·PARIOHCHHEDA II Notes to II, 1-(i) Compare Note (i) to i. 10. Kávya, 8ccording to Dandin, ishocaressat qaradt; that is to say, he gives more prominence to the word-element in poetry as compared with the sense-element. This does not mean that the Gunas which are the sine qua non of poetry, and the Alamkāras which serve as decoration, must belong to the word-element, the act, ex clusively : for, the 40s, the subordinate elements of the Body, have also their own decorations. Thus there is no inconsistency in Dandin's having defined Kavga as he has done and then having divided the Alamkāras (and impliedly the Gunas also-cp. Note (i) to i. 41) into those belonging to word and those belonging to sense. Modern Alamkārikas such as Mammata, having once subordinated both the word as well as the sense to Raba, are constrained to regard the Canas as well as the Alamkāras as belonging to Rasa, the angin. For a criticism of this view see our Note (rii) ta i. 41 and the Sanskrit Commentary to the present stanza. (ii) The distinct function of the Gunes and the Alamkāras is brought out by Dandin by calling the former the life-breaths and the latter the ornaments of poetry. The Gunas abide in poetry tharlat while the Alamkāras Meat ; there is between them a distinction in kind,- 8 distinction which later became one of degree, as with an (iii. 1. 1-2) or with geet (p. 17)-TW: 9 #raat af: 1 stata modus faceita Fe शोभातिशयहेतुत्वं तैलंकाराः। Compare however the following from relax, p. 20– अलंकृतमपि श्रव्यं न काव्यं गुणवर्जितम् । गुणयोगस्ततो मुख्यो गुणालंकारयोगयोः ॥ अलंकारसहस्रः किं गुणो यदि न विद्यते । विक्रीयन्ते न घण्टाभिर्गावः क्षीरविवर्जिताः ॥ Compare also (Agnipurāna, 346. 1)- अलंकृतमीप प्रात्य न काव्यं निर्गुणं भवेत् । वपुष्यललिते स्त्रीणां हारो भाराग्रते परम् ।। Mammata's Beg: Ang implies the same thing. :

·Kūvyādarša | 68 (11) Tho progressive dovelopmont in the theory, and with it in the number, of the Alamkaras 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 & rapid review of the main stages reached during the process, to which the reader is thereforo referred would be noted in this place that Dandın must have lived at a time when the development of the Alamkāras in the way of progressive division and subdivision was in full swing, and he seems to have been anxious rather to give an epitomized statement of the principal results arrived at than to add his own quota to the process of amplification In fact he has even bad to reject some of the Alamkaras recognised by his predecessors (cp n 358-359 and notes thereon) Notes to II 2–(1) The fundamenta divisionis of the Alamkaras have been variously stated in different texts The simplest division into act and opfors, even after the addition of a third class of ma, proved quite in adequate It is however given by the stage, and most elaborately by Bhoja It was soon found necessarv to introduce various subclassifications based on the psy. chological principle involved in the process, OT on some such underlying peculiarity Similarity, adentity, contrast, causation, word grouping, lokatyarahāra , Rasa, Rhetoric, Technicality these were some of the principles of classification accepted Compare, for instance, the Alamkarasarvasva, and particularly the following list based upon the Prataparudriya (pp 338- 339) [ wheroin the Alambaras not recognised by Dandın are shown in square brackets - 797, I aferma, mat, 37,1 34fdbased on 31591- 197 Taifa, ( 21 ) , ( ) Teliti, ma lafit, based on HT- साधर्म्य उपमा IBM, 34741451, ,1– based on भेदाभेदसाधारण- ·. 69] Notes उत्प्रेक्षा, अतिशयोक्ति,-based on अध्यवसाय, विभावना, विशेपोक्ति, [श्षिम, चिन, अमगति, अन्यान्य, व्याघात, अतद्रण,] भाविक, [विशेष,]-based on विरोध, यथासख्या, [ परिसंन्या, अर्थापत्ति, विक्प, समुच्चय, J-based on वाक्यन्यायः परित्ति, [प्रन्यनीक, तद्गुण,] समाधि( % समाहित), [सम,] स्वभावोक्ति, उदात्त, [विनोक्ति,]-brsd on लोकव्यवहार, [काध्यलिन, अनुमान, ] अर्थान्तरन्यास,-based on तन्यिाय, [कारणमाला, एकावली, मालादीपक, सार]-based on शृङ्खलाचित्र्य, [च्याजोत्ति, चक्रोक्ति, मालन,]-based on अपह्नव, and समासोक्ति, [ परिसर,]-based on विगेपणवेचित्र्य It became soon obvious that any such classificatory principle or principles, would gradually tend to become inadequate, as there would always remain some Alamkaras recognised by rhetoricians and falling outside their scope Thus of the 35 or rather 34 Alamkāras recognised by Dandin the following 14 are not includod in the above list -आरत्ति, आक्षेप, हेतु, सूक्ष्म, देश, प्रेयम्, रस- वत् , ऊर्जस्विन्, पर्यायोक्त, श्लिष्ट, विरोध, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, व्याजस्तुति, and आशी (not to mention सकीर्ण) Some of these,eg, प्रेयस् , रसवत् , ऊर्जस्विन् , Bre sometimes classed as रसमलक, while आक्षेप, पर्यायोक्त, अप्रस्तुतप्रशमा, व्याजस्तुनि and आशी will have to be classed as 7127217 Fores, i e, merely as effective modes of expression, such as those enumerated by Bharata in the beginning of the 16th chapter of the Natya sastra The tendency towards & wanton increase merely in the number of the Alamkaras (and of subdivisions within an Alamkara), which marked the latest phase in the history of the Alamkárasastra, made any at tempt to trace the Alamkarss to their such as Dandin contemplates-an altogether bopeless task (11) But already in some quarters, as in the case of the Gunas,- see note (u) to 1 41–rosolt against this gratuitous multiplication of entities had begun to assert itself Thus Hemachandra rejects परिकर, यथारप्य. विनोक्ति, भाविक, उदान ररवत् , प्रेयम्, ऊर्जस्विन् , भाव ममाहित, आशी , and inte as distinct Alamkaras--and some of them, it will be seen, are recognised even by Dandin and' Bhāmaha Udbhata's Kayyalamkarasar samgraha is ·ii. 2-1 Kūvyūdarśa [ 70 likewigo moderate in its enumeration of Alamlāras, while even so lato a text as the Alamharaselhars of Kesavam igra (which is believed to have utilised the Sutras of Sauddhodanı) lays down with emphasis (p 29)-9 Ereier1GET 7919? 1 statiog further (p 38) that he has justified the position he has taken in his 31 ANGOFI, a work which apparently has not como down to us Dandın, it will be noted, holds a middle position between the two extremes of needless amplification and unwarrentable curtailment (ni) Who the airats are that Dandın had in his mind it is difficult to decide As the treatment of the Alamharas an Bharata, or in the Agnipurang for the matter of that, is very meagre these cannot have been intended by him , aud as to Bhamaha, since his list of Alamkaras (cp ai 4, 11 66, 11 86, 88, 11 93, in 1-4), made up of detached and successive lists as it is, agrees in general statement and even in the order in which the Alamkaras are mentioned with that of Dandın, it is doubtful of Dandin would regard Bhimaha-even though he be his predecessoras one of the gaiaris referred to in the present stanza On this point seo further our Introduction It seems that a large mass of literature known to Dandid 18 now lost to us Cp note (11) to i 2 The Commentary salem enumerates, amongst Dandia's predecessors, 7274, ब्रह्मदत्त, and नन्दिस्वामि, names otherwise almost unknown. Notes to II 3-(1) Dandin here admits that as regards the Alamkaras there is no difference of practice between the Vardarbhas and the Gaudas (साधारणमलकारजातम्), but this 18 rather unexpected That craving for simplicity and directness in the one and hyperabole and omateness in the other which led them to cultivate distinctive FTPT5 18 bound to make itself felt even 18 their choice of the Alamkaras and their frequency, although this fact, it is obvious, would not make any difference in the definitions of the Alankaras as such ·71 ) Notes (-ui 5 Notes to II, 4-(1) We are not quite certain as to the genuineness of this list of Alamkaras (stanzas 47), although all the Mes give it It is the practice of some of the later Alamkarikas to preface their treatment of the Alamkaras by a few mnemonic verses of their own composition, but some writers, e & Mammaţa, have not obliged their would be students in this manner, and just as in the case of Mammata a commentator has added a versified enumeration at the beginning of the tenth Ullasa (although never as * 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 दीपकागृती (or the unmetrical दीपकाती), and also for the further fact that in this enumeration some figures (a & TOEFI) appear under strange, and others (eg faste for fasteit) under misleading, names We cannot bring ourselves to believe that Acharya Dandin could not have avoided such solecisms and ambiguities if he had meant it (11) Vibhavana is often rendered as Presumption, - but that is a name that we must reserve for steiger which 6 and others recognise as a distinct figure of speech-or as Peculiar Causation It is rather an imagining or & 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 operativa Cause', by which term we could render the figure fat as it is ordinarily defined Dandın's account of the figure is however a little bit different See below (11) The latter half of this stanze is identical with Bhamaba li 66 first half Notes to II 5-(1) The second half of this staza is identi oal with Bhámaha iil 1, first half We bere already commented upon the name 'Lava Latar Alamkarıkar male a distinction between the figure called ·ii.5-1 Kūryüdarso ( 72 m (which is tho samo na Dandin's Father) and the figure feat which is a T Alarkara Comparo Ruysala, pp 103, 185, Visvanitha, pp 568, 576, Vis. VOS &ra. in the Albinkárakaustubha, pp 372, 416 Bhoja gives the tuo figures, but what ho calles enfa approaches tho Tift (cn note (11) to 13-92), while ho does not at all recognise tha T Alamkira called Taifa in other texts Bhoja, however, agrees with Dandin in calling by the name as the figure named समाधि by मम्मट and others Notes to II 6(1) We have already commented upon tho use of the abbreviated name for for famire Visesha as a figure distinct from fattifa 18 recognised, aniongst others, by Rudrata, Rusyaha, Mommata, Visvanaths, and Jagannatha occurs Notos to II.7--1) The figuro sift recognised by Dandın is recognised by no other Alamkarika except Bhamaha and Vagbhats the author of the Kavyānusasana It should be noted, however, that the name amongst the 36 effective literary devices mentioned by Bharats in the beginning of the 16th Chapter Bhāviky usually translated by 'Vision' will have to he rendered, consistently with Dandin's explanation of the torm, by some such expression as Sustained Intuition Notes to II 82(1) Besides the two names for this figure given by Dondin the figure is also called T (3765- कारशेखर, 135) and स्वरूप (अग्निपुगण 344°3), while स्टेट groups this figure along with a number of others under the head of 716 figures, 1 o, those that have the portrayal of tbe thing-as it is as their object Compare (vu 10-12)- वास्तमिति तज्ज्ञेय नियते वस्तुम्वरूपाथन यन् । पुष्टार्थमविपरीत निरुपममननिगयमश्लेषम् ।।

·ii. 9-) Kavyadaria Notes to II. 9-13–(i) Besides the classification givon by Dandin, which has for its basis the fourfolds a of words recognised by the grammarians (of age ft Tara! wie Felt TUIT PFEIRI SI E31041 Mabablāshya I 19), Svalhavokti can also be differentiated into var 1ous sorts according to its आश्रय, स्वरूप, and हेतु The Try is the theme , and this can be stałti, faft, HIFI, and the like Svarupe indicates the particular aspect which is chosen for description, and this can be (A) युद्धिपूर्वक शरीरावययसनिवेश or सस्थान, (B) अबुद्धिारित शरीरावयवस- PART or TTYTT, (o) 24, and (D) 1997 By ea are meant the particular conditions of , a fi, otc which are adduced to lend probability to the theme under description For details see Bhoja III 6-8 and the oxamples there given (1) The tendency of most writers is to make short ahrift with this figure, which is rather a pity , for. apart from simile and other embellishments, there is a considerable skill involved in the process of observation and the subsequont operation of choking the details and marshalling them out in an effective ordor It is the presence of this very skill in a pre eminent degree which makes those long descriptive passages in writers like Scott such fascinating reading Not that there is no nature description in Sanskrit poetry, poets like Kalidasa and Bhavabhutı-and the Epics above allcontain many a doscriptive 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 concerts which lend an un ploasant artificiality to the whole Primitive poetry depends for its effeot almost exclusively upon Svabb! vokti (rul) There are two figures more or less allied to Srabhavokti that havo to be listinguished from tt. The figure 34797 (below, il 300) aims also at a doscrip tion, but ita object is some exalted personage or extra ordinary ominence of some sort, whereas it le dir 1 ·751 Notre thetly litta down (mhoja. lil.s)- मुरमानार्भस्नियन नामाणि 27: 1 l'urther, an understood by later writers, the cxalted them in the caso of tho 37 must always bo Urought in subordinately (अलामनया). although Dandin doc* not lay down thiæ condition. Thp other figuro allied to Svabharoktile Dhirikn (il. 364), toking it in the sense in which भनद उन्ट, सम्पर and others undor. stand it and not in the peculiar feus which Dandin agsisns to it The difforence between Seabhivokti and Bharika is ono of time. The former deals with tho actual present : the latter is an attempt to rehabilitate the past or to pisualise tht future.** For fur. ther remarks on the subject comparo Our Notes to ii.3GIff. Notes to 11.14-) A few leading definitions of Upam& given by other writers are V Bhnrata (Natyassutrairi 42)- किमित पाव्यया गादीनोपनीयते ।। उपमा नाम गाया गुमाएनिगमाया ।। Agnipurana (344.6)- उपमा नाम गा यायामुषमानोपमेययोः। मना चन्तरमामान्ययोगिनि(?) विनिम् ॥ प्रिनिदादाय गार प्य रोग्याचा प्रान्ने । Udbhata in the Karyalamkararamgraha (p. 16)- यतोहारि साधम्यगुपमानोपमेययोः । मिथो विभिनगालादिशब्दयोरपमा तु तत् ।। Rudrata (Ravyalamkara, viii. 4)- उभयोः रामान गुणादि गिदं भोद्यर्थक्त्र । अन्यत्र तथा नन् गाध्यत इति मोपमा वैधा । Bhannatha (il 30/- विदेनापमानन देशमाश्यिादिभिः। उपमेयम्य सत् गाम्य गुणलेशन सोपमा॥ Vamana (Kavyalamkarasutra, IV. ii 1}- उरमानेनोपमेयम्य गुणलेशतः साम्पमुपमा !

