यनिहवे । प्रजमान् मत्पद लग्नः कान्तः कि न हि नूपुर ·ii. 308-] Kavyādarsa [ 188 (ii) In the illustration in ii. 305 the real nature of gegn etc. is admitted as perceivable by others : 1t bowever does not hold good in the case of the speaker himself. In ii. 306 the negated thing is declared to be entirely void of its very essence: is assigned an altogether contradictory nature, so that the moon can no longer be called moon ( Betrefa=2). In the example in ii. 304 only a part of the nature of the thing was negated, in ii 305 even the negation of this part was tempered by limiting its fagy. In ii. 306 the negation is absolute as regards its contents and its range. Such seems to be the basis of Dandin's distinction Notes to II. 309-(i) Compare Note (ii) to ji 94-95. As we saw there पूर्वम् can mean ii. 34 (प्रतिषेधोपमा), ii. 36 (तत्त्वाख्या- ATTH), or ii. 95 (ara1469677.). In view of the difference of view noted above, Note (ii) to ii. 304, the temptation to accept the last of these interpretations is very strong. For Dandin must have known the view which makes सादृश्य the sine qua kon of अपह्नति Bhāmaha in any case knows the view and even adopts it Differing from him Dandin considers सादृश्यमूलकापह्नुति as a variety of रूपक. He consequently must have made a slip here or we can adopt the justification of Ca-- उपमारूपकयोरनतिभेदात् । 'There is something for whatever the view we finally adopt. Notes to II. 310-(i) It is rather unfortunate that the same name (aq or PIE) should signify both a Guna and an Alamkāra. For the nature of tho guna see Note (ii) 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, is conceded by all. The main controversy is as to whether we should regard it as a znacicable only or an Teicot 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 inuch dopends in a ślosha upon the ·189 ) Notes [ -ii. 310 @@ or .. use of specific words it seems reasonable to treat it as a Tor and to assign to it a lower place in criticism. At the same 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 for instance by an alliteration. Hence it is equally plausible to regard the sea as exclusively an TYTICS#17, as is done by Udbhata and Alamkārasarvasva- Eāra. Jagannātha (p. 401-2) gives a clear exposition of these views in these words-सोयं श्लपः सभङ्गोभङ्गश्चार्थालंकार एवेत्योद्भटा.॥ उभावप्येतो गब्दालंकारो शब्दस्य परिवृत्त्यसहत्वादन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां तदाश्रितत्वावधारणात् । .... .......। इति मम्मटभट्टाः॥ अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां हि हेतुत्वावगमो घटं प्रति दण्डादेरिवास्तु । न त्वाश्रयत्वावगम । अन्यथा प्रत्यर्थ शब्दनिवेश इति नये पराभिमनोर्थश्लेषोपि शब्दालंकार एव स्यात् ॥ A reasonable view to hold is that of Mammata (ix, p. 626), who observes--इह दोषगुणालंकाराणा शब्दार्थगतत्वेन यो विभागः सोन्वयव्यतिरेकाम्यामेव व्यवतिष्ठते ॥ यत्र हि पर्यायान्तरपरिवृत्तिसहत्वं नास्ति तस्य शब्दगतत्वम् यत्र तु तत्सहत्वं तत्रार्थगतत्वमिति सिद्धान्तादिति भावः --as a commentator explains it. (iii) Others try to get out of the difficulty by recognising a distinct variety of 2107 and of Selma. Thus Bhoja gives six varieties of 35647 (ii. 68ff) viz. siena, प्रत्यय, विभक्ति, वचन, पद, and भाषा, Mammata adds two more varieties to the list: qui and free, while Bhoja includes the former under the 4e variety and the latter under the gala variety. In these varieties the word-element is distinctly the all-in-all. For illustrations see, besides the two works in question, Sāhityadarpana pp. 457ff, and Alainkārakaustubha pp. 242ff-The Beast on the other hand includes the cases where the use of the paronomastic words brings about prominently a coinparison between the stand and the 31967 statements. As ve have a two-in-one statement in ARHITTi so also we have it in seg, 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 Ślesha in Note (iii) to i1. 207 understood), but most other writers including even Bhāmaha (111.14) use 34AF and 39.7 in the very definitions of the figuro. Rudrata is so much impressed by the different uses to which ·11.310-] Kavrjadarsa [190 . paronomastic words can be put that he makes श्लेष .. basic principle of subdivision for alamkāras along with वास्तव, औषम्य, and अतिशय. He gives (x. 1 - 23) ten sorts of श्लेषमूलालंकारs, viz अविशेष, विरोध, अधिक, वक्र, व्याज, उक्ति, असंभव, अवयव, तत्त्व, and विरोधाभास. For illustrations see the Kāvyālamkāra itself. (iv) For the distinction of this figure from Samasokti see Note (ii) to ii 207. Our remarks there apply to the developed conception of Slesha leading to TFF as it is found in other writers. Daudin's illustrations do indeed suit the definitions of the later Alarkā rakas, bui his definition is non-comnital. Notes to II 311--(i) 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 प्राकरणिकेथेप्राकरणिक उपश्लिष्यमाणः पदानामभेदेनाभिन्नपदश्लेषो भवति । Notes to II 312–(i) Bhoja's comment on the figure is as follows-अत्र प्रदोषो रात्रेः प्रथमयामः किमिति प्रियारहितं मां न बाधते इत्युक्तेयुक्तिमाह-इत्थम् अनुभूयमानप्रकारेण राज्ञा संबन्नन् । कीदृशेन दोषाकरेण नक्षत्रपथवर्तिनेति । यो हि दोषाणामाकरेण राजमार्गातिगामिना च राज्ञा प्रकृष्टदोषः संबध्यते सोप्रियमवश्यं बाधत एव । तदत्र पूर्वस्मिन् प्राकरणिकर्थे द्वितीयोथों- प्राकरणिका पदभेदेनोपश्लिप्यमाणो भिन्नपदश्लेषापदेशमासादयति । Notes to II. 313-(i) Paronomas.a 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)-- अलंकारान्तरगतां प्रतिभा जनयत् पदैः । द्विविधैरर्थशब्दोक्तिविशिष्टं तत् (लिष्टं) प्रतीयताम् ॥ Jagannatha (p. 393ff.) gives a résumé of it in these words-अय चालंकारः प्रायेणालंकारान्तरस्य विषयमभिनिविशते तत्र किमस्य ·191] Notes [-i.316 ...... ... ....." .......... बाधकत्वं म्यादाहोस्वित्संकीर्णत्वमुनाहो बाध्यत्वमिति । अत्राहुरुद्भटाचार्याः-येन नाप्राप्ते य आरभ्यते स तस्य वाधक इति न्यायनालंकारान्तरविषय एवायमारभ्य- माणोलंकारान्तरं बाधते । न चास्य विविक्तः कश्चिदस्ति विषयो यत्र सावकाशो नान्यं वाधेत । .... .... | तस्मादुपमादिप्रतिभो पत्तिहेतुः श्लेष एव स्वविषये सर्वत्रालंकारः ॥ एतचापरे न क्षमन्ते । तथा हि एवं च सावकाशत्वाच्छलेषस्यालंकारान्तरापवादकत्वं न युक्तम् । अत एवोपमादीनां प्रतिभानमात्रमिति यदुक्तं तदपि न संगतम्....... ......प्रत्युत श्लेषस्यैव प्रतिभान- मात्रमिति वक्तुं युक्तम् । तस्माच्छलंपस्य नापवादकत्वं संकीर्णत्वं तु स्यात् ॥ अन्ये तु-अलकाग हि प्राधान्येन चमत्काराधायकाः स्वां स्वामाख्यां लभन्ते । त एव परोपकारकतया वर्तमानास्तां त्यजन्ति । ............ । एवं चालंकारान्तरोपस्कार- कतया स्थितः श्लेषः कथंकारं स्वगृहस्थ इव श्लेपालंकारव्यपदेशं वोदुमीष्टामिति वाध्यप्राय 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 (iii. 14) as- उपमानेन यत् तत्त्वमुपमेयस्य साध्यते । गुणक्रियाभ्यां नाम्ना च श्लिष्टं तदभिधीयते ॥ gives illustrations for श्लेषs involving सहोक्ति, उपमा, and a respectively as under-- छायावन्तो गतव्यालाः स्वारोहाः फलदायिनः । मार्गद्रुमा महान्तश्च परेषामेव भूतये ॥ उन्नता लोकदयिता महान्तः प्राज्यवर्पिणः । शमयन्ति क्षितेस्तापं सुराजानो घना इव ॥ रत्नवत्त्वादगाधत्वात् स्वमर्यादाविलड्धनात् । बहुसत्त्वाश्रयत्वाच्च सहगत्वमुदन्वता ॥ It will be seen that the last example is श्लेषमूलक हेतुपमा (ii. 50), the second, a regular श्लेषोपमा (ii. 28), while the first has greatest affinity with ii. 316. Notes to II. 316-(i) Bhoja reads FTHIHETTI: farar: instead of वक्राः स्वभावमधुराः। His comment is (p. 467)-अत्र कर्षन्ति इत्येतस्यां क्रियाया दृशां दूतीनां च श्लिष्टपदत्वेनावेशादयमभिन्नक्रियो नाम श्लेषविशेषः ।

·ii.317-] Kāvyādursa [ 192 Notes to II. 317--(i) Bhoja (p. 466) explains the point thus- अत्र आकर्ण्यन्ते श्लिष्यन्ते च इति क्रियापदद्वितयस्य प्राधान्यतः समुच्चयेनोपात्तस्य मधुराः इत्यादिभिः श्लिष्टपदैः कोकिलागिरः अमितेक्षणा' इति वा विशेष्यैकपदवर्ज पर्यायतः संबन्धो भवति । तयथा-आकर्ण्यने । काः । कोकिलागिर । कीदृश्यः। मधुराः.. । श्लिष्यन्ते च । काः। अमितेक्षणाः हरिणचक्षुषः । किभूताः मदकलाः... इति। 0....... .... Notes to II. 318-(i) Here as also in ii. 322 below we have a combination of श्लेषवैचित्र्य with the वैचित्र्य of विरोध as exemplified in ii 331 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 रुय्यक,-to say nothing of भरत and अग्निपुराण,-admit a figure of speech called परिसंख्या which consists in a तादृगन्यव्यपोह An example will explain the nature of this figure- भक्तिर्भवे न विभवे व्यसनं शास्त्रे न युवतिकामास्त्रे। चिन्ता यशसि न वपुषि प्रायः परिदृश्यते महताम् ॥ The Sābityadarpana (p. 563) from which this illustration is taken goes on to observe - श्लेषमूलत्वे चास्य वैचित्र्यविशेषो यथा-यस्मिश्च राजनि जितजगति पालयति मही चित्रकर्मभु वर्णसंकराश्चापेषु गुण- च्छेदाः इत्यादि। Notes to II. 321-322-(i) It is difficult to distinguish ii. 321 from ii. 87, the illustration of a श्लिष्टरूपक. All that we can say at the utmost is that in ii. 87 the identity with a lotus is given an exclusive prominence, while here the king receives atleast as much prominence as 64 or कार्तिकेय. It cannot at the same time be पापमा illustrated in ii. 28 because there is an absence of any 39719fa- पादकशब्द. (ii) Compare Note (i) to ii. 87 and Note (i) to ii. 318 above, Notes to II. 323--(i) Some distinctive definitions of Vise, shokti are Agnipurāna, sanie as Dandin's definit ·193] Notes -11323 sumama : Bhāmaha (iii. 22)- एकदेशस्य विगमे या गुणान्तरसंस्थितिः। विशेषप्रथनायासौ विशेषोक्तिर्मता यथा ॥ Udbhata (p. 58)- यत् सामग्रयेपि शक्तीनां फलानुत्पत्तिबन्धनम् । विशेषस्याभिधित्सातस्तद्विशेषोक्तिरुच्यते ॥ दर्शितेन निमित्तेन निमित्तादर्शनेन च । तस्या बन्धो द्विधा लक्ष्ये दृश्यते ललितात्मकः ॥ Vāmana (IV. iii. 23)- एकगुणहानिकल्पनायां साम्यदाय विशेषोक्तिः। Bhoja, same as Dandin. Ruyyaka (p. 126) कारणसामग्रये कार्यानुत्पत्तिर्विशेषोक्तिः । Mammata (x. p. 800)- विशेषोक्तिरखण्डेपु कारणेषु फलावचः। and Jagannatha (p 437)-- प्रसिद्धकारणकलापसामान्याधिकरण्येन वर्ण्यमाना कार्यानुत्पत्तिर्विशे- षोक्तिः।-compare his definition of Vibhavana- कारणव्यतिरेकसामान्याधिकरण्येन प्रतिपाद्यमाना कार्योत्पत्तिर्विभावना। (ii) While Vamana's definition of this figure (which he illustrates by द्यूतं हि नाम पुरुषस्यासिंहासनं राज्यम्) is put down by later writers as a case of 4* (as Jagannātha says: अत्र हि द्यूते राज्यं तादात्म्येनारोप्यते । तत्र सिहासनरहितं हि द्यूतं सिहासनसहित- राज्यतादात्म्यं कथं वहेदित्यारोपोन्मूलकयुक्तिनिरासायारोप्यमाणे राज्येपि सिहासन- राहित्यं कल्प्यते । तेन दृढारोपं रूपकमेवेदम्) it must be admitted that Dandin's conception of Višeshokti, in as much as it does not bring the causal relation prominently to the fore, is a development from a root conception of the figure quite allied to that of Vāmana. It is rather dificult to accurately distinguish this figure from कारणाक्षेप (ii. 131), कार्याक्षेप (ii. 133), and विभावना (ii. 199). Compare Note (ii) to ii. 131-132, Note (i) to ii. 133-134, Notes (i) and (ii) to ii. 199, and Note (ii) to ii 235. Keeping ourselves strictly to the conceptions of these figures as Dandin gives them, we can say that while in a normal case of cause producing effect we have the 25 [ Kavyadarsa] ·ii 323– ) Kavyādaria I 194 presence of (i) principal cause, (ii) presence of accessory causes, (iii) presence of extraordinary circumstances favouring the production of the cause, (iv) presence of agreeable natural conditions, and (v) absence of special hindrances, -all co-operating to 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 FTTEGT 1ST KIND Principal cause absent Effect present; Extra circumstances in ferrable * 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 3T (Bhoja iii. 18) Principal cause present Effect absent.* [ Het uppropitious?] The point of the figure in each case is the item marked by an asterix (*). Notes to II. 324-(i) Bhoja reads (p. 431) Asaharya for face मेवासीत्. His comment on the stanza is-अत्र तीक्ष्णेनाकठोरेण चायुधेन पुष्पधन्वा त्रीणि जगन्ति विजयते इति तस्य प्रभावातिशयः प्रतीयते । सेयं प्रतीयमानविशेषहेतुर्गुणवैकल्यवती विशेषोक्तिः।

·195] Notes [-ii. 330 Notes to II. 325-(i) On this stanza Bhoja observes---377 - कन्यकालाभावेप्येषा वेधसोपि तपोभनं विधातुमलामति वर्णनीयाया रूपातिशयः प्रतीयते । सेयं प्रतीयमानविशेषहेतुर्जातिवैकल्यवती विशेषोक्तिः। Notes to II. 326-(i) Bhoja (p.432) explains the point thus- अत्र भ्रूभङ्गादेरभावेपि योयं द्विषता जयस्तेन वर्णनीयस्य प्रतापातिशयः प्रतीयते । सेयं प्रतीयमानविशेषहेतुः क्रियावैकल्यवती विशेषोक्तिः । .. Notes to II. 327- (i) Bhoja remarks-अत्र रथादेरभावेपि जगत्त्रय- विजयहेतुः स्त्रीणामपाङ्गावलोकनमभिधीयते । सेयमभिधेयविशेषहेतुव्यवैकल्यवती विशेषोक्तिः। Bhoja however is not correct in supposing that the हेतु is here expressed. The real हेतु is the मनोहारित्व of the glances which is to be understood, . Notes to II. 328-329--(i) Bhoja reads FTTETTE for METOH His remarks are-अत्र रथादीनां द्रव्याणामेकचक्रत्वादिभिर्वैकल्येपि यदेत- द्भगवतो भास्करस्य भुवनत्रयाक्रमणं तस्येह तेजस्विता हेतुरभिधीयते। सेयमभिधेय- विशेषहेतुर्वैकल्यवद्र्व्या नामापरा विशेषोक्तिः । Notes to II. 330-332–(i) We have already given a few definitions of Tulyayogitā 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)- वर्ध्यानामितरेषां वा धर्मैक्यं तुल्ययोगिता। .....॥ हिताहिते वृत्तितौल्यमपरा तुल्ययोगिता । गुणोत्कृष्टेः समीकृत्य वचोन्या तुल्ययोगिता ।। and Jagannatha (p. 317)-- प्रकृतानामेवाप्रकृतानामेव वा गुणक्रियादिरूपैकधर्मान्वयस्तुल्ययोगिता। (ii) It will be noted that more than one conception of this figure is current amongst the Alamkārikas.