·ii. 14-] Kāryādarsa 176 Bhoja (Sarasvatikanthābharana, iv. 5)- प्रमिद्धेनुरोधेन यः परस्परमर्धयोः। भूगोश्यागामान्ययोगः सहोपमा मता ॥ Ruyyaka (P.25)- उपनानोपमेययो. नाधम्में भेदाभेदतुल्याचे उपमा । Mammata (x.1) साधर्म्यमुपमा भेद। Vagbhatilamkara (iv.50)---- उपमानेन मादृश्यमपमेयम्य यत्र सा । प्रत्ययाव्ययतयाथंगमासेम्पमा मता ॥ Vagbhata (Kavyanusāsana, P. 33)- चमत्कारिसाम्यमुपमा । सा प्रत्याययतुल्यार्धसमासैश्चतुर्थी । Hemachandra (Kavyanusasana, P. 239)- हृद्यं साधर्म्यमुपमा । Vidyadhara (Ekāvall, viii.S)- विलगति सति साधर्म्य स्यादुपमानोपमेययोरुपमा । Vidyānātha (Pratāparudriye, P. 351)- स्वतःसिद्धन भिनेन संमतेन च धर्मतः। साम्यमन्येन वर्णस्य वाच्यं चेदेदोपमा । Visvanātha (Sahityadārpana, x. 14)- साम्यं वाच्यमवैधये वापयस्य उपमा द्वयोः । Appaysadikshita (Chitram māñsā, P. 6)-, उपमानोपमेयन्वयोग्ययोरयोयोः । हृद्यं माधर्म्यमुपमेन्युगने काव्यवेदिभिः ।। Jagannātha (Rasagangadhara, P. 157) मादृश्यं गुन्दरं वाझ्याधापस्कारमुपमालंगतिः । Visvevara (Alamkarakaustubha, P. 4)- एक्वापदाच्य सायं भिनयासमा । (ui) It will be noticed that all these definitions of the Alainkárikas agree in the main. The यथाकथंचित् In Dandin's delimtion, which has its analogue in the de. finitions of the Natynsirtra and the Agnipurapa, im. plies that the similarity is largely free and that it may hold in respect of any conceivable aspect or aspects of the two things to be compared. This poces. -- ·77 ] Notes [-11 14 sarily requires that the objects be two in reality, and at as this implication that has been expressly brought out by qualifications such as मियो विभिनदेशालादिशब्दयो द्वयो, भेदे or भिमयो । The word उद्भूतम् is represented in other definitions by नेतोहारि, चमत्वाार, हद्यम् or मुन्दरम् The specific mention of the technical terms उपमान and उपमेय in the definitions and the substitution of the word साधर्म्यम् (ममानो धर्मो ययालो सधर्माणी तयोभाव) for the simpler HITY, as also some late qualifications like, TFT79874 (उपमेयोपमायां वाक्यद्वयम् तदतिव्याप्तिवारणाय) उपमानोपमेयत्वयोग्ययो , etc serve to exclude from the sphero of 39RT such varieties as अन्योन्योपमा, अद्भुतापमा मोहोपमा, सशयोपमा निर्णयोपमा, प्रतिषेधोपमा, असाधारणोपमा, प्रतिवस्तूपमा, and तुल्ययोगोपमा which Dandin embraces under the general term 7 but which lator Alamkarikas raised to the dignity of independent figures Dandan's conception of उपमा, and of सारस्य which 18 its basis, is thus very wido and general (111) We have already given above (Note (1) to 11 2) Vidyānātha's list of figures based on similarly, and the extracts in our Commentary (P 129) sufficiently allustrate this point The fundamental importance of the relation of semblance was indeed very early perceived The Agnipurana for instance divides सादृश्यम् (defin. ed as धमसामान्यम्) into उपमा, रूपय सहोक्ति and अर्थी तरन्यास and रद्रट similarly defines ओपम्यम् as (vni 1)- सम्यक् प्रतिपादयितु स्वरूपतो वस्तु तममानमिति । वस्त्वतरमभिदध्याद्ववता यस्मिस्तीपम्यम् ॥ and enumerates the following figures as based upon that relation- उपभोप्रेक्षापक अपहत्ति सशय समासोन्ति । मतमत्तरमन्योक्ति प्रतीपमधान्तग्यास ॥ उभय यामन्नतिमदाशपात्यनाम्हणाता । पूर्वगहोक्तिममुच्च चमार स्मरणानि तद्भेदा ॥ The justification for the enumeration of these (and other) as distinct figures (and not more vartoties of उपमा) should consist in the curcumstance that the सादृश्य- मूलम्बचिय in these figures is subordinated to some other वैचित्र्य (of identity doubt, error contrast etc) Dandin at least as we will presently see brought in this ·ii 14-1 Kavyād iria [ 78 other An as the basis for a distinctive figure none too frequently, and hence it is that Dandın has been able to get on with fewer figures but with larger subvarieties under each figure than most writers (16) Upama has played a very large rôle even outside the Alambarasastra It is usual to derive the word gra from 39+ VAT to measure, in the sense of what approximates another in measuro, dimension, quality, eto, but in the Rigveda the word seems to have been connected with the adjective 344 in the sense of the highest cp~ult TU A (rii 30 3), or proeminent op een ontg497 Team (113 15) The two words, it is probable, are quite distinct, but the influ once of the one in determining the evolution of tho meaning of the other is undeniable The Satapathabrahmana was already familiar with the later use of of the word cpp (xu 5 1 5) (v) The Niruktakara Yåsks has an elaborate noto on the use of sth in the Rigveda After pointing out (1 4, aſi 15f) that the forgiats y, aft, and I as also TUT, YHT, FE aro under certain circumstances used Um he says (in 131 )-2017 Titra prima ज्यायमा वा गुणेन प्रख्यातनमन वा पनीयांग वाप्रयातं घोपमिमीते । अथापि पनीयमा ज्यायोमम् । Then he gives the following variottos of Tal with their illustrations na-44131 are mofa ( V 788) 107147-Taget forand (V1 220) 1991 --foqrary Pieter(30 10 ), for1792 tema Arteta (1 453) and उप्तोपमान्अर्थोपमा-सिंह (पूतायाम् ) काक (कुयायाम ) Ho has also elses hero pointed out the influence of simile in the building up of the language (TFfa TZ eft fat olay on 18 AFTTT778, ix 12). in tho formation of technical tornis (3might a 779*771, vi: 12 TEH117 v 13) and upon the growth of Vedic mythology in goneral (erit 734167m for the Tid 1717 71 , 11 16) ·79) Notes [ii. 14 (vi) Only two of these varieties recognised by Yāske deserve & particular attention What he calls लुप्तोपम 13 the of the Alamkarikas and Dandin's definition of that figure is suggestive in that connection 34H तिरोभूतभेदा रूपकमुच्यते । The degree of this तिरोधान upon which the later distinction between रूप and अतिशयोकि is made to depend is equally ignored by Yaska as well as Dandın Next, the fils qal of Yaska is what might be called a well known or Hong analogy Compare in this connection the definition of a quoted above Chis festat contained in it the germ of what are known as tuifitoren EZR7s or popular -77718 which, as we saw, were made tho basis or fr of a number of Alarkaras Interpreted more scientifically the FAGITAT eventually became a regular sare called fala which 18 & process of analogical knowledge from the known and the familiar to the unknown and the unfamiliar Bhoja who recognises 1 distinct figure of speech corresponding to each of the several Pramanas of the MImansakas (प्रत्यक्षपूर्वाणि प्रमाणानि च जैमिने , in 3) defines the alamkara calle 34479 as follows - सदशात् सदृशज्ञानमुपमान द्विधेह तत् । स्यादेवमनुभूतेर्थेननुभूते द्वितीयम्म् ॥ His example is — ता रोहिणीं विनानीहि ज्योतिषामन मण्डले । रामूहस्तारकाणां य शस्थाशरमाश्रित ॥ 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 (v) Having defined 3991 Dandın nezt gives us & 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 अभिनयगुप्त in his commentary on the नाट्यगास (Madras Govt me fol 390) observes fefe goeguratate fatea उपमाभेदास्तत्र यो भेदकोश आविख्यासासायनिर्णयादिरथ म ताहक पृथगल TARIT BUTT | Bhämaha s criticism (11 37 f ) is in the same tein no matter whether at 18 directed against Dapdın or some other wrster ·il.14- Kāryādarsa [80 यदुत्त जिप्रकारत्व तस्या कैश्चिन्महात्मभि । निन्दाप्रशसाचिव्यासाभेदादनाभिधीयते ॥ सामान्यगुणानर्देशात् नयमायुदित ननु मालोपमादि सनापिन ज्यायान् विस्तरा मुधा ।। It has to be noted however that the Agnipurāna gives a classification of the 378 analogous to that of Dandin [viz -धर्म, वस्तु, परस्पर, विपरीत, नियम, अनियम, समुच्चय, व्यतिरेक, वहु, माला, विक्रिया, अद्भुत मोह, सशय, निश्चय, वाक्यार्थ, गमन ( रशना ? ), प्रशमा, निन्दा, कत्पिता, सदृशी, and असदृशी], besides giving another classification into 18 sub-varieties similar to those of Mammata (34479)--- समासेनासमासेन सा द्विधा प्रतियोगिन विग्रहादभिधानस्य ससमासान्यवोत्तरा । उपमा द्योतपरदेनोपमेयपदेन च ।। ताभ्या च विग्रहात था ससमासान्तिमा विधा। विशिष्यमाणा उपमा भवन्त्यष्टादश स्फुग ॥ The varieties called निन्दा and प्रशसा are even mentioned and illustrated by Bharata himself ( xvi 48 ff). though neither Bharata nor the Agnipurada mentions the आचिम्यागोपमा, the main butt of attack - The author of the Alamkaraseh hara gives the following ton subvarieties of उपमा (13)-- वास्यार्थीतिशयपनिन्दाभृतविपर्यया । सशयो नियम स्व च विक्रियेत्युपमा दश ॥ But no other writer whose work is extant divides 5441 in the manner adopted by Dandın Da pdın's classi. fication is primitive and, so far as any principle underlies the division, it is ju at the sense intended by the speaker (अर्थानुरोधेन विभाग) (vili) We can here advantageously consider some other classifications of Sy that have been adragced There is one in partioular which might be styled grammatical classification (व्याररणप्रयोगानुरोधेन) which has been adopted by उद्भट (p 16), द ll fi) मम्मट and most other later writers But it seems to be not unknown to the author of the Agnipuruda ( cp 344 8-9) who gives, as just mentioned 18 varieties based on this principle as nga inst Manimața a 25 Theyo last we will now oxbibit in a tabular form ·उपमा, 25 Kinds . पूंगा, 6 Kinds 81 ] । गुप्ता, 19Kinds पानी, 3 Kinds आर्थी, 3 Kinds । पारचे २गमासे ३ तदित १४ वाश्ये ५ समासे ६ तद्धिते एउटप्ता, 13 Kinds । निविाचाधर्मोपमानासप्ता, 1 Kind २५ समासे वाचाप्ता, 6 Kinds (all आर्थो) fashi, 5 Kinds घरमा, 5 Kinds उपमान उमा, 2 Kinds १२ आर्थी वापर १३ आर्धा समागे Notes লাৰ गमागे ११ नदित (आधी) मी ८ आयी श्रीनी १० आर्थी १४ गमागे १५ स्नायनि १६ आधारस्यनि १७ क्यरि १८ कर्मणमुलि rarm751, 2 Kinds गा धर्मोपमानलुप्ता, 2 Kinds १९ वर्तृणमुलि वाचकोपमेयता, 1 Kind । २१ मनामगा २२ समागे २३ पास्ये [-ii.14 २४ वयाच ·1. 14--0 Kavyā darda [ 82 Later writers have introduced further subtle com. plexities in this classification which is in the first place made to contain 7 more varieties, 3 under you and 4 under Gat and in the next placo thoro is introduced a further principle of five-fold sub classification इयं चैव- भेदोपमा वस्त्वलकाररसरूपाणा प्रधानव्यद्याना वस्त्वलकारयोर्वाच्ययोधोपस्कारक- तया पञ्चधा । इतश्चान्येपि प्रभेदा कुशाग्रीयधिपणे स्वयमुद्भावनीया । तन क्वचिदनुगाम्येव धर्म । क्वचिच कैवल निम्बप्रतिविम्वभावमापन । क्वचिदुभयम् । क्वचिद्वरतुप्रतिवस्तुभावेन रम्वित विम्वप्रतिविम्वभावम् । क्वचिदसनप्युपचरित । बचिच्च केवलशब्दात्मक । एभिर्भदे प्रागुक्ताना सधर्माणा भेदाना यथासभव गुणने बहुतरा भेदा भान्ति ( रसगद्गाधर, P 172 fi ) (1x) Another principle of division 18 suggested by Bharata (xyı 43 ) एक्स्यैवेन सा कार्या एकस्य बहुभिस्तथा । अनेरेपा तथैवेन बहूनां यहुभिस्तथा ॥ For illustrations see अलकारौस्तुभ p 141f The varieties known as मालोपमा and रशनोपमा are sub varieties under the second division of Bharata Upami, like Rūpaka, can also be divided as follows -उपमा द्विविधा निरवयवा सापयवा च । निरवयवा द्विधा शुद्धा मालारूपा च । साक्यवापि द्विया समस्तवस्तु विषया एक्देशविवर्तिनी च। For details seo Bhoja (2011) (x) Our Sanskrit Commentary on p 129 quotes a passage from Chitramimans illustrating how an exampla like चन्द इव मुखम् , by a slight phrasing, can be turned into a number of other Alamkaras As an Alamkāra Upamā is to be kept distinct from ETF where the सादृश्य (usually defined as तद्भिमन्वे सति तद्गतभूयो- धर्मत्त्व) is निरोभूत, and from उत्प्रेक्षा wherein, in spito of tho occasional prosence of words like , tho matter of the similarity is not that but purely a creation of the poet's imagination Col यदायमुसमानांशो लोस्त सिद्धिमृच्छति । तदोपमेन येनेवराब्द मावश्यवाचक' ।। यदा पुनरय रोशदसिद्ध कविकल्पित । तदोटाव येनेवशब्द मंभावनापर । (xi) Tho fourfold requirement of an 3941, viz 34714. उपमान साधारणधर्म, and वाचश्शब्द is not always present to Dandin's mind As Visvesvara observes (p 19) दन्दिनस्तु सारस्यस्य प्रतीयमानतामानाभिप्रायेणोपमाव्यवहार | Ho has in fact ·83] Notes 1-il. 16 given many a variety whero no ent is given and where the सादृश्य is only तात्सर्यपालोचनया गम्यम् ; op. ii. 25, 26,27 eto. Dandin's whole conception of 3447 and his atternpted classification of it is very crude and uncritical. Nor is there any attempt to present a systematic grouping of the varieties given. Notes to II. 15-(i) This and the next variety have been thus defined in the Agaipurana (344. 10)-- यत्र साधारणो धर्मः कथ्यते गम्यतेथवा । ते धर्मवस्तुप्राधान्याद्धर्मवस्तूपमे उभे ॥ The point of distinction between the two seems to be the fact that while in the first the 344C is summoned up merely to bring out the nature of the उपमेयगतधर्म, in the second the 34414 as a whole is compared with tho 34 as a whole, the two being regarded as entirely alike. (ii) The intended साधारणधर्म can be expressed in various ways : by a simple word as in ii. 15 (आताम्रम् ), by Franz epithets which are fitthee as in ii. 28 (see Com.), or by लिष्ट epithets which are शब्दपरिवृत्त्यसह as in ii. 29 (सालकानन ). Again the साधारणधर्म may be made the theme of a solitary sentence as in i अम्भोरुहमिव आताम्रम् or of compound or coordinate sentences as in यथा करतलम् आतानं तथा अम्भोरुहमाताम्रम् or करतलम आताम्रम् अस्ति अम्भोरुहं च आताम्रम् अस्ति । In the latter case we sometimes have what is called the वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव (एकम्येव धर्मस्य पृथक्छब्दाभ्यामुपादानम्) as in करतलमातानं रक्तिमोद्भासितं चाम्भोरुहम् or the बिम्बप्रतिबिम्वभाव ( वस्नुतो भित्रयोर्धर्भयोः परस्परसादृश्यादभिन्नयो। पृथगुपादानम् ) as in-अम्भोरुहे भ्रमद्भुङ्ग लोलनेत्रं मुखं तव where नेत्र and भृङ्ग are related to each other as बिम्ब and प्रतिविम्ब although the IC of the one and the Wof the other being practically one have between thom the वस्तुप्रतिवस्तु relation Jagannatha would call this वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभावकर- म्बितविम्वप्रतिबिम्बभाच Notes to II. 16-(i) The first line gives two separte examples of वस्तपमा. If we were to read the line-राजीव इव ·11. 16-1 Kavyādarta [84 ते वक्ने (Loc case) नेने मधुकरादिव it would be the second kind of वाक्यर्थोपमा illustrated in n 45 Notes to II 17-(1) This is recogaised ag distinot Alamkara by स्ट, मय्या, मम्मट, विश्वनाथ, जगनाथ and most othor modern writers The Sahityadarpana defines it as (r 87)- प्रसिद्धस्योपमानस्योपमेयत्वपरल्पनम् । निष्फलन्धाभिधान वा प्रतीपमिति कथ्यते ॥ Dxındın'a enumeration of it as a variety of 341 has been thus criticised by Jayaratha, in his Alamkara- Barvasva-Vimarsini (p 165)-उपमानकारत्व चानयोन वाच्यम् । उपमानस्याक्षेपादुपमेयकल्पनाच । न हि तत्र तदस्तीति ततोनयो (प्रतीपप्रकारयो) मुप्रत्यय एवं भेद । This in effect means that tho प्रतीप has पैचित्र्य which does not necessarily go to the formation of the real essence of an उपमा But as Dandın began by making his definition of 3491 rather very wide, he had no option but to regard the tita as a sub-varioty of उपमा It is so recognised by Bhoja (1v. 23) and by the Agnipurana (344 12) where it is called विपरीतोपमा (ii) This विपर्यामोपमा Is to be distinguished from निन्दीपमा (130) and प्रतिषेधोपमा (11_34) from the circumstance that the degradation of the afta14416_19 only implied in विपयोगापमा but is expliontly brought out in the other two varieties, stating points of inferiority in the zemra Notes to II 18-(1) A good example of this variety would be हाग प्रसूनमिव हास इव प्रसून पाणि प्रवाल इव पाणिरिव प्रवाल । रेशो द्विरेफ इव केश दव द्विरेफे गा भाति वीरदिव व विभानि पीत ॥ It is recognised by the Agnipurina and thus defined (344 11तुयमेवाश्मीयते यत्रान्योन्यैन धर्मिणो । परस्परोपमा सा स्यात् । 10 tho eramples of this variety given above the common quality is not stated, but it has got to be the same, boing conveyed by the same word or by synonymous espressione Henco the example- साि विधरति विधुररिमारितरनि तथा दिनन्ति यामिन्य । यामिनयन्ति दिनानि च मुखदु चहिते मनसि ॥ .