·ii. 330-1 Kavyādarsa ( 196 9 9 Vāmana. Bhāmaha, Vägbhata, Kuvalayānandakāra, Bhoja, and Dandin are all attempting, each in his own way, to define the figure in conformity with the etymology of its name. Under the circumstances we will have to keep close to our author's conception of the figure and try to distinguish it from sfaatanan (ii. 46), gezel11471 (ii. 48), 2147 (ii. 97), TT (ii. 205), and (ii. 310 ff.), 3136 A Rial (ii. 340), sega (ii. 343) and ERIA (ii. 348). To begin with, in afaqagh (op. the illustration in ii. 47) the 546 is not intended to be extraordinarily superior to the उपमेय and the समीकरण between them is not directly expressed, but is gaia only; whereas in Eat there are things decidedly superior or quite with which an inferior thing is joined in an assertion. The For (not the FTPI) is direct, and not left to be suggested. Further, the intention in the present figure is either già or feet, and this is absent in प्रतिवस्तूपमा. (iii) In geleitet (ii. 48) we have the superior and inferior relation between the things and an attempt to equate them, as in greiftat. But while in the former 3471 is consciously sought to be expressed by reference to identical fashi (or qui), in the latter the 34#1 relation is subordinate and the point of it is not fully brought out. Further in gezintar the desire to praise or blame is prominently present, the same being absent in the उपमा variety (iv) Consider the ciqa illustrations in ii. 99, and ii. 100. In these there is ० अधिकहीन relation and no Fara faaet 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 multa is quite obvious (v) In a Firth the two things are het, neither being by nature TT&T or it. Besides, only one of them (a or 35a) 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. $$$ 9 हीन relation and स्तुतिनिन्दाप्रयोजन, we are required to make an express mention of the two objects compared. (vi) Though the illustration of a (ii. 310 ff.) might offer points of comparison with TAPAT, the figure Foto always turns upon an unmistakable peculiarily which is its sufficient distinctiveness. The paronomasia in ii. 332d is not intended or indispensable. (vii) Aprastutapraśaṁsā as Dandin conceives it in. volves स्तुति, if not स्तुति or निन्दा, but there is an absence of Bretonta relation, and an implication of fega through 315€ga statement, in place of the direct statement of the two found in a तुल्ययोगिता. (viii) Vyājastuti (ii. 343) involves rara (or fargt) but it is feigned. And it is a la made of a certain thing which might not be joined with any thing else in simile. A gerulfat is necessarily based upon relation between at least two things. (ix) In faccia the between the two things is not a well-established fact so that we could know before hand which is गुणोत्कृष्ट or गुणनिकृष्ट. The ta is evolved just in the very act presented to our eyes. Notes to II, 333-3394i) All writers except Bharata admit facta as a distinct figure. A few leading definitions are given below :- Agnipurāna (344. 28) संगतीकरणं युक्तथा यदसंगच्छमानयोः । विरोधपूर्वकत्वेन तद्विरोध इति स्मृतम् ॥ Bhāmaha (iii. 24) and Udbbata (p. 59) गुणस्य वा क्रियाया वा विरुद्धान्यक्रियाभिदा [v. 1. वचः । या [v.l. यद्] विशेषाभिधानाय विरोधं तं विदुर्बुधाः [v.l प्रचक्षते]॥ Rudrata (ix. 30) यस्मिन् द्रव्यादीनां परस्परं सर्वथा विरुद्धानाम् । एकत्रावस्थानं समकालं भवति स विरोधः ।। Vāmana (IV. iii. 12) and Ruyyaka (p. 121).- विरुद्धाभासत्वं विरोधः।

·ii. 339- tohara Kavrgadarta [198 Bhoja (iii. 24) विरोधस्तु पदार्थानां परस्परमसंगतिः । असंगतिः प्रत्यनीकमधिकं विषमश्च सः ॥ Mammata (X. p. 807)- विरोधः सोविरोधेपि विरुद्धत्वेन यद्वचः । Vägbhata (iv. 121)- आपाते हि विरुद्धत्वं यत्र वाक्येन तत्त्वतः । शब्दार्थकृतमाभाति स विरोधः स्मृतो यथा ॥ Vagbhata (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)- अर्थानां विरोधाभासो विरोधः । Vidyadhara (viii. 33) स्फुरति विरोधाभासे भवति विरोधाभिधो दशधा। Vidyanatha (p. 416)- आभासत्वे विरोधस्य विरोधालंकृतिर्मता। Visvanātha (x. 68) जातिश्चतुर्भिर्जात्याद्यैर्गुणो गुणादिभिस्त्रिभिः । क्रिया क्रियाद्रव्याभ्यां 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 प्रतिपादितयोरर्थयोर्भासमानकाधिकरणसंबद्धत्व- मेकाधिकरणासंबद्धत्वभानं वा विरोधः । Visvesvara (p. 321)- अविरोधेपि विरोधो यत्रोक्तः स्याद्विरोधः सः। Achyutarāya (viii. 202) विरोधस्याल्पभासश्चेद्विरोधाभास उच्यते ।

·199] Notes । -ii. 339 ७ (ii) The figure is said to be शाब्द when a word like अपि is used in the statement; otherwise it is आर्थ. This division is however disputed (cp. Rasagangadhara p 428 ). It is called us when not hased upon on or paronomasia. Dåndin's last example (ii 339 ) is श्लेषमूलक. The ten-fold division of the figure given by most writers is, like that of te Hiathfi or 494, based upon the four-fold ind 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 जातिद्रव्यविरोध, and adding 4 additional varieties (cp. ix. 33, exemplified in ix. 41-44) not generally recognised by other alamkārikas. Dandin's classification is based on no definite principles. (iii) Virodha enters into the composion of a number of other figures such as उपमा (ii. 33), रूपक (ii.84), दीपक (ii. 109), etc, while figures like विभावना or certain varieties of आक्षेप are, on ultimate analysis, special kinds of विरोध only. Cp. the list of विरोधमूलक figures on p. 69 above, as also Note (iii) to ii. 199. Hemachandra in fact even observes (p. 272)-एवं च विभावनाविशेषोक्तवसंगति- विषमाधिकव्याघाततद्गुणाः 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 असंगति, p. 871)-एषा च विरोधबाधिनी न विरोधः अपवादविषयपरिहारेणो- त्सर्गस्यावस्थितः। (iv) Strictly speaking every poetical identification such as मुखं कमलम् involves an element of विरोध; but that has to be ignored. Jagannātha observes (p. 430) - इह हि अलंकारवर्गे यो यत्र सहृदयचमत्कृतिपथमवतरति स एव तत्रालंकार इति निर्विवादम् । एवं च रूपके......यद्यप्यस्ति विरोधस्तथापि न स तत्र प्रतिपिपाद- यिषितः । .........। विरोधस्थले तु कुसुमानि शराः इत्यादौ.. अभेदस्य... विरोधोत्थापनार्थमुपात्तस्याचमत्कारित्वात् रूपकालंकारत्वमयुक्तम् । (v) Dandin and Bhamaha are alone in putting विशेष- दर्शन specially into the very definition of this figure, Other definitions imply this.

·ii.399-] Kavyādarśa 1200 (vi) In ii. 339 the reading दुःशासनीयत्वं etc. for विश्वसनीयत्वं etc. is worth noting. It is a deliberate attempt to improve the original, baalam Notes to II. 340-342-(i) Dandin understands अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा in the literal sense of अप्रस्तुतस्य [प्रस्तुतनिन्दार्थ] प्रशंसा, and so strictly limits the application of this figure to this case alone. Op. note (ii) to ii. 205, where (p. 143 line 11 from bottom) read latter for "former' and 'former' for 'latter'. The definitions of other writers for this figure are- Bhāmaha (iii 28)- अधिकारादपेतस्य वस्तुनोन्यस्य या स्तुतिः । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसेति सा चैवं कथ्यते यथा ॥ Udbhata (p. 61) reads the second line thus- अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसेयं प्रस्तुतार्थानुबन्धिनी ॥ Vamana (IV. iii. 4) and Vagbhata (p. 36)- [उपमेयस्य] किंचिदुक्तौ [समानवस्तुन्यासः] अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा । Bhoja (iv. 52)- अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा स्यादस्तोतव्यस्य या स्तुतिः । कुतोपि हेतोर्वाच्या च प्रत्येतव्या च सोच्यते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 104)- अप्रस्तुतात् सामान्यविशेषभावे कार्यकारणभावे सारूप्ये च प्रस्तुतप्रती- तावप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा। Mammata (x, p. 250) अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा या सा सैव प्रस्तुताश्रया। कार्ये निमित्ते सामान्ये विशेष प्रस्तुते सति ॥ तदन्यस्य वचस्तुल्ये तुल्यस्येति च पञ्चधा ॥ Vagbhata (iv. 134)- प्रशंसा क्रियते यत्राप्रस्तुतस्यापि वस्तुनः । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसां तामाहुः कृतधियो यथा ॥ स्वैरं विहरति स्वैरं शेते स्वैरं च जल्पति । भिक्षुरेकः सुखी लोके राजचौरभयोज्झितः ॥ Jagannātha (p. 402) अप्रस्तुतेन व्यवहारेण सादृश्यादिवक्ष्यमाणप्रकारान्यतमप्रकारेण प्रस्तुत- व्यवहारो यत्र प्रशस्यते साप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, adding in explana. tion, प्रशंसनं च वर्णनमात्रम् न तु स्तुतिः । १ ·2011 Notes [-it.342 (ii) It will be seen that while to later writers- अप्रस्तुतवर्णनेन प्रस्तुतवर्णनप्रतीतिः । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा ; to Dandin- अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसनेन प्रस्तुतनिन्दाप्रतीतिः 15 अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. This has saved Dandin from the necessity (i) of distinguishing this figure from समासोक्ति, अर्थान्तरन्यास, श्लेष, etc.3 and (ii) of explaining the circumstances which make it possible for the अप्रस्तुत to suggest प्रस्तुत. These ciroumstances give the several varit ties of the figure as admitted by subsequent writers In order to show how very complicated the whole business of classification has become at the hands of these later writers we give below a tabular statement based on the Kavyaprakāgasms (i) कार्य प्रस्तुते कारणाभिधानम (ii) कारणे प्रस्तुते कार्याभिधानम् अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा ( (iii) सामान्ये प्रस्तुते विशेषाभिधानम् (iv) विशेष प्रस्तुते सामान्याभिधानम (v) तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्यान्तराभिधानम् Variety (v) further divided into - A Use of श्लिष्ट words for विशेषण + विशेष्य B. Through व्यवहारारोप as in समासोक्ति (with विशेषण alone श्लिष्ट) C. Through simple सादृश्य Or again, independently, into A1. अनध्यारोपेण B1. अभ्यारोपेण Cr. अशेष्वध्यारोपण (iii) Bhoja gives for 374€ nyiht the twofold classification into वाच्या and प्रत्येतव्या, his instance for the latter being Dandin's illustration in ii. 341 paraphrased ; viz. कामं वनेषु हरिणास्तृणानि खादन्त्ययत्नसुलभानि । विदधति धनिषु न दैन्यं ने किल पशवो वयं मुधियः ॥ 26 [Kavyadariim] ·ii.342-] Kavyādarea [202 The rea variety he illustrates by पको वन्यस्त्वमसि न गृहं यासि योर्थी परेषां धन्योन्ध त्वं धनमदवतां नेक्षसे यन्मुखानि । लाध्यो मूक त्वमपि कृपणं स्तौषि नार्थाशया यः स्तोतव्यस्त्वं बधिर न गिरं यः खलानां शृणोषि । D Notes to II. 343-347-(i) A few representative definitions of this figure are- Bhamaha (iii. 30)- दूराधिकगुणस्तोत्रव्यपदेशेन तुल्यताम् । किंचिद्विधित्सोर्या निन्दा व्याजस्तुतिरी यथा ॥ Udbhata (p. 61)- शब्दशक्तिस्वभावेन यत्र निन्देव गम्यते । वस्तुतस्तु स्तुतिश्चेष्टा व्याजस्तुतिरसौ मता ॥ Rudrata (x. 11)- यस्मिन् निन्दा स्तुतितो निन्दाया वा स्तुतिः प्रतीयेत । अन्या विवक्षिताया व्याजश्लेषः स विज्ञेयः ॥ Vamana (IV. iii.24) संभाव्यविशिष्टकर्माकरणानिन्दा स्तोत्रार्था व्याजस्तुतिः। Bhoja (iv. 56)- दोषस्य यो गुणीभावो दोषीभावो गुणस्य यः। स लेशः स्यात्ततो नान्या व्याजस्तुतिरपीष्यते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 112) स्तुतिनिन्दाभ्यां निन्दास्तुत्योर्गम्यत्वे व्याजस्तुतिः । Mammata (x, p. 815)- व्याजस्तुतिर्मुखे निन्दा स्तुतिर्वा रूढिरन्यथा। Hemachandra (p. 276)- स्तुतिनिन्दयोरन्यतरपरता व्याजस्तुतिः । Vidyādhara (viii. 30) यत्र प्रक्रान्तायां स्तुतौ कथंचित् प्रतीयते निन्दा निन्दायां स्तुतिरथवा सेयं व्याजस्तुतिर्द्विविधा । Vidyanatha (p. 443)- निन्दया वाच्यया यत्र स्तुतिरेवावगम्यते । स्तुत्या वा गम्यते निन्दा व्याजस्तुतिरसौ मता ॥ and Jagannātha (p. 416) आमुखप्रतीताभ्या निन्दास्तुतिभ्यां स्तुतिनिन्दयोः क्रमेण पर्यवसान ब्याजस्तुतिः।

·209 ] Notes | ii. 347 (ii) It will be noted that all writers except Dandin, Bhāmaha, Udbhata, and Vamana consider both ay स्तुतिः and स्तुत्या निन्दा as the legitimate spheres of this figure. It is not certain therefore whether Dandin really would permit the 3454u which we have put upon the definition in our Sanskrit Commentary ii. 343. Rudrata gives the figure as a variety of figures, and so requires that it be based necessarily upon paronomasia. Bhoja, finally, makes no distinction between hala and is defined as in Kāvyādarse il. 268. (iii) According to Dandin's view it seems that Lesa No.2 is distinguished by the presence of a subtle element in the praise or blame, while in a sigla no such subtle element is necessary. This is the only distinction between these two figures. Hence we must either suppose that Dandin did not intend to accept Leśa No. % 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 fact of the अप्रस्तुत. The स्तुति and निन्दा, it is also to be noted, is of two distinct things: it is not a case that the same thing is outwardly censured but really praised (and vice versa), as in a gla. (v) Similarly, while in tega the apparent Pet is to be ultimately set aside, and afa obtained by im. plication, the case is not one of simple sqfa, in as much as the atey is here entirely thrown overboard a thing which does not necessarily happen in an ordinary safa. Cp. on the point Jagannātha (p. 416) अत एव नास्या ध्वनित्वम् । ध्वनी हि वाच्येनागूरणमहिम्नार्थान्तरमवगम्यते । न चैवं प्रकृते। (vi) Bhoja quotes both the examples given by Dandin and remarks (p. 410) litegrajurit HIBETURINA 2491 (vii) In ii. 3458 pater is a better reading than RT, but we have no Ms. authority for adopting the im, proved reading. DRE ·ii.348-] Kavyadarsa [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 वाग्भटs. 