·851 Notes [-118 cannot constitute an अन्योन्योपमा, as the साधारणधर्म In सविता विधवति । शीतलत्व and that in विधुरपि मवितरति the दाहकत्व (11) Thrs variety is raised to the dignity of a distinct gure called 39.211TH by later Alamkarikas It has been defined by h as (p 67 ) अन्योन्यमेव यन स्यादुपमानोपमेयता। उपमेयोपमामाहुस्ता पक्षान्तरहानिगाम् ॥ Regarding the qualification पक्षान्तरहनिगाम् in the above definition प्रतीहारेन्दुराम observes--नान उपमानोपमेयभावे तात्पर्य किंतु एतदेव द्वयमेवविध विद्यते नत्वन्यदेतयो सन्श वस्त्वन्तर विद्यते इति । अतश्च एत त्पक्षद्वितयतिरिकस्य पक्षान्तरस्यात्र हानर्विवक्षितत्वात् परस्परमपमानोपमेयभावो न दुष्यति । It as doubtful however whether Dandin is here thinking of the तृतीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद as much as of the heightening of their mutual excellence - अन्योन्योत्कर्षशसिनी This implies that both the 3479 and the 39.1 must be प्रवृत्त, as nobody would spend any effort in showing forth to advantaga tho charm of what is not the theme on hand Compare the examples goven by हेमचन्द्र nd अप्प- यदीक्षित as quoted in our Sanskrit Commentary Bhoja (1023) calls this उभयोपमा (ul) In नियमोपमा (u 19) the तृतीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद is express lyrade Here it is implied only The implication is to be explained as follows-चन्द्र इव मुखमिति मुसे चन्द्रमाम्ये वर्णिते चन्द्रपि मुखमादृश्यमर्थत सिध्यति साधारणधर्मस्योभयानुगामिल्वात् । तत्र चन्द्रे मुखसाम्ये शब्दतो वर्ण्यमाने मुखचन्दयो परस्परमेव साम्य न सन्येनेति सदृशान्तरल्यवच्छेद फलति (अलकारकौस्तुभ p 176) (10) Bhaniaha recognises 342117 as a distinct figure and it is worth observing that Dandin does not feel the necessity of criticising the recognition of the 347 योपमा as a distinct figure as he has done for instance in the case of अनन्वय मसदेह उपमारूपरु and उत्प्रेक्षावयव (11 358- 359) all of which are figures admitted by Bhamaha Nor does Bhamaha for his part offer any justification for regarding उपमेयोपमा as a distiact igure Aa for 8s this circumstance goes therefore we map dot establish any conclusion either way regarding the chronological relation between दण्टिन् and भामह ·il. 19) Kavyadarta [ 86 Notes to II. 19-20--(1) In FTTH the Talaha is made highly probable but is not farfeta In para 10 18 openly asserted In TIYHT, as we saw it was left to be inferred Both these varieties are recognised by the Agnipurana The अलकारशेखर defines नियमोपमा as-यन इतरव्यावृत्त्या साम्यलाभ ! Nates to II. 21 (1) In 7 there is only a single common quality sought to be expressed, in the present variety a large number of these are mentioned, 10 STUHL the next variety, their numher 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 W ( 11 40 more than one 34 15 adduced The result is that while in the former between the agir and the 3441 & number of distinct common qualities are sought to be conveyed in the latter it is the intensity of the one self somo quality that stands out prominantly The variety is recogaised by the Agatpurins Notes to II 22--(s) See Note (1) to 1:21 Th18 variety fails to produco the impression of an identity between the 4 and the 54th because that is not entirely failea, as happens in a + ( see 11 66, below) At the same time it must be remembered that the solitary art between the 3479 and the 344647 which is put forward is not meant to suggest the superiority or the inferiority of the one over the other, as 18 the case, for instance, sa fi47, 777, and tho Alamkara called wat (1 180) (11) This variety is not recognised by the Agnipurāns, unless we choose to identify it with what tho Purina &tyles falten which is thus defined (345 13 )- यहोर्धर्मस्य साम्येपि खेलक्षम्य विरक्षितम् । यदुच्यतेतिरिसत्वं व्यनिरोपमा तुसा The Agnipurada be it noted in passing, does not ro. cognise anat AR & distract figure of kpeech, mhaross ·87 ) Notes 124 Dapdin who does it can only be supposed to have dis tinguished between अतिशयोपमा and व्यतिरेक in the manner above indicated A good example of this variety 18 given by the अलकारशेसर (p 30)- क्ल्पद्रुमो न जानाति न ददाति वृहस्पति । अय च जगतीनानि नाति च ददाति च ॥ Notes to II 23-Dandin seems to have been alone in re cognisiog Talumas & sub variety of Upama We have already indicated in a general way (op Note (x) to 1 14 ) the distinction between Star and TAT Utpre ksha may be said to be more particularly concerned with that human faculty which Shakespeare tells us bodies forth tbe forms of things unknown and gives to Biry nothing & local habitation and a Dome In a regular Utpraksha it is the actuel type between the उपमेय and the उपमान-or some aspect connected with at --that is poetically conceived In the variety before us there is an et but it has nothing to do with the He between Te and 4 which is the immediate sub ject of assertion The TW comes in only second atıly the poetic fact of the etenza could have been expressed without bringing in the 'bragging of the Moon for instance-STET TA 7439 3119 7 517 3778FHAI The introduction of the bragging Moon lends an added surprise element which is not disagreeable Hence this is not a regular & but merely an echt The Com श्रुतानुपालिनी however explains यस्यकस्यचिदन्य थावस्थिताया वृत्तेरन्यथाकथनमुप्रेता अत्रापि मुखश्रियं चन्द्रे निरस्य पद्मपि तदुप्रे क्षास्थनात् उप्रेक्षितोपमति । Notes to II 24—(1) Pas the more difficult reading and also the one intrinsically more poetic Sbers to be the genuine reading wbich got ousted by the more famihat word (11) This variety has been admitted by the Agni purana and is thus defined (344 16), त्रैलोक्यासभवि किमयारोप्य प्रतियोगिनि । कविनापमीयते या प्रथते साद्भुतोपमा ॥

·ji 24-1 Kūvyādarta | 88 To sssert that the प्रतियोगिनु (उपमान ) resembles or can resemble the truts, only under conditions, impossible of fulfilment is ineffoot to say that the age 16 vithout 8 peer As the conditions are अद्भुत or लोक्यासभवि tho variety is called that, the 30ant consisting not in the component elements ( उद्गतभृकुटित्व, विभ्रान्तलोचनल etc ) taken by themselves, but in the peculiar combination of them that is demanded SYECTURKAT TUTTO acute n as Ca remarks The Alamkarasehhara calls this same variety ITHT (defined. p 30, As—171 ससृष्टज्ञानेन रासर्गमारोप्य साम्यप्रसजन सा ), a name which Dandin has reserved for another distinct variety (see 1. 38, below) (ii) Adbhutopamā is to be distinguished from Abhu. topama and from Asambhavitopamă, and the distinc tion 18 rather subtle In अभूतापमा the presumptive उपमान is not a ETZIET whoroin the विशेषण cannot coexist with the face but rather a single simple a which is nowhere to be met with in nature, as for 10- etanco the concontrated essence of the charms of all lotusas, cp उपमानस्य वस्तुन उपगेयेगमाव्यमानरय क्थनादमूतनाभू THTAR ( 36 ) In असभावितोपमा it is not the धम of a new a which 18 ascribed to the nor and which is inconsistont wath it (as happens in the stat TAL!, but the starter is itself said to have a quality which at can never have Or, looking at it from anothor point of view, for offooting tho comparison botseon the उपमेय and the उपमान in an अभूनोपमा a non-existent उपमान is postulated and in an tigh an existing and well. known 3947 is associated uith impossible fitrus brought over from another gli The ultimato result is that tho y remains without poer Such is not the case in an age where the point of comparison 18 juet tho faci of the incompatibility of the us that tho T (the 3T71 ) is oxpected to possess and the comparison docs become possiblo in that rospect (iii) The Tas recognised by ry and tho Agni. purinn (which merais quotes ita ) comes most near to STERI Bharata thus illustrator it (xiv 51)- ·89 ] Notes - 25 क्षरन्तो दानसलिल लीलामन्थरगामिन । मतगना विराजते जङ्गमा इव पर्वता ॥ Here Tagafizahats or moving mountains is an 37.5 phenomenon What calls HT is no other than this 24H| Bhojas illustration is the verso le i eto, regarding which he remarks (p 352) ---TA नार्थमुत्पाद्योपमेयेन प्रतीयमानमभिधीयमान च सादृश्यममिहितमिति सेयमुपाद्यो Tal i Hemachandra (p 247) unsuccessfully attempts to make a sort of a distinction between उत्पाद्योपमा and कल्पि- athat, but the most clear presentation of that view is to be seen in Rudrata viu 13-16 Mammata regards Dandın's Bath as a subvariety of अतिशयोक्ति AN Notos to II 25—(1) Mohopama springs from the close similarity between the 3THEY and the CG, so close thata rational being would go to the length of actually mistak ing the one for the other This variety is accordingly not only a step in advance of afri971 (where the element of difference was consciously realised) but in advance of FNF where the 18 completely submerged though it is there at the back of one & consciousness so that an actual blunder cannot arise (11) In Hirteet (1126) the person is struck by the close similarity but is still doubting If he perceives the उपमान २ उपमान the result would be निर्णगोपमा (127) but if he percelves the उपमान ३५ णाय..the result would be Alplan Again if after e tomporary hut actual error the person corrects himself and perceives the thing as it is, the result would bedrat (36) As between निणयोपमा and तत्त्वाख्यानोपमा It is to be notherlthat while in both the ultimate perception is real perceptioni, in the former it is preceded by a moment of doubt_or hesitation in the latter by one of actuol blunder (w All the four varieties of a just considered rmust be based upon साक्ष्य If the doubting or the blun dering is the result of normal causes mentioned in- कामशोकभयोन्मादचोर स्वप्नायुपटुता । अभूतानपि पश्यन्ति पुरतोवस्थितानिव ।। 12 Karyadarsa ] ·in 25-] Kūvyāda sa 90 the result cannot be an अलकार It goes without bay. Ingalso that the सादृश्य ought to be कविप्रतिभानिर्मित (iv) The मोहोपमा of Dandin has given rise to two in. dependent Alam' ris of later writers भ्रान्तिमान् and उलेस Ullekha 1. t be said to be a मालाभ्रान्ति and 18 thus defined b रिनाथ (p 270)-एक्स्य वस्तुनो निमित्तवशाद्यदने- वर्गहीतृभिरनेकप्रकारक ग्रहण तदेख । The common property between the 3444 and the 3 which has been the source of the error 18 not stated in the example, but it can be stated also, compare - नीलोत्पलमिति भ्रान्त्या विकसितविरोचनम् । अनुधागति मुग्धाक्षि पश्य मुग्धो मधुव्रत ॥ And this circumstance makes it possible for us to include undor मोहोपमा the figuros of speech called मीलित, सामान्य, and तद्गुण, for definitions of which and for their mutual distinctions sec particularly साहित्यदर्पण: 89-90 . Notos to II, 26-27-(1) This and the next variety of 34RT have given me to an independent Alamkara called मशय, सदेह or ससदेह with its sub varieties of शुद्ध, निश्चयगर्भ, and निथवान्त Suddha is an ordinary सशयोपमा a good example of which is furnished by Rudrata (viu 60)- किमिद लीनालिकुल गल या गुख मुनीलस्चम् । इति मोरो रोम्स्वयि मुततु सरोवतीर्णायाम् ॥ while निश्चयान्त IS निर्णयोपमा of farm the stock examplo IS अय मार्तण्ड बि स सल तुरगे सप्तभिरित कृशानु किं साक्षात् प्रसरति दिशो नेप नियतम् । कृतात कि साक्षा महिपवहनोसारिति चिरात् समालोक्याजो वा विदधति विकल्पान् प्रतिभा ॥ Vasvanātha's निययालगर (139) allustrated in- पदामिद न सरोज नयने नेन्दीवरे एते। इह सारि श्रडलो अमर गुम हरिश्मासि । 18 slightly different from निर्गयोपमा or निशयान्तसगदेह As Visvanātha himself remarks-न वय निधयात मंदेह । नय मायरियोग्गाश्रयचेनावस्थानात् । अन तु भ्रमरादे गाय नायकादर्मियः । (1) Trorn in 358 belor it seems clear that some pre decosaurs of Bhāmaha did rogard 775 AS An inda ·91 ) Votes [-11 30 pendent figuro Now Bhamsha thus defines and 1 lustrates the figure (11 42 43 ) उपमानेन तत्त्वं च भेद च वदत पुन । ससदेह वच स्तुल्ये ससदेह विदुर्यथा !! किमय गशी न स दिवा विरानते कुममायुधो न धनुरस्य कोमुमम् । इति विस्मयाद्विमृशतो[पि मे] मति स्त्वयि वीक्षिते न लभतेनिश्चयम् ॥ But we do not have morely in that fact any certain indication that Dandın could have meant no other writer but Bhamaba Notos t II. 28-29-(1) These two varieties differ from Ce! (11_15) only in the added circums ce that the OTH 19 here expressed by paronomastic words, the my being in the former and are in the latter ( u pita |P74 017 Tìa) The two varieties can therefore both of them in & sense be called 779HT as has been done by the anthor of the car who gives the joint example (30) तमालपनाभरणा रानते विरसद्वया । बालेयोद्यानगालेय सालमाननशोभिनी । (ii) The variants सरूपोपमा and सदानोपमा for समानापमा are worth noting The first is an attempt to bring the first word of the definition into the while the second (which has the high authority of J and N and which therefore we might have adopted) implies that the 34 and the 7745 are in this variety lied together (like miscellaneous cattle in & cowpen) to one and the same rope in the fo of similarly-sounding words and Tesemble each other only in that accidental circun stance Notes to II 30-31--(1) A normal Par contains the common quality in a more pronounced degree than a normal उपमय and this is the reason why in a fels(11 17) the mere reversal of that relation inplied the lowering of the 4 in respect of that common quality. The ·1 30-1 Krivyādarsa 1 99 fight for superiority between the उपमान and the उपमेय. about pre-eminence in this quality._18_represented as still undecided in fotH (1133) In Gu the claim of the HLIS allowed in regard to the common quality, but certain ertaneous facts are adduced (ee. TETSTEST, PET:31. etc) which should lower it and consequently the yiy also in our estimation In ala- 031744T (11 31) the 346 is represented as fighting a forlorn fight for regaining its normal pre-eminence in res pect of the common quality All these varieties there fore can be regarded as 34+1 varieties, because underlying them all is the presupposition that the 5 and the 344 have a certain specific quality in common, and the question at issue merely 18, who has the quality to a greater or less degroo Tho figure of speech called auto (11180) Las also to be distinguished from these 39HT Varieties, in regard to which see our Notes to i 180 (22) As observed befora, and the author of tha Agnipurana mention these two varieties of 3991, and their recognition is criticised by Bhamaha (see Note (vi) to il 14, above) The illustrations for them given by Bharata are ( xvi 19-50 ) प्रटामाया यथा- दृष्ट्वा तु ता विशालाक्षी तुतोष मनुनाधिप । मुनिमि साधिता कृच्छात् सिद्धि मूर्तिमतीमिन ।। far-- मा त सर्वगुणहीन सस्वने कांशच्छविम् । बानक नपिन [? वने किन ] वल्ली दवदग्धमिव हमम् । From these it would seem that Vamana is probably right when he says (iv. 27, a)facrat dan TRT What is intended by this three foid divi- Is therefore उपमानमानस्य विषयप्रदर्शनम् as the कामधेनु observes Dandın however seems to have taken a differont view of the case Whether he was the first to do so is however difficult to decide The H1 as defined and allustrated in the Alamkáraselbara comes near to the 991(11 34), for there the definition Bion ·93] Notes [ -11 37 ism111417 Pazar alata 37 Phi, and the illustra. tion- नागेन्द्रहस्तास्त्वचि कशित्वादेकान्तशेत्यात् क्दल विशेषा । लध्वापि लोके परिणाहि रूप जातास्तदूर्वोरुपमानवाहा ॥ Notes to II 32-See note (vn) to n 14 above Because no other Alamkara vriter known to us (except Vamana) mentions arealuht and because Bhanaha criticises the recognition of this variety, it would be perhaps unfair to conclude that Bhamaha must have meant Dandia alone, seeing that a vast amount of literature known to Bhama ha and even mentioned by him by name is no longer available to us Notes to II 33-34–See Note (i) to li 30 above The variety called TIITTI It must be admitted comes near est to the sister; we can possibly distinguish them from each other by supposing that in ace1971 the point at Issue is the degree of कात्ति or आहादसत्व (tho common quality) of the नडलकलादित्वविशिष्ट इदु and the मुस 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 sfate some quality or qualities are stated wherein the ETH and the 3474 are declared to be equal to one another, but at the same time another distinct quality possossed by the TT and denied to the BIR is adduced which serves to establish the superiority of the उपमेम over the उपमान considered as a whole Notes to II 35-36-The name car has nothing verv distinctive or appropriate about it -For the distinction between faute and Tare see Note (1) to 11 25 Notes to II 37-Dandin uses both PIT (1 53 95) and a in the sense of area regi00, boundary line, province equality similarity, etc The reading Fan (whrch our Sanskrit Commentary explains) seems to be meroly an ·ii 37-] Küvyādarsa 91 ensier substitute for कल्याम्. The word कक्ष्या is Vedio, regarding whioh see Nirukta ii.2. (ii) As Dandin himself tells us (ii. 358), this variety was regarded by others as constituting a distinct alamkara called अनन्ययः Bhamaha thus defines and illustrates it (iii 44-45)- यत्र तेनैव तस्य स्यादुपमानोपमेयता। असादृश्यतिरक्षातस्तमित्याहुरमन्वयम् ॥ ताम्बूलरागवलयं स्फुरदशनदीधिति । इन्दीवराभनयनं तवे पदनं तर ।। The stock example of this alamkāra is the one given by Vamana (iv.3.14.)-- गगन गगनाकारं सागरः सागरोपमः । रामराणयोयुद्धं रामरायणयोरिव । (iti) A अन्योन्योपमा results in तृतीयसदशव्याच्छेद 50 असाधारणो- पमा results in द्वितीयमदशव्यवच्छेद. In the अन्योन्यापमा Oxample in ii 18 आनन is both इपमान and उपमेय, but in different sentences: whereas in अगाधारणोपमा in one and the same Sentenco the face becomes both उपमान and उपमेय. It must bo distinctly understood, however, that if yosterday's face is compared with to-day's face of the samo lady that becomes an ordinary SYAI pure and simple. In other words, between मुग the उपमेय and मुस 10 उपमान in the example under discussion thoro must be only कल्पितमेद and not देशकालदगाविशेषादितभेद. In the same way the verse- एतावति प्रपो मुन्दरमहिलाराहधरितेपि । अनुहरति मुभग नस्या वामा दक्षिणार्धस्य । does not contain an अगाधारणोपमा, but is merely a वस्तूपमा. Nor again docs the verse given by Dandin lator (ii.276)-- अम या मम गोविन्द प्राता सयि गृहागते । पारेनषा भरेतु प्रीतिम्नवागमनात् पुनः । regarding which ref:77 observes (for p 42) अत्र गृहागतं धीर पनि विदुराश्ये इयं वागमनभा प्रीतिहरालल्यरहितन पुनरपि त्वदागमनना भवेत् नान्येने गुरिभद्या सागमनप्रमरप्रीतः गा गाशी न वितरप्रभाति स्यश्यो--constitute an example of thla variots.

·95 ] Notes [-1 40 (19) In ATTIV1991 although the face is declared to be without ? peer the form of the assertion is conceived outwardly in the manner of an उपमा Where however even this outward form is not preserved that is re. cognised by जगनाथ as a distinct figure called असम As he says (p 210f )-सर्वधोपमानिषेधोसमारयोलार । यथा-- भुवनत्रितयेपि मानवे परिपूर्णे विबुधैश्च दानवे । न भविष्यति नास्ति नाभवनृप यस्ते भरते तुलापदम् ॥ अन सर्वथैवोपमाननिषेधेन मादृश्यस्याप्रतिशनानोपमागधोपि iThis however 18 over-subtlety for which Jagannatha has been taken to task by the author of the Alamkara-kaustubha (p 174) Notes to II, 38-39-See Note (in) to il 24 above In regard to the illustration given for असभारितोपमा Itihas been well observed (aneant the ruling that उपमान must be रोकप्रसिद्ध while चन्दनप्रभवविष Is not लोस्प्रसिद्ध ) अन चन्दप्रभवविषादेवी गुपमाया असिक्षितत्वात् स्तुि यथा चन्द्रबिम्बाद्विपममभावित तथा त्वन्मुसान् उम्पा वाग् इत्युपमास्वीकारात् । एव च असभारितोपमा इत्यस्य अगभाविनोपमा नक्त्व नाथ तुि असभावितत्व तदुपमाश माधारणधर्म इत्ये। Notes to II 40–(1) Compare Note (1) to i 21 above Bharata already tells us (rvi 43)- एकस्य केन सा पार्या एकम्य बहुभिन्नथा । अनेरेपा तथरेन यहूना बहुभिन्नथा ॥ And his examples in order are-तुल्य ते शशिना वपत्रम् , शगा- कवत् प्रकाशन्नो ज्योतीपि श्येनहिणभासाना तुन्याक्ष and घना सगना । Hore of course in its most primitivo form the distinc. tion is made to depend upon whether the Wrig or the me or both are in the singular or the plural sender Now मालोपमा (u 42) is एक्स बहुभि उपमा and in Dandin's statement the distinction between यहूपमा and गारोपमा is this In बहुपमा number of उपमानs are adduced in the hope that in their cumulative effect at least they would approximately conce the extent of the common quality porseseed has the the lich ther are unable to lo singls. In L on the other hand any one of thorseral उपमान 19 conscnod Renmadequate by ·Rävyūdarsa [96 atself to bring out the common quality, and the wealth of allustration serves merely_to show off the poots. प्रतिभा Notes to II 41-(1) The Alamkarasekhara thus defines and illustrates this variety (p 31)-यनोपमेयमुपमानविकारतयो- च्यते सा विक्रियोपमा यथा- हरिणादय तनयनादथ पमात् पद्मगनाच । आहय कान्तिसार विधिरसनत् मुभ्रुवो दृष्टिम् ॥ Notes to II. 42-See Note (1) to u 40 above The illustra. tion in the taxt is based upon identical साधारणधर्म. but this is not essentis) With भिनसाधारणधर्म a good example of Teth is the familiar stanza गातेव रक्षति पिनेर हिते नियुक्त पान्तेव चाभिरमयत्यपनीय खेदम् । नीति च दिधु वितनोति तनोति कीर्ति मिनि माधयति क्ल्पलतेर विद्या ।। The अलमारकौस्तुभ gives also the following oxarnple- अलक्षितगतागते कुलवधूकगरिव क्षणानुनयशीतलै प्रणयोरिकोपेरिख । मुत्तममृगानगशामुरोजेरित्र त्वदीयतुरगोत्तमेरीणचकमारम्पते । Apparently it is a series based upon भिनमाधारणधर्म which alono is recognised as fiatal by the author of the Agnipurana Compare (344 14-15)- यत्रोपमा स्थाभि सशे सा बहूपमा। धर्मा प्रत्युपमान चेदन्या मालोपमेन मा । (1) Dandın does not recognise what is known as रशनोपमा defined by tht Agnipurana (34420) as- उपमय गदन्यम तदन्यम्योपमा मता। परतगत्तरं यातिनदासागरनार? रसनामा and thus illustrated by ट (128)-- नभइव विमल मलिल गरिरमिवानन्दगरि शशिविम्यम् । शशिविर्घामा लगड्युती तरुणीवन शरन् कुम्ने । For other varieties Be: रगगगाधर pp 181ff and अलार- कौस्तुभ pp 1461 ·97 Notes [-145 Notes to II, 43-45-(1) By TR Dandın seems to have meant a complete utterance of a thought setting forth all its fi relations in other words a picture with all appropriate details and back-ground The face, the eyes, and the teeth form one set as against which is placed the lotus, the bees, and the pollen in the first example, and similar corresponding sets are present in the second example And when in this manner an अवयवसपन अवयविन् is compared with another similar 379717-with tho trifling subsidiary distinction of the presence or absence of an additional independent arat for each अवयव-the result is a वाक्याथापमा Hence it 18 that after dividing 348 as shown below- उपमा निरवयवा सावयवा परसरिता मालारूपा समस्तवस्तुविषया एकदेशविवतिनी लिया अशिष्टा भेदे शुध्दर मालालपा मालारूपा the author of the Alamkārakaustubha citos stanza 11 45 as an example of year the comparison bo tween one pair of उपमान and उपमय lending on to and depending upon the next pair (11) In the tre_examples of PRIVIE_givon by Dandin the समानधर्म between the various parts of उपमान and RHS in each is clearly felt although not actually Ravessed But us pot absolutely necessary that there should be this सादृश्यापेक्षता everywhere The अवशर- शेसर cites the following where there 19 प्रत्येक गादृश्यानपेक्षा- कामिनीनयनानलपड्डाधितो महामत्तवराह । कामिमानमानान्तरचारी कन्दमुनिति यानम्नाया । 13 Karyadarbal ·11.45-] Kavyūdarta [98 (1) It is perhaps necessary to draw attention to the fact that वाक्योपमा is different from वाक्यार्थीपमा We have just seen what वाक्याथोंपमा 15 The nature of 98741971 becomes evident from the circumstance that at is distinguished from what is called ममासोपमा and प्रत्ययोपमा (following Rudrata) or from वृत्त्युपमा (following Hemachandra) गृत्ति being समासतद्धितनामधातुभेदेन निविधा The stook example of TFT41941 given by Vamana 18- पाण्इयोयमसार्पितलम्बहार क्लप्ताद्गरागो हरिचन्दनेन । आभाति बालातपरक्तसानु सनिझरोद्गार इवाद्विराज ॥ Notes to II. 46-47-Although in this variety the साम्य 1s always implied and never actually expressed there being no उपमावाचकशब्द present, Dandin Is perhaps justi. fied, in view of his own general conception of उपमा, in not regarding afaraga as a distinct Alankara It 18 not rocognised as such by भोज, भामह, and दर The further subsidiary differenco as to tho mannor of implying the साम्य (by वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाष or by विम्वप्रतिबिम्बभाव, regard. ing which see Note (11) to i 15 above) upon which the distinction between प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त turns is also not of consequence enough to give rise to a new alamkara, and Jagannathe practically concedes this (pp 3378)--अस्य चालकारस्य प्रतिवस्तूपमाभेदकमेतदेव यत् तस्या धर्मा न प्रतिनिम्यित किंतु शुद्धमामान्यामनेव शित इह तु प्रतिविम्वित । . एकस्यैवालकारस्य द्वो भेदी प्रतिवस्तूपमा दृष्टान्तश्च । अचानयो किंचिद्वैलक्षण्य तत् प्रभेदताया एवं साधरम् नालकारताया इति मुवचम् | Hence Dandin's प्रतिवस्तूपमा as an उपमा variety may be said to stand In the place of both प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त of later आलकारिक (11) The following quotation from जयरथ's Alamkarasarvasvavimarsini (p 28) 16 illuminating as to the distination between वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव, where the things aro really one but two only in the phrasing, and बिम्बप्रतिविम्ब Ha where the two things are really distinct but have to be temporarily identified-रोको हि दर्पणादौ विम्बात् प्रति- विम्बस्य भेदेपि मदीयमवाज वदन सका तमित्यभेदेनाभिमन्यते। अन्यथा हि प्रति- - ·99 ] । Notes [-1149 विम्वदर्शने शोह स्थूलोहमित्याद्यमिमानो नोदीयात् भूपणविन्यासादौ नायिका नाद्रियेरन् । (111) Some remarks of the fargniet on this stanza are also worth quoting-प्रतिवस्तूपमा । प्रतिशब्द सदृशार्थवाची तेन सदृशास्तूपमेत्यर्थ । ननु इनादिरहितस-शोपन्यास अर्थान्तरो नाम भवति । तथाहि- ज्ञेय सोर्थान्तरन्यासो वस्तु प्रस्तुत्य किंचन । तत्साधनसमर्थस्य न्यासों योन्यस्य वस्तुन ॥ इति वक्ष्यति (11169)। अनापि-चस्तु किंचिदुपयस्य सदन (v 1) तत्सधर्मण इत्युक्तम् । तस्मादयमर्था तरन्यास एव क्थमुपमेत्याह-साम्यप्रतीतिरस्तीति । सदृशप्रतिभान विद्यते इत्युपमेत्युच्यते । एतदुक्त भवति । इवाद्यभावे समानताप्रतीति उपम'नवा दिना (?) तद्दयोतनाय प्रयुक्ते । अर्थान्तरस्त्वलकार असदशम्योपन्यासेन वस्त्वन्तरसाधनमिति तत्साधनसमर्थस्येतिवचनात् न त सधर्मण इति । In other words-अर्थान्तरन्यासे समयसमर्थफभावो विवक्षित अन पुनस्मानोपमेयभाव । (1v) In order to give adequate account of a number of devices other than 341 and kyk for expressing similarity between two things Bhoja has invented a new alamkara called साम्य or सामान्य which he thusdelines and divides (iv 34)-- द्वयोयनोक्तिचातुर्यादौपम्यार्थोवगम्यते । उपमारूपान्यत्वे साम्यमित्यामनन्ति तत् ॥ तदानन्त्येन भेदानामसाध्य तस्य तूक्तय । दृष्टान्तोति प्रपचोक्ति प्रतिवस्तूक्तिरेव च ॥ तवादे प्रयोगेण दृष्टान्तोक्ति नक्षते। इवादेरप्रयोमेण प्रपञ्चाक्ति मनापिण ॥ वस्तु किंचिदुपन्यस्य न्यसनात् तत्सधमण । साम्यप्रतीतिरस्तीति प्रतिवस्तृक्तिरुच्यते ॥ This alamkara accordingly would do duty for प्रतिवस्तूपमा and yr of the algmlárikas T'or the various sub divisions of afdan Hp and the illustrations followed by Bhoja's illuminating critical remarks see Sarasva thanthabharana itself Samya as an alamk ira is recognised by Rudrata also (VILL 10) Totes to II 48-49-(1) How to distinguish this variety from the figure of speech called a which Dan din defines and illustrates in il 330 332 is a rather subtlo question Both are attempts at alty between ·case 2149-1 Kāvvadarta ( 100 two things one of which is distinctly superior (TTT or HZ), and the common property adduced is some f. 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 out and absont in the definition of the sub variety तुल्ययोगोपमा 18 स्तुतिनि दार्थम्, but it as not quite satisfactory to make the distinction turn upon this circumstance, for then Taruillaar would come nearer to the varieties निन्दोपमा and प्रशसोपमा (11. 30-31) We cani probably bring out the distinction by supposing that in the 344T variety the ta is consciously realused as the उपमेय or the प्रकृतवस्तु whilo in the figure तुल्पयोगिता the 3441959829 relation, even though actually present (as in 11 331), is deliberately set aside the iter being only pay or implied and not 79 as in the other and this agrees with the later definitions of तुल्ययोगिताlike that of मम्मट (नियताना सद्धर्म । निग्रतानाम् = प्रार• for Tatha 21FCU TATIAT AT) Uabhata is even more arplicit (p 60)- उपमानोपमेयोक्तिशून्यैरप्रस्तुतेर्वच । साम्याभिधायि प्रस्तावमाग्भिर्वा तुल्ययोगिता । (11) If this statement of the difference between तुन्ययोगोपमा and तुल्ययोगिता Is correct it follows that Dandin's TTHIYAT approaches the figure of speech called $147 as it is defined by PATINET HET TEATEATEATAfor there the common property exists between things consciously realised as उपमेय and उपमान Compare रुय्यक (p 71)-ranne astir Tutar THE 1997! From Dandins view of the case however the distinction between दीपक and तुत्ययोगोपमा is clear In Tarihi there is an attempted you between ouy and a things this 18 absent in the site of RP At the same time the zich requires the ti to bo expressed only once for all, in 191 it may be repeated Dandia 18 thus looking to the etymology of the name all alops while there is a tendency in later writers to ignore that altogether It would be noted in passing that the altf here spoken of is not the i9f as Dandın de- ·21460 101 ] Notes [-1 50 fines it (ii 97ff) which is more & TTT than an अर्थार फार See Notes to the figure in question (m) We have so far attempted to set forth the distinction that Dandın prabably must have made between नुययोगोपमा and तुल्ययोगिता, but writers who do not admit this उपमा variety have defined तुल्ययोगिता n terms that Dandın might have reserved for TH The definition of Bhamaha is (iu 26)-- न्यूनस्यापि विशिष्टेन गुण्यसाम्यविक्षया। तुल्यकार्यत्रियायोगादित्युक्ता तुल्ययोगिता। That of Ruyyaka (p 70)— औपम्यस्य गम्यत्वे पदार्थगतत्वे नप्रस्तुतानामप्रस्तुताना या समानधर्मा- भिसबन्धे तुल्ययोगिता। That of Vamana (av 326)- विशिष्टेन साम्यार्थमेकाक्रियायोगस्तुन्ययोगिता। Bhoja, finally, while giving for gagnerat a definition identical with that of Dandin, further adds (iv 55) - अन्ये मुगनिमित्ते च दुखहेनो च वस्तुनि । स्तुतिनिन्दार्थमेवाहुस्तुल्यत्वे तुम्ययोगिताम् ॥ for which his illustration is- आहूतस्याभिषेकाय विराटस्य वनाय च । न मया लक्षितस्तस्य स्वयोप्यामारविभ्रम ॥ (iv) The distinction between प्रथमोपमा (u 31) and तुल्ययोगोपमा seems to be the circumstance that in the former some extrancous facts not gormain to tho intended माम्य (eg शम्भुशिरोनन्य) are adduced for heightening the value of the उपमान while in तुन्ययोगोपमा the superiority is based upon the degree or intensity of the self same as measured by marked difference in results achieved, difficulties encountered, etc In other respects the two varieties seem allied He do nat think that the fact of the Pre being are in the one (तो नुल्यो) and व्यदर in the other would have been adduced by Dandın as tho additional distinctivo feature Notes to II. 60-(1) An ordinary उपमा-अम्मरमिरातार्म परमम्म can to put in the form of तुपमा in this mantra ·13 50) Kāryādarsa [ 102 FAMIGUESTA TEHTFI In 1971 (11 21) we had a similar presentation of the similarity, only there & number of es were adduced to bring out the IR between the same 344 and JT47, while in the ciample before us a number of eas are adduced to bring out the between one and the same 47 and a series of 394ras with which it is to be compared As in 24 (11 40) or H14 (11 42) a series of successive 34719s are here given but that afar upon which this variety primarily turns is the presentation of the graz in the form of a I It 18 perhaps not essontial that the हेतुs (and the उपमानs) in a हेतपमा be always more than one Notes to II 51-56-(1) Like dots the eas have been most elaborately treated by Indian Alamharikas They have boen named and classified according as thoy belong to syllables, words, sentences sense, sentimonts, and alamkaras A detailed treatment of those 19 given in the Sahityadarpana vii, or Kavyaprakasa vit Dandin affords a treatment of them in this place and later in 111 125-185 In regard to the Upamádoshas our Sans. krit Commentary supplies the needful supplementary information from Vamana, Bhoja and other writors (11) Tho extra line in il 56 which we have enclosed in square brackets like a number of other lines and sorses is clearly an interpolation, but having been onco aeocpted in the editio princeps of Premachandra and 50 passed on into works of rcforence it would have beon most inconvenicat to ordit them and so change the subsequent vorse numbering In one place (il 158-163) whore a transposition of stanzas was folt by us to be on critical grounds absolutely called for so have for the same reason transposed the stanzas and yot retained their original verse numbering, Lelioving thnt nobo ly kould grudge us giving credit for hoing able to count the numbers from 159 to 163 correctly ·103 ) Notes imii 66 Notes to II, 57-65—(1) Dandin's list of TRIET words is helpful and is in any case borrowed from him by most subsequent writers, and naturally with variations and attempts at completion Thus the अलमारकौस्तुम supplies words like मुहृद् चौर, सोदर, and their synonyms, and even the Mss variants add one or two more As the matter is not very vital we did not think it necessary to go into all these later lists with a view to determine the text of Dandın'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 alamkára works (113) The colophon 944127 (and other similar colo phons to mark the conclusion of the treatment of an alamkara with a number of subdivisions) is generally given in Mss with omission of ze and substitution of synonyms like 7 etc for and other small varı ants We havoignored the variants and have generally followed best Ms authority in giving the colophons or omitting them Notes to II 66-(1) The name of this figure is thus explained-यदा तु विषयी (उपमानमप्रकृतम्) विषय (प्रकृतमुपमेयम्) रूपवन्त क्रोति तदा अन्वर्थाभिधान रूपम् । Rupaka has to be carefully dis tinguished from 3471 (especially the varieties of it called अतिशयोपमा and मोहोपमा). from समासोक्ति (1 205) from sifarelli (11 214) from szt (11 221), and from alla (11 304)-amongst alamkaras recognisod by Dandin, and from परिणाम, गसदेह, भ्रान्तिमान् and उल्लेख-amongst alam Káras not recognised by Dandin The various defini tions of 4+ given by alamkarikas (we quote a few 01 the more important of them below) are an attempt morely to sharpen the outline of the figure with a view to this differentiation Thus Bharata (xvi 57) de nos the figure as under स्वविाल्पविरचित तुल्यावयवलक्षणम् । किंचित्माश्यापर यद्प म्पक तु तत् ॥ Bhamaha (m 21) उपमानेन यत् तत्त्वमुपमेयस्य रूप्यते । गुणानां समता दृष्ट्य स्पा नाम सद्विद ॥