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 प्रोक्तसिध्यै यः सिद्धेर्थे तनिदर्शनम् । पूर्वोत्तरसमत्वे तजु वक्रं च कथ्यते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 76) संभवतासंभवता वा वस्तुसंबन्धेन गम्यमानं प्रतिबिम्बकरणं निदर्शना । Mammata (x, p. 744 ff.) - [निदर्शना] अभवन् वस्तुसंबन्ध उपमापरिकल्पकः । स्वस्वहेत्वन्वयस्योक्तिः क्रिययैव च सापरा ॥ Vidyadhara (viii. 19)- प्रतिबिम्बनस्य करणं संभवता यत्र वस्तुयोगेन । गम्यमसंभवता वा निदर्शना सा द्विधाभिमता । Vidyanatha (p. 433)- असंभवद्धर्मयोगादुपमानोपमेय्योः । प्रतिबिम्बक्रिया गम्या यत्र सा स्यानिदर्शना ॥ Visvanatha (x. 51)- संभवन्वस्तुसंबन्धोसंभवन्वापि कुत्रचित् । यत्र बिम्बानुबिम्बत्वं बोधयेत् सा निदर्शना ॥ Kuvalayānanda (st. 52 ff.) वाक्यार्थयोः सदृशयोरक्यारोपो निदर्शना । यद्दातुः सौम्यता सेयं पूर्णेन्दोरकलङ्कता ॥ पदार्थवृत्तिमप्यके वदन्त्यन्यां निदर्शनाम् । त्वनेत्रयुगुलं धत्ते लीलां नीलाम्बुजन्मनः ॥ अपरां बोधनं प्राहुः क्रिययासत्सदर्थयो। नश्येद्राजविरोधीति क्षीणं चन्द्रोदये तमः॥

·205 1 Notes ii. 350 Jagannātha (p. 339) उपात्तयोरर्थयोरार्थाभेद औपम्यपर्यवसायी निदर्शना । and Visvešvara (p. 262)- उपमापर्यवसन्नो यत्रार्थोन्योन्यमन्वयानहः। यञ्च क्रियया कारणकार्यान्वयीर्निदर्शना सोक्ता॥ (ii) It will be observed that Dandin, Bhāmaha, Vām ana, and others admit what is known as the alafactar as the only variety of the figure, while Mammata and most other writers admit an additional variety. Dandin's conception of this figure has the advantage of keeping true to the etymological sense of the figure. (iii) This बोधननिदर्शना is the same as the संभवद्वस्तुनिदर्शना of Ruyyaka, Visvanatha, and most later writers. As Appaya Dikshita observes in his Chandrikā (p. 74) स्वक्रियया परान् प्रति सदसदर्थबोधनं संभवदेव समतां गर्भीकरोति। To the same effect also Jagannātha (p. 345). The second, and with later writers, the more usual variety is hafa दर्शना divided into वाक्यार्थनिदर्शना and पदार्थनिदर्शना, a good example of the former being Mudrārākshasa (vii. 6)- केनोत्तुङ्गशिखाकलापकपिलो बद्धः पटान्ते शिखी पाशैः केन सदागतेरगतिता सद्यः समापादिता । केनानेकपदानवासितसटः सिंहोर्पितः पञ्जरे भीमः केन च नैकनक्रमकरो दोभ्यो प्रतीर्णोर्णवः ॥ The qualification which requires a faraufales 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 BTHan variety, we need not enter in details into the exact scope of the figure as also its distinction from guma, which is another figure not recognised by our author. See on the point Alarn. kārasarvasva (p. 77). (iv) Bhoja (p. 299 ff.) introduces in Dandin's facial 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, ·ii. 350-] Kavyādarśa [206 वक्र. Further we have cases when there is a complete दृष्टान्त statement given at first, the दार्टान्तिक 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 समकालमेष दृष्टान्तदान्तिकयोः शब्दत ऋजूक्त्यैवोक्तत्वादिदमृजु समं च निदर्शनम् । Notes to II. 351-354-(i) A few other definitions of this figure are Agnipurana (344. 23)- सहोक्तिः सहभावेन कथनं तुल्यधर्मिणाम् । Bhāmaha (iii. 38) and Udbhata (p. 67) तुल्यकाले क्रिये यत्र वस्तुद्वयसमाश्रये [समाश्रिते v. 1.] । पदेनैकेन कथ्येते सहोक्तिः सा मता यथा [सताम् v. I.] ॥ Rudrata (viii. 99f) सा हि सहोक्तिर्यस्यां प्रसिद्धदूराधिकक्रियो योर्थः । तस्य समानक्रिय इति कथ्येतान्यः समं तेन ॥ यत्रैककर्तृका स्यादनेककर्माश्रिता क्रिया तत्र । कथ्यतापरसहितं कर्मक सेयमन्या स्यात् ।। Vamana (iv. 3.28)- वस्तुद्वयक्रिययोस्तुल्यकालयोरेकपदाभिधानं सहोक्तिः । Bhoja (iv. 57 ff.)- कादीनां समावेशः सहान्यैर्यः क्रियादिषु । विविक्तश्चाविविक्तश्च सहोक्तिः सा मिगद्यते ।। यत्रानेकोपि कादिः प्रविविक्तैः क्रियादिभिः। विविक्तभावं लभते विविक्ता सापि कथ्यते ।। Ruyyaka (p. 81)- उपमानोपमेययोरेकस्य प्राधान्यनिर्देशेपरस्य सहार्थसंबन्धे सहोक्तिः । Mammata (x, p. 817) सा सहोक्तिः सहार्थस्य बलादेके द्विवाचकम् । Vagbhata (iv. 119)- सहोक्तिः सा भवेद्यत्र कार्यकारणयोः सह । समुत्पत्तिः कथाहेतोर्वक्तुं तज्जन्मशक्तिताम् ॥

·207] Notes [-11.354 Vagbhata (p. 38)- सहभावकथनं सहोक्तिः। Kesavamisra (p.36)- समानकालोक्तिः सहोक्तिः। सा द्वयी-उदासीनयोस्त्वराप्रतिपत्तये कार्य- कारणयोरपि। Hemachandra (p. 273)- सहार्थबलाद्धर्मस्यान्वयः सहोक्तिः । Vidyānātha (p. 400) सहार्थेनान्वयो यत्र भवेदतिशयोक्तितः। कल्पितौपम्यपर्यन्ता सा सहोक्तिरितीष्यते ॥ Visvanatha (x. 55)- सहार्थस्य बलादेकं यत्र स्याद्वाचकं द्वयोः । सा सहोक्तिर्मूलभूतातिशयोक्तिर्यदा 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-fact description as in पुत्रेण सहागतः पिता. It is अतिशयोक्तिमूलक. Ruy. yaka however goes further and says (p. 81)-तत्र नियमेना. तिशयोक्तिमूलत्वमस्याः । सा [अतिशयोक्तिः] च कार्यकारणप्रतिनियमविपर्ययरूपा अभेदाध्यवसायरूपा च । अभेदाध्यवसायश्च श्लेषभित्तिकोन्यथा वा। Ruyyaka thus recognises, amongst others, a variety of सहोक्ति based on कार्यकारणपौर्वापर्यविपर्यय, giving as an example- भवदपराधैः साधै सतापो वर्धतेतरामस्याः। Jagannatha refuses how. over to recognise this variety. As Alamkārakaustubha fp. 331) observes-कार्यकारणयोः पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययात्मकातिशयोक्तिमूलभे- दस्तु प्राचीनोको न युक्तः । तत्रातिशयोक्तरेवालंकारत्वसंभवात् । तव कोपोरिनाशश्च जायेते युगपन्नृप । इत्यतिशयोक्तथपेक्षया तव कोपोरिनाशश्च सहैव नृप जायते। इति सहोतो विच्छित्ति = चमत्कार]विशेषाननुभवात् । The relation between the two objects brought together in & HEIT should be merely गुणप्रधानभाव (cp. Panini II. iii. 19, सहयुक्त- प्रयामे). Dandin would endorse the view of Jagannatha ·it.354-] Kavyadaria [208 though his conception of अतिशयोक्ति, as we have seen (Notes, p. 146-47), is somewhat different. The हेत्वलंका illustrated by Dandin in ii. 256 would be considered by Ruyyaka as Fah; but the very fact that Dapdin regards it as a separate alamkāra proves his DUDacceptance of giaigeliatan Pelle variety. In none of the examples given by Dandin for Tea is there in evidence a lettur relation, the real cause in ii. 352 and ii. 353 being प्रियजनविरह and in ii. 354, probably. प्रियजनसंनिधान. Notes to II. 355-356-(i) The figure is defined by Dandin 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 । अर्थानर्थस्वभावं यत् परिवृत्तिरभाणि सा॥ Rudrata (vii.77)- युगपद्दानादाने अन्योन्यं वस्तुनाः क्रियते यत् । क्वचिदुपचर्येते वा प्रसिद्धितः सेति परिवृत्तिः ॥ Vamana (IV. iii. 16)- समविसहशाभ्यां परिवर्तनं परिवृत्तिः। Bhoja (iii. 29 f.)- व्यत्ययो वस्तुनो यस्तु यो वा विनिमयो मिथः । परिवृत्तिरिहोक्ता सा काव्यालंकारलक्षणे ॥ सा त्रिधा व्यत्ययवती तथा विनिमयात्मिका । तृतीया चोभयवती निर्दिष्टा काव्यसूरिभिः ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 152)- समन्यूनाधिकानां समाधिकन्यूनैर्विनिमयः परिवृत्तिः। and Jagannātha (p. 481) परकीययत्किचिस्त्वादानविशिष्टं परस्मै स्वकीययत्किंचिद्वस्तुसम परिवृत्तिः।

·209 ] Notes [-ii. 357 (ii) Two points deserve to be noted. The barter ought to be faccia and charming. An actual commercial 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 कामानुगुणां प्रणालीम् where there is only a व्यत्यय or किंचित् त्यक्त्वा किचिदादानमात्रम् cannot be a regular UF in the normal acceptance of the term विनिमय. Mammata and Jagannatha also are against admitting व्यत्यय, while वामन and रुय्यक admit it. Bhoja attempts to hold the balance evenly by recognising व्यत्यय as a sub-variety of Parivritti. His example (p.297) is- जो तीअ अहराउ 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 pa(an alamkāra not recognised by our author) which is thus defined by Jagannatha (p. 478)-क्रमेणानेकाधिकरणकमेकमाधेयमेकः पर्यायः । क्रमेणानेकाधेयकमेकमधिकरणमपरः। nad - Notes to II. 357-(i) Vagbhata the author of the काव्यानुशासन is the only writer besides भामह and दण्डिन् to recognise आशी: as a figure of speech. Vagbhata 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 प्रियोक्तिमात्रं भावज्ञापनेन गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयस्य विषयः। See his commentary on the passage. 27 [Kavyadaria] ·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 Nātyaśāstra, and which occur also in Jayadeva's Chandrāloka, Mayukha 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 one'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 31641Ts 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 noting--as pointing to an independence of tradition and perhaps an absence of interdependence between Dandin and Bhāmaha-that Dandin takes aft: as a regular benediction. Bhämaha 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-तत्र च तस्य चेतोवृत्तिविशेष स्नेहात्मा रतिभावविशेषरूप आशीरेण प्रतीयत इति भावध्वनिरेवायम् । ............ 13791 STETTHETFT मैत्रीसंबन्धस्योपनिबन्धो न त्वप्राप्तप्राप्तीच्छात्मिका आशिषः। In the second example also (see our Com. ii. 35712–13). Hemachandra points out that the hostile cities have already been vanquished. Hence, तथाविधानां शत्रुनगरीणां दर्शनमत्र प्राप्तकालतया- Rugsryd i The illustration given by Dandin is of course BISITHSTTHTEST Strait: 1 And the same is the case with Vägbhata. Notes to II. 358-359ab.-(i) Before winding up his treatment of the regular alamkāras and passing on to a consideration of the mixed alamkāras (ii. 360), Dandin ·211 ) Notes [ ii. 358 vindicates the completeness of his list, by remarking that अनन्वय, ससंदेह, उपमारूपक, and उत्प्रेक्षावयव, which are normally given by Alamkārikas 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 ii. 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 377 and He, though not separately given by Dandin, are treated as independent alamkāras by almost all other writers, including Bhāmaha. The figures 34H164 and 3ra are however given by Bhāmaha alone amongst extant writers; and Dandin's specific rejection of them raises the ques. tion as to Dandin's chronological position with 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 3471547 by these two writers is concerned. As to gesieniaga, 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 sea a isto judge from the illustration of it given by Bhāmaha (see our Com. ii. 3594-) is a combination of उत्प्रेक्षावैचित्र्य with श्लेषवैचित्र्य and रूपकवैचित्र्य, and as Dandin's sub-varieties often exhibit such combined afts, Dandin is justified from his own point of view in regarding उत्प्रेक्षावयव as उत्प्रेक्षाभेद. Abhinavagupta in his samo176 (p. 41) discusses Bhāmaha's illustration for statea 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.359-1 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 date for co-ordinating or समकक्ष mixture and संकर for preponderaing mixture or mixture with the Fra relation. Although Dandin is aware of this two-fold method of mixture he has not deemed it necessary to appropriate a distinct name for each. Bhamaha, Rudrata, Vamana, Bhoja, Hemachandra, and the two Vâgbhatas have likewise contented themselves with just one name : Bhāmaha, Vāmana, and Bhoja choosing are the others having fixed upon it. The later alamkārikas including स्टयक, मम्मट, विश्वनाथ, and others clearly dis. tinguish between संसृष्टि and संकर, some adding also a third category of संदेह or अनिश्चय. (ii) The more important statements of these Alamkārikas are here assembled for easy reference- Bhamaha (iii. 48)- वरा विभूषा संसृष्टिबलंकारयोगतः । रचिता रत्नमालेव सा चैवमुदिता यथा ॥ 'Vamana (IV. iii. 30f.)-- अलंकारस्यालंकारयोनित्वं संसृष्टिः । तद्भेदावुपमारूपकोत्प्रेक्षावयवौ । Rudrata (x. 25) - योगवशादेतेषां तिलतण्डुलवञ्च दुग्धजलवच्च । व्यक्ताव्यक्तांशत्वात् संकर उत्पद्यते द्वेधा ॥ Bhoja (iv. 88 ff.) - संसृष्टिरिति विज्ञेया नानालंकारसंकरः । सा तु ब्यक्ता तथाव्यक्ता व्यक्ताव्यक्तेति च त्रेधा ॥ तिलतण्डुलवद्यक्ता छायादर्शवदेव च । अव्यक्ता क्षीरजलवत् पांशुपानीयवच सा ॥ व्यक्ताव्यक्ता च संसृष्टिनरसिंहवदिष्यते । चित्रवर्णवदन्यस्मिन् नानालंकारसंकरे ॥ Hemachandra (p. 289) स्वातन्त्र्याङ्गत्वसंशयैकपद्यैरेषामेकत्र स्थितिः संकरः । परस्परनिरपेक्षत्वं स्वातन्त्र्यम् । उपकारत्वमङ्गत्वम् । एकस्य ग्रहेन्यस्य त्यागे साधकबाधक- प्रमाणाभावादनिर्णयः संशयः । एकस्मिन् पदेच्छब्दालंकारयोः समावेश एकपद्यम्।