·[ 104 11.66-1 Kavyādaria Uabhata (p.9)- श्रुत्या संबन्धविरहाद्यत् पदेन पदान्तरम् । गुणवृत्ति प्रधानेन युज्यते रूपकं नु तत् ॥ Rudrats (viii. 38, 40) यत्र गुणानां साम्ये सत्युपमानोपमेययोरभिदा । अविवक्षितसामान्या कल्प्यत इति रूपकं प्रथमम् ॥ उपसर्जनोपमेयं कृत्वा तु समासमेतयोरुभयोः । यत्तु प्रयुज्यते तद्रूपकमन्यत् समासोक्तम् ॥ Vamana (iv. 3.6)- उपमानेनोपमेयस्य गुणसाम्यात् तत्त्वारोपी रूपकम् । Bhoja (iv. 24)-- यदोपमानशब्दानां गोणगृत्तिव्यपाध्यात् । उपमेये भरेद्वृत्तिस्तदा तद्रूपकं विदुः ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 34)- अभेदप्राधान्ये आरोपे आरोपविषयानपदवे रूपकम् । Vidyanatha (p. 371) आरोपविषयस्य स्यादतिरोहितरूपिणः । उपराकमारोप्यमाणं तद्पर्क मनम् ॥ We have already quoted the definition of Jagannath. in the Sanskrit Commentary. (ii) Tho distinction of Et from 34 Dandin hos givon in his vory definition of 575 by the qualification तिरोभूतभेदा. The distinction between उपमान and उपमेय (for the साम्य between them always presupposes , भेद) can be made to disappear when, in spite of tho differevce, one asserts their Identity either because he erroneoubly believes in their identity (cp RIETYRT and the romarks made in our Notes to ii. 25 regarding भ्रान्तिमान् and 3); or because he wants purposely (poetically speaking) to deceive some (e. g. in anala. cp our Notes to li. 95 albo): or because he is himself in doubt (e.g. संशयोपमा and the figures मसदेह otc.): or becauso, in a poetic fancy. he imagines them to bo idontical (as happens in an उटपेक्षा). It may also happen when, for purposes of pootic offoct and with a vion to bring out tho extromo similarity of the उपमान and the उपमेय, tha उपमान is mado not only to lend its r to the उपमेय but actually to Ukurn its place so that only one word And ·1051 Notes [-i1.66 one namer-that of the उपमान-is used instead of two. As the प्रतापाद्रीय ( 371) trenchantly remarks-सदेहालंकारे विषयस्य संदिशमानतया तिरोधानम् । भ्रान्तिमदलंगारे भान्सा विषयतिरोधानम् । अपहन्यलंकारे अपहवेनारोपविषयतिरोधानम् । ~to which we might add-उत्प्रेक्षाया कविसभाननया विषयरिपयिणोरभेदाव्यवमायः । अतिशयोक्ती कविप्रौढोक्तधा विषयस्य विपयिणा निगरणात्मध्यवसायः । Regarding our last statement it will be noted that Dandin's conception of space is somewhat different from the one given above after the manner of 2; but on this point sco our Notes to ii. 214. (iii) As to the rest, it may be observed that while स्पफ involves an आरोप or superimposition of tho उपमान upon the उपमेय. that आरोप has to be based upon similarity and not upon कार्यकारण relation as in आयुर्घतम् : but the ground of the 19the common property-can never be expressed as such in the Rapaka (अविरक्षितमा. Atout as Rudraţa says : seo below, Note ix) and there is also an absence, naturally, of the सादृश्यवाचकगन्द A रूपक in its simplest form therefore comes nearer to the धर्म- पादिलुप्ता उपमा and if the example बाहुलता is taken as बाहुः लता इव it would be not an at all, Where such a confusion is likely to result there must always be something in the sentence which is other पकगाधक or उपमा. anti, regarding which, besides the remarks in our Commontary, compare the following from the 1277737 (pp92761)-जन मोभाग्य वितनोति वस्त्राशिनो ज्योललेष हासद्युति । इत्यत्र मुख्यतया अवगम्यमाना हागयुतिर्यरने एवागुकून्य भनने इत्युपमाया. साधम् शशिनि नुन नथा प्रतिकूलेति रूप प्रति तस्या अवाधाता। वस्नेन्दी तामत्ययं यदपर सीतापुरभ्युद्यत.. दत्यन अपरत्वमिन्दोरनुगुणं न तु वस्त्रस्य प्रतिदमिति परस्य माधरना प्रति- पयते न तूपमाया याधरताम् । राजनारायणं लक्ष्मीस्त्वामालितति निर्भरम् । रखन पुनरालिद्दनमुपना निरस्थति सदा प्रति परप्रेयमीप्रयुधस्य आलिनिस्सा. संभवात् । पादाम्युज भातुनोविजयातमन्नु मपीरशिपितममोदरमभित 14 Kavyadaris 1 ·[ 106 ii. 66- ] Rāvyudaría इत्यत्र मञ्जीरशिक्षितम् अम्बुजे प्रतिकूलमसंभवादिति रूपकस्य वाधकम् ननु पादेनु- कूलमित्युपमायाः साधकमभिधीयते विध्युपमर्दिनो वाधक्स्य तदपेक्षया उत्कटत्वेन प्रतिपत्तेः । एवमन्यत्रापि भुधीभिः परीक्ष्यम् । (iv) A FATHIA (see fi. 205, below) involves an asser. tion about the mga which suggests a corresponding assortion about the ", one assertion being made to do duty for both on the basis of an implied arg of the अप्रस्तुत upon the प्रस्तुत based upon सादृश्य. However, in a समासोक्ति the प्रस्तुत is not actually expressed as in कम्पक, and it is because the व्यवहार predicated of the अप्रस्तुत resembles the व्यवहार of theप्रस्तुत which is intended to bo described that the Teagate results by way of an implication. In Rūpaka, on the other hand, the 3TTEIT in its entirety (49, , and all) is identified with the Ton but, at the same time, the basis of this identification or superimposition is not actually expressed. Cp. on the point ATCEG (p 534)—*4! 1997 TAFTEY मंनियेनेन प्रकृतस्य रुपमपच्छादयति । इह तु स्वावस्थासमारोपेगावच्छादितस्वरूपमेव तं पूर्वावस्थानो विशेषयति । अत एवान व्यवहारममारोपो न तु स्वस्पसमारोप 15: For further remarks see our Notes to ii. 205. (v) The figure called TV, which not only our author but even 77 does not recognise and regarding which, even between those that recogniso it--1945, f7214, furie, 2 and amatera--there seems to be slight differente di opinion, is in our opinion a matter of over-subtlety. In the line-T Tra efter मदिरेक्षणा if गज़ is regarded as a रूप tho lotus or अन्ज must transfer its y completely to tho eye or The oge, in other words, must loso all its character as an eye and tako upon itself the character of the lotus. Accordingly 24 can bloom but cannot seo. This is not a 97 therefore. It cannot also be an i, for e or cannot become a common property te. siding more prominently on the man lotus and less prominently on the 3.4 oge. Wo must hence invent a now figure in which the ar betweon the 34777 and the उपमेय Is तिरोभूत, but the result is not that उपमान has transferred its to the T4, but rather 737 has itsolſ assumed tliety of the so that tho lotus con - ·1071 Notes -1 66 See This therefore is the figure called परिणाम Compare the Chitramimanea (p 59)-रूपके ग्रतमप्रकृतरूपापन भवा: परिणामे तु अप्रकृत प्रहतस्पापन भवति । In this connection at has to be observed that न्यायपथागन (s quoted by the अलकार- कौस्तुभ p 161) regards दृगन in the line in question as an उपमा based upon a common property hke रमणीयत्व, and this seems to be the best solution of the difficulty (vi) We will consider one little point about this figure before we pass on to a consideration of its subdivisions Rupaka as we saw san भारोप of the उपमान upon the उपमेय based upon माइश, and the question is, 1s the ty primarily of the word upon the word, or of the thing denoted by the-word upon the thing denotedby the word, or of both simultaneously Says Pratiharenduraja (p 11)-तन यो दर्शनभेदा । केचिदन शब्दारोपपूर्वकम- र्थारोप अवते अपरे त्वारोपपूर्वक शब्दारोपम् । अन्यस्तु शब्दारोपार्थारोपयोर्योग- पद्यमभिधीयते । अयमेव च पक्षी युक्त इव दृश्यते । तदाहु शब्दोपचारात् तद्रूपं रूपके वैश्चिदुच्यते । ताद्रूप्यारोपतधान्यै शब्दारोपोन कथ्यते ॥ उपमानगुणेस्तुल्यानुपमेयगतान् गुणान् । पश्यतां तु सद्भाति तन तच्छब्दस्पता॥ तनेति उपगेये इत्यर्थ तच्छब्दरूपतेति उपमानशब्दारोप उपमानशब्दारोपा। (B) As Dandin himself observes (ht 96) Rupaka, liko Upama, is capable of infinite divisions nado more or less on the samo basis Thero is first of all the merely grammatical aspect of it which gives the srst three varieties of Dandin समस्त, असमस्त and समस्तव्यस्त, as also the सविशेषणरूपक (182) Next, there is what might be called the rhetorical 1spect, which accounts for the varieties called आक्षेपहपक (191), समाधानरूपक (ii 92), and तत्वापहवापा (1 95), as well as for द्विरूपक (184), हेतुरूपक (186), उपमारपफ (189), and व्यतिरेकरूपक (11 90) where it will be seen that Rupale proper is associated with some other additional rhetorical de. The usual divisions of 777 given in the Texts are the same as those exhibited in the tree given under Note (1) toil 43-4 above pandin'sमरलापा Is the same as सादसमस्तरस्तुनिषयरwhile his अपयव, अयपि, and vice ·11 66–1 Kāryādarsa ( 108 5715 ETFs (with the further sub divisions of it, arati and विपम) may roughly correspond to एक्देशविवर्तिस्पक What is known as 474 with its two sub divisions of अश्लेषमल and ऐयमूल are practically one with Dandin's YFT(11 93) and face (1 87) while the subdivi sions based on simple or serial arrangement Dandın does not recognise at all (v11) The Alamkarakaustubha observes (p 228) that some attempt to make out a variety of 97 called वाक्यार्थस्पon the analogy of the याम्यार्थोपमा described in 43ff-- Pret fagd rimetatura 2149/ZET + 1 772 leiftrat. पमाया विशेषणानामुपमानोपमेयभावोधगम्यस्तथानापि पास्यार्थपरक पदार्थाना स्पक्मयगम्यम् । तद्यथा- आत्मनोस्य तपोदानेनिर्मलीकरण हि यत् । सालन भास्करस्येद सारमे सलिलोकरे । This however is regarded by the majority of Alamkaribas as FESTETT Compare the familiar examplo of it त्वत्सादनखरत्नाना यदलत्तकमार्जनम् । इद श्रीसलेपेन पाण्डरीकरण विधो ॥ After a long and technical discussion the ? Ft decides against the acceptance of PÄRIT tbp instances quoted for it being merely thoso of faham See further our Notes to il 348 (1x) We have said above (Note in) that in & Rupala the common property can never be expressed as a cominon property For a common thing has to be shared by more than one while in a 45 the 46 and 3474 are conceived as but one thing All the same thoro is always a common property implied as the very basis of the ord requtred for ETF and if this is expressed as belonging to 945 alone or primarily to the 347 and secondarily in a sort of reflex fashion to 3774, that does not violate the requirements of tho figure Consider for example the illustration in it 87 The compound Ford 97AFTA is to be dissolved here in s manner so as to give more prominence to 3g7 (1 4711 according to Panin II 1 72) and therefore the adjectives रानसोपभोगाई and नमरप्राध्यसौरभम् must be ·109 ] Notes [-ii 72 primarily predicable of IT alone which thoy are, seeing that the senses of राजहम and मर that sult वान are only secondarly suggosted and that too after an effort With this important condition governing the expression of the common property, therefore, we can obtain for FTE the various sub varieties that turn upon the manner of expressing the common property Says Jagannatha (p243)-TITOTT221 Taurent Fate क्वचिद्विम्बप्रतिविम्वभावमापन क्वचिदुपचारित क्वचिच केवलशदात्मा । मोपि offerte sferz SRT 7 For the corresponding examples see itself Notes to II 67-68-- (1) The 37 FreIGT thus versifies Dan din's examples of HH264-- तस्या बाहुलता पाणिपन चरणपलवम् । मुखेन्दुरक्षिभ्रमरो सर्वस्व पुष्पधन्यन ॥ It will be noted that the illustration in ii 67 is also a 7864*, but it is adduced merely to illustrate the nature of the Metaphor out of-Compound Notes to II 69-70-(1) The compound and should rather have been dissolved as-अलिरेव दरम् अङ्गालिदलम् । ताम्र च तत् अद्भुलिदल च ताम्रालाल्दिलम् । तामाङ्गल्दिलाना प्रणय यस्मिन् तत ताम्रालिदलश्रेणि This mode.connects 12 primarily with the 34917 Compare Note (1x) to 11 66 above- Similarly the common property between pand - TUTO-to he go understood as being applicable primarily to the lotus and secondarily to the foot This is what Danın intends to zaply by TEJETRIT in 11 70 Notes to IC 71-72-(1) In the example given it will be moted of course that the adjective qualifying RS, involves just an ordinary Upama What object the poet intended to superimpose upon It does not clearly appear It cannot bo 4 as we do not asso ciate and is with it ·ii. 73- ) Kavyūdarsa [ 110 Notes to II, 73-74–(i) The compound 219 can be dissolved so as to result in 3441 as well as in 9. If the other adjectives (aleria:I. TESÚSICA, ESETTA) as well as the predicate ( 195 faifa ) had been such as to apply primarily to and only secondarily to at that would have beon ETETTE. As it is, unless we socopt Premachandra's proposed emendation into चदनमम्बुजम् . it would be very hard to establisha रूपक here. Appearances point towards 37 based upon an extraneous R such as 31576777 (see our Noto (v) to ii. 66); and if an extraneous Top has to be after all brought in why not imagino it to be, say. mor fortret, which would go primarily with 47 and so mako 291, रूपक (निरगरपक as it would be called) in accordance with Dandin's intentions! Notes to II. 75-76--(i) The divisions intended can be thug exhibited having sa upon 2799847 all stages GEIT, II, 70. yer alono 317974 alone art9137 ii. 74. 