·2131 Notes [-11.360 Pratiharendurāja (p. 66)--- अनेकालंकारविकल्पात् संदेहसंकरः । विभिन्नाधारत्वेन शब्दार्थवर्तिनोर- लंकारयोरवस्थानाद्यवस्थासमाश्रयः शब्दार्थवर्त्यलंकारसंकरः । एक- शब्दाभिधानसंकरे तु समुच्चयेनानेकोलंकार एकस्मिन् वाक्यांशे इवा- दावनुप्रविशति । अनुग्राह्यानुग्राहकसंकरे त्वनेकस्यालंकारस्याङ्गाङ्गि- भावः । अतो विकल्पव्यवस्थासमुच्चयाङ्गाङ्गिभावसंश्रया एते चत्वारः संकरभेदाः Mammata (x, p. 915 ff.)- सेष्टा संसृष्टिरेतेषां भेदेन यदिह स्थितिः॥ अविश्रान्तिजुषामात्मन्यङ्गाङ्गित्वं तु संकरः। एकस्य च ग्रहे न्यायदोषाभावादनिश्चयः ।। स्फुटमेकत्रविषये शब्दार्थालंकृतिद्वयम् । व्यवस्थितं च तेनासौ त्रिरूपः परिकीर्तितः ॥ Visvanātha (x. 98f.)--- मिथोनपेक्षयैतेषां स्थितिः संसृष्टिरुच्यते । अङ्गाङ्गित्वेलंकृतीनां तद्वदेकाश्रयस्थितौ । संदिग्धत्वे च भवति संकरस्त्रिविधः पुनः॥ (iii) It will be noticed that Dandin has not yet treated of the शब्दालंकारs, and although a mixture of शाब्द and आर्थ alamkāras is possible, Dandin is not primarily thinking of such a mixture but probably a mixture of two (or more) अर्थालंकारs, as the illustration given by him goes to prove. We have already seen that many a sub-division under the several alamkāras given by Dandin is based upona combination of वैचित्र्य proceeding from more than one figure-of-speech. All the same of course we would be justified in extending the scope of Dandin's definition of telt so as to include mixtures of शाद and आर्थ alamkaras. (iv) Should we admit संसृष्टि or संकर as an independent figure-of-speech at all? This question is analogous to the question in Indian Logic as to the recognition of of चित्ररूप or चित्रगन्ध. Ruyyaka (p. 193) gives his conclusion on the point in these words-तत्र यथा बाह्यालंकाराणा सौवर्णमणिमयप्रभृतीनां पृथक्चारुत्वहेतुत्वेपि संघटनाकृतचारुत्वान्तरं जायते तद्वत् प्रकृतालंकाराणामपि संयोजने चारुत्वान्तरमुपलभ्यते । तेन अलंकारान्तरप्रादुर्भावो न पृथक्पर्यवसानमिति निर्णयः । अलंकारान्तरत्वेपि च संयोगन्यायेन स्फुटावगमो भेदः । समवायन्यायेन वास्फुटत्वावगम इति द्वैधम् । पूर्वत्र संसृष्टिरतरत्र संकरः।

·ii. 361–) Kavyādarsa [ 214 Notes to II. 361-362-(i) In the first half of ii. 361 there is an 34H1 statement which can stand by itself. The 3471 is thus the principal figure. The gargarfsat considers the figure in the first half to be उत्प्रेक्षा; but आक्षिपति can be an 34 Aroc though not actually enumerated by Dandin. In the second half we have an straten based upon . The particular statement about the invasion of the beauty of the face by lotuses is corroborated by the general fact that, given tot and sas, any body can invade. The awkwardness of the general statement containing a pronoun (gqi) referring to a noun in the particular statement can be got over by making एषाम् = एषां लोकानाम्. Nor is the difficulty so very serious at all. We need not accordingly make the figure a instead of an app2TH, as suggested by some commentators. (ii) Dandin has not apparently given an illustration for Haqi Teat. The stanza ii. 362 (cp. ii. 226ab) supplies the deficit. But it is omitted in most Mss. and Cb quotes the stanza with the remark - अप्युदाहरणमन्यत्र द्रष्टव्यम् । It may be added in passing that Bhoja gives as his example for this kind of ele (which he calls तिलतण्डुलसंसृष्टि) the extra stanza पिनष्टीव तरङ्गाप्रैः etc. mentioned in the variants to ii. 226 above. Even the argyrfait does not notice ii. 362; and surely it would have been possible for Dandin, without repeating himself, to give another instance for thiefe if he had thought it necessary. We should in this connection recall the fact that Dandin has not given illustrations for all the 7481% or the R14 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 you and faith 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, forms, as Dandin himself says ii. 313, the ingredient of quite a large number of figures, with ·215 1 Notes [ ii. 363 which it generally has an Fishta 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 an into it somewhere. Of course the charm resulting from paronomasia is artificial and so cannot be said to reflect accurately the charm of the original object in Na ture which the poem seeks to describe in the most effective and agreeable fashion. Paronomasia is like the frame of the picture. It can set off the beauty of the portrait: but the beauty of the portrait must be there. Svabhāvokti is the beauty of the portrait; Vakrokti is the contribution of the frame-maker. (ii) It is thus evident that Vakrokti is Dandin's general name for any rhetorical device used to garnish or embellish some normal matter-of-fact description or narration. As the श्रुतानुपालिनी remarks स्वभावोक्तिर्नाम यथा- वस्थितपदार्थरूपकथनम् वक्रोक्तिर्नाम यथावस्थितमन्यथीकृत्य । अत्र उपमादयः संकीर्णपर्यन्ता वक्रोक्तिषु पतिताः स्वभावोक्तिः पुनराद्यालंकार इति। We should in this connection recall Dandin's earlier assertion (ii. 13) about that there cada aquatrag ! 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 qilaritiaa ( a work which has been brought to light only a few months ago in a solitary and fragmentary ms. from the South ) he says--TESTS Pietrei farehoufa- 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 fast is, in the words of Jayaratha (p. 8), a las faran ters, or as another puts it, a aquapherHoa: Compare also प्रसिद्ध मार्गमुत्सृज्य यत्र वैचित्र्यसिद्धये । अन्यथैवोच्यते सोर्थः सा वक्रोक्तिरुदाहृता ॥ (iii) Bhāmaha's conception of all can be gathered from the following passages in his work-(i. 36)- वक्राभिधेयशब्दोक्तिरिष्टा वाचामलंकृतिः - where qualiti is given as & part of his definition of alamkāra; (cp. Abhinava·ii. 363-] Kavyādarsa [216 . gupta's comment-शब्दस्य हि वक्रता अभिधेयस्य च 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 poetry with its many alamkāras, provided it is not vulgar or confusing and has some sense to convey, is also not unacceptable; 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 Hemachandra (p. 267) distinctly lay down-सर्वत्र विषयेतिशयोक्तिरेव प्राणत्वेनावतिष्ठते । तां विना प्रायेणालंकारत्वायोगात् । Other testimony to this extended application of the term ander is Alamkārasarvasva (p.8)- वक्रोक्तिजीवितकारः पुनर्वैदग्भ्यभागीभणितिस्वभावां बहुविधां वक्रोक्तिमेव प्राधान्यात् काव्यजीवितमुक्तवान् । व्यापारस्य प्राधान्यं च कान्यस्य प्रतिपेदे । अभिधान- प्रकारविशेषा एव चालंकाराः। ......... । उपचारवक्रतादिभिः समस्तो ध्वनिप्रपञ्चः स्वीकृतः । कैवलमुक्तिवैचित्र्यजीवितं काव्यं न व्यङ्ग्यार्थजीवितमिति तदीयं दर्शनं व्यवस्थितम् । And again (p. 177)-वक्रोक्तिशब्दश्वालंकारसामान्यवचनो. पीहालंकारविशेषे संज्ञितः। To the same effect also अभिनवगुप्त in his ध्वन्यालोकलोचन (p. 208)-यातिशयोक्तिर्लक्षिता सैव सर्वा वक्रोक्तिः अलंकारप्रकारः सर्वः ।...............। लोकोत्तरेण चैवातिशयः । तेनातिशयोक्तिः सर्वालंकारसामान्यम् । Compare also Kavyadarsa ii. 220. (iv) As against this earlier conception of वक्रोक्ति (or Bfarrilitti) 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 केनेहशी बुद्धिर्दारुणा तव निर्मिता । त्रिगुणा श्रूयते बुद्धिर्न तु दारुमयी क्वचित् ॥ Another illustration given by-Kuvalayānanda (st. 158) is-मुञ्च मान दिनं [मा नन्दिन] प्राप्तं नेह नन्दी हरान्तिके। Rudrata (ii. 14-17), Mammata (ix, p. 593), Hemachandra (p. 234), :

·217 ] Notes [-ii. 343 Vidyānātha (p, 410), and most later writers have the same limited conception of affi, which some go to the length of regarding as a Taicier only. Rudrata (x. 9) gives besides a variety of called #q. (v) As coming between these two conceptions of qatti, though not therefore necessarily forming the transition between them, is Vāmana's conception of वक्रोक्ति as (IV. iii. 8) सादृश्यालक्षणा वक्रोक्तिः। A लक्षणा, the Kamadhenu explains, is possible in five ways- अभिधेयेन संबन्धात् e. g. द्विरेफ-भ्रमर-भृङ्ग सादृश्यात् e.g. सिहो माणवकः (a case of वक्रोक्ति); समवायतः e.g. गङ्गायां घोषः; वैपरीत्यात् e g बृहस्पतिरयं मूर्खः and, क्रियायोगात् e.g. महति समरे शत्रुघ्नस्त्वम्. 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 azalth and that of Dandin, Bhāmaha, and others there is not that wide gulf that is sometimes made out. (vi) At the same time, comparing Kāvyādarśa ii. 93–94 with Vāmana's example for all thi, viz.- उन्मिमील कमलं सरसीनां कैरवं च निमिमील मुहूर्तात् (अत्र नेत्रधर्मावुन्मीलन- AFISAT ATEITIES FOR THE JETA:) 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 37037. Samādhi is declared, like alth and faerit, 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-zitari: कारो धर्मा गुणाः तदतिशयहेतवस्त्वलंकाराः). As far as the facts of the case go, we have no definite ground to regard Vāmana's treatment of an eri as either a forerunner or 28 [Kāvyādarśa ] ·ii. 363-] Kavyadarsa [218 a subsequent development of Dandin's and Bhāmaha's conception of the same. Even if Udbhata, Bhāmaha's commentator, is to be regarded as a rival conteniporary of Vāmana, yet Vâmana 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 Dapdin's or Vamana'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 dignity of a regular alamkāra irrespective of what the Texts had already to say about the other वक्रोक्ति. Notes to II 364-336-(i) Compare Note (iii) to ii. 13 above. The normal conception of Bhāvika found in Ruyyak& (p.178), Mammata (x, p. 822), and Visvanātha (r.93-94), and most later writers is contained in the fol. lowing definition of it in the Kavyaprakasa-प्रत्यक्षा इव यद्भावाः क्रियन्ते भूतभाविनः । तद्भाविकम् Some writers add to this the further condition that the object (719) should be अत्यद्भुत, and should be expressed in vivid and nonconfusing terms (वाचामनाकुल्येन). An example of a past incident revivified is Mrichchhakatika (iii. 6)-- तं तस्य स्वरसंक्रमं मृदुगिरः श्लिष्टं च तन्त्रीस्वनं वर्णानामपि मूर्छनान्तरगतं तारं विरामे मृदुम् । हेलासंयमितं पुनश्च ललितं रागद्विरुच्चारित यत्सत्यं विरतेपि गीतसमये गच्छामि शृण्वनिव ॥ For a future incident anticipatorily glimpsed Ruyyaka (p. 182) gives the instance अनातपत्रोप्ययमत्र लक्ष्यते सितातपत्रैरिव सर्वतो वृतः। अचामरोप्येष सतेव वीज्यते विलासबालव्यजनेन कोप्ययम् ॥ (ii) In accordance with this later conception of the igure its name is explained as-भावः करभिप्रायोनास्तीति । or (अलं० स०, p.178)-कटिगतो भाव आशयः श्रोतरि प्रतिबिम्बत्वेनास्तीति । भावो भावना वा पुनः पुनश्चेतमि निवेशनम् सोत्रास्तीति । This etymology ·219 Noles 1-1.366 sense. - probably goes back to Kāryādarśa ii 364cd, where however Ha apparently is used in a rather peculiar We would there translate it by Sustained Intuition especially as Dandin makes it a प्रबन्धविषयगुण. Bhamaha also calls it (ii. 52) प्रबन्धविषयगुण laying down for it the four-fold requirement, viz - चित्रोदात्ता लार्थत्वं कथायाः स्वभिनीयता । शब्दानाकुलता चेति तस्य हेतुं प्रचक्षते । But Dandin's requirements for the figure as enume. rated in ii. 365-366 seem to be peculiar to him, as also his whole conception of the same, wherein he is probably following a tradition distinct from that of Bhamaha. Bhoja's conception of Bhavika (which he identifies with उद्भेद, iv.85-86) is so very far removed from the two conceptions discussed hitherto that it need not be here taken into consideration at all, (iii) The Bhāvika of later writers is distinguishable from the गुण called प्रसाद, the रस named अद्भुत, and अलंकार like स्वभावोक्ति or भ्रान्तिमान् or अतिशयोक्ति. Compare साहित्यदर्पण (x p. 574f.)---न चायं प्रसादाख्यो गुण. भूतभाविनोः प्रत्यक्षायमाणत्वे तस्या- हेतुत्वात् । न चाद्भुतो रसः विस्मयं प्रत्यस्य हेतुत्वात् । न चातिशयोक्तिरलंकारः अभ्यवसायाभावात् । न च भ्रान्तिमान् भूतभाविनोभूतभावितयैव प्रकाशनात् । न चं स्वभावोक्तिः तस्या लौकिकवस्तुगतसूक्ष्मधर्मस्वभावस्यैव यथावद्वर्णन रूपम अस्य तु वस्तुनः प्रत्यक्षायमाणत्वरूपो विच्छित्तिविशेषोस्तीति। Hemachandra however refuses to admit this figure. He says (p 293)-भाविकं तु भूतभाविपदार्थप्रत्यक्षीकारात्मकमभिनेयप्रवन्ध एव भवति । यद्यपि मुक्तकादौ दृश्यते तथापि न तत् स्वदते । (iv) 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 allt; whereas, it is not quite clear why Bhamaha should have called his भाविक a प्रबन्धविषयगुण. Bhavika is the quality belonging to a poem taken as a whole, and it suggests the 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 ·ii. 367-1 Kāvyādar śn [ 220 criticism ; and it is creditable to Dandin that he has recognised their importance and made room for them in his treatment of poetry. Notes to II. 367-368-(i) Having considered a poem from the point of view of higher criticism and constructive technique, Dandin is naturally led to think of the dramatic Nodes and their minor constituents, or the Rhetorical.modes and their further literary distribution, these being respectively treated at length in the Nātyaśāstra, Chapters xix 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 Dandin had made himself more explicit. For vrittis compare our Note (ii) to i. 40. (ii) Here again, as at the end of the first Parichcheda, Dandin emphasises, for an aspiring poet, the necessity of constant practice Repetitio mater studiorum.

·No text on this page.