217faE+ somo 21- 775 alone -TTFTTT ii. 79. all TT119 - OTTT, ii. 72. Home अश्य alono -TYTT, II. 76. TTF II.77. S. 1.78 (it) The ord 817 in il. ¡G cannot rofer to TTT icolog that in the examples Elsen all the 7774 or constituent pasti have the spin: It can rolor to con. tituant parts, and the divisione into f and stgns sro divisions of *77 involving 3717 on (some or all) ·111 1 Notes - 86 अवयव They cannot be divisions of the according to a fresh fundamentum di$1$10D 18 scoing that we can havo incompatibility between 17495 and as, and between tha au fac and some of its 34s, but never between the अवयविन् and all its अवयवs, the अवयविन् cannot in fact be called for at all in that case Notes to II 79-80-(1) In the example given the actuar consists in the fact that while 16 and are the अवयवs of मुख the उपमेय. इन्दु the उपमान has only some अवयव corresponding to it that are actually stated for are suggested) but not all. For instance, is suggests the acces reddened at moon rise, but as l_ cannot be associated with the moon the should in this on ample have been conceived olas_the_well In spite of this circumstance the general_impression 15 that of the superimposition of the sun along with its अवयवs upon the उपमेय along with its अवयवs although the correspondenc does not exist in all the details as in a HEF Notos to II 81-82–(1) This ASTETE can be distinguished from_TATTELEE by reason of the circumstance that in the latter ite_possible to have the art on the të (e g 5 te independentiy of the arts, which merely_serve to heighten the charm of the अवयव्यारोप In the present variety the 19 of qsra upon TE the staract becomes meaningless taken by itself It can become plausible only if hp as well as the are taken as विशेषविशिष्ट The विशेषणविशेष्यभाव is a more Intimate relation than the अवयवावयविभाव Notes to II 83-84-() The fire would have been more pour tedly brought out for the word in the allustration had been substituted the syponyın Notos to II 85 86-(1) The distinction between # and 1991 (11-50) is of course sufficiently obvious ·il 87–1". Kavyādarta [ 112 Notes to II 87-(1) See note (18) to n 66 The stanza is omitted by M The usual exolanatory stanzr is lacking in this case, regarding which the parent observes Franta (DTF) AT HATTAR 1 This might seem to raise a suspicion about the genuineness of a 87, but it is given by the best MCS Compare also 11 313 in 11 88 il Notes to II 88-90-(1) Our Sanskrit Commentary follows HT" Buta has not been able to explain the varieties satisfactorily and had to give a new example of his own to suit his own explanation of the definition A better explanation perhaps would be to take गोण= the secondary or आरोपित (moon) and मुख्य -- the actual moon As in both the varieties illustrated in 9 and 1 90 the YTTET 19 compared (or contrasted) with the actual moon at is evident that such a comparison can only take place if and after the gra is super imposed upon the face The Fy must therefore already exist, and all that is done in adation is to bring out the similarity of the AT (and impliedly but not expressedly of the qi) with the actual moon in an 34HTEYE and the dissimilarity between them व्यतिरेक रूपक The Yare apparently so interprets these varieties, for it says-mata A 986 19 चन्द्रस्य माशानन्द्रग्य चेति । And we can accordingly take warta=STER F T T4 following again the same commentary For a similar use of it and pray In 8 compare n 160 (1) In the second line of 11 90 the reading of Mib decidedly superior, but all other M88 are against it (11) Bhímaha alone amongst ortant ålankirikos accepts उपमारपक as a distinct alarnkāra He tbus defines and illustrates it (111 34-35) उपमान तनावमुपमेयस्य साधयन् । यो वदत्युपमामेनदुपमारमा यथा ॥ रामप्रगगनायाममानदण्डो रथाद्रिण । पादो जयति गिदम्सीमुगेन्दुनवदर्पण ॥ Hore Vishnu s foot is declared to be a novel mirror The conceipt is quito out of the common, and while ·113 ) Notes I ii. 92 the आरोप of दर्पणत्व upon पाद does give rise to the Rupala, yet in so far as the sun is said to be a new or strange दर्पण the full force of the does not show itself, being thwarted by a possible 374 standing out in the back ground This is probably the purport of Bhämaha's definition Dandin's definition of the figure is so difforently worded from that of Bhamsha that it would be hazar.dous to imagine that there is some kind of & connection between the two in spite of the fact that Dandin and Bhamaha are the only two writers extant who have anything to say of 3791etto Bhamala accepts at as an independent figure, Dandin (cp 1 398 ) turns it into a sub variety of Rupaka but there is nothing of the nature of a dispute or controversy between the statements of the two concerning this figure It is likely therefors that the two wuters are following independent traditions in regard to their explanation of this figure (1v) The tenth canto of the Bhattıkarys 19 composed to illustrate figures of speech Amongst them उपमारूपक is illustrated by x 60-- fiffe नलनिवह दधन मनोभिरामम् । गलितमिव भुवी विलोक्य राम धरणिधरस्तनशुक्लपचीनम् ।। Here the foaming river mouths as they fell into the are compared to the dropped upper garment (fea qat) from the mountain breasts (TefTEET) of the earth at the sight of her lord Rama The compar ison of the streams with the garment is based upon the art of more on the mountains and so this is उपमाम्पकम्-उपमाराहित रूपकमित्यर्थ -as the commontator भरतमलिन says It would be difficult to apply Dandın's definition to the present example oceau Notes to II 91-92-(1) The distinction between BTIBITEYE and ferskt. 18 sufficientis obvious Premachandra understands 11 91 all wrong and Bohtlingk follows Pramachandra An आभेपरपर Is an आक्षेप following up. 15 Kávvadarea ·ii. 92–1 Kavyūdarta ( 114 on a 4h and serving to weaken the full effect of the आरोप required for the रूपक, while a समाधानरूपक is, 80 to say. an आक्षेप of an आक्षेपरूपक Thus in li 91 tho 414, while calling the face the moon, suggests that in as much as the face is paiga014 while the real moon is शीतल, the चन्द्रत्वारोप made upon the मुख is not completely justified, The FATTIGE4adds to all this a further remark to the effect that possibly the face-moon might be aftes in reality (and so the Brig_might be fully justifiod): oply his own_ill luck_gomos in the way of his realising the शीतलत्य or the आहादकत्व of the faco moon. Premachandra (perhaps under the influence of the ideas in the two earlier stanzas) thinks that in ii. 91 the ar wishes to say that the heart is derogatory to the मुखचन्द because the real moon is अन्योपतापिन् while the face-toon is not so. Any TF2 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 algunft is quite explioit314 99798 Flags FF1 Tea Em aratat aut: laa KUVITE 547€9Ah jar It will be observ. ed however that रह is not an अवयव of the नर्तकी । दल was of the mu in ii 69, the example for A4+ The Taaring is helped by, and is only rendered possible by the Earty; hence this variety comes nearer to the gigay of later writers, which has been defined as (qatt, L. 29)-27 Praiada: RITYTUT I Whether, however, Dandin intended to make every 4719 8 lyfta 4+ as thus explained we have no definite grounds to assert Seeing however that the end upon the face and the on the eye-brows are not bagod upon any definite in that would help the principal 1952 in the 79128, it is possible that Dandin wants us to understand ETF696 as 1977 1. e4FGHAFTEMAAL or fem and that the subordinate as of the पजन्व and नाल do notvitally affect the character of this Rūpala variety.

·115 ) Notes II 95 Notes to II 94-95-(1) Compare the nature of FaceTHI (il 36) There, subsequent to an erroneous judgment (whether of the nature of Az or of Strefa the author does not indicate but hoth are possible) based upon सादृश्य between the उपमेय and the उपमान, the real nature of the Sy was finally determined upon In the present Rupaka variety there is just an opposite process of the mind from reality to error-only the error is not off but 18 & COGscious poetic device which can deceive neither the speaker nor anybody else In 80 far however as there is an attempt to conceal facts the name of the variety explains atself (11) Dandin admits an independent figure of speech called अपडुति (1304-309) In 1 309 he alludos to what is called 34719ara by which he presumably means & sub variety of 3941-but there is none with this name amongst the given 3441 varieties-and in the present stanzes he mentions a ara|4h It is rather difficult to determine in the first instance whether these are three independent alamkaras and in the next place what is the exact distinction between them as Dandin sees it Now some hold that by 5498fa Dandin means arang 4-39EU aan as Ca puts it Cp 12.96 also Cb thinks that by SIERA is meant Trening or 3771481, adding 781789511 Tapeta ez ga Premachandra explains 34779afa by Fragra - 41941&TEFTE TERTITETIYAETA -and thinks that sta 0149T (11 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 J4* variety exemplified in i. 36 bears an unmistakable resemblance to any ordi. nary case of 37967 and in view further of the fact that the aranaril may be a judgment subsequent to a Atamba las also to a HTE1991). It is not impossible that in 11 309 Dandin might be equally plausibly thinking of n 36 And in any case we can regard the उपमापह्रति as separate from तत्त्वापहवम्पक If 446 11 36 wo have already-Note (1) above-shown its distanction from तत्त्वापहवरूप: while if उपमापहति = 1 34, as ·ii. 95-) Kinyariaren (116 gfag 1941 and 2799ETETE a te quite distinct on the very face of them no attempt need be mado to distinguish the one from the other. (ii) But we must learn to clearly distinguish as- TETET from the figuro 37€à as Dandin defines it. To later writers the two are undistinguishable. Some think that in the Rüpaks variety one dharmin as a whole is negated and another asserted in its place, while in the alamkāra called stala thero is the nogation of a certain tharina of the dharmin and the assertion of another instead Tbls, however, will not hold in the case of F7ETTER (ii. 308) A better dif. ferentia would be what is supplied by the adjaotivo gulevering in the definition, which suggests that the negated (प्रकृत, उपमेय) and the asserted (अप्रकृत, उपमान) things ought to have a similarity betweon them. This is not the case in the figure area where anything can be negated and another asserted in its place : cp. 1994 विचिदन्यार्थदर्शनम् । Notes to II. 96--(1) Regarding the sub-divisions of Rüpaka Bhamabo says (ii. 22}--79579 gia teatruleand iPad FT771291 Consequently when Dandin montions in. numerable varieties of Rūpaka as being current be must have had others than Bhimahn in his mind. 1 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 nocessary that 197 bo based upon similarity ? Bharata, Dandin, Bhamaha, Bhoja, the author of Vagbbaţilamkárn, and Viſvanatha aro quito silent on tho point. Rudrata regards Dlpaka as a matter offect (977) Sgurd and not sa 3717 figure. Udbhata explicitly demonde (p 14) आदिमध्यान्तविपर:: प्राधान्येनग्योगिनः । अन्तर्गतोषमाधर्मा यत्र तीपर पिः॥ whilo Vámans (ir. 3. 18–176177 17), Ruy. yaka (p. 71), Mammata (p. 775-17 T V TANTRA ·117) Notes [-ii.97 नाम्), and Jagannatha (p 322--प्रातानामप्रकृतानां चैकसाधारणधर्मा. न्चयो दीपरम्), do the same thing; though Mammata, for instance, admits a variety of दीपक (the so-called कारक- दीपक) where the साम्य Is not in evidence In as much however as every Dipaka demands one word syntacti. cally related to more than one sentence, we can always regard the thing connoted by that word as the साम्य, and so we need not make much of the condition about the औपम्य being गम्य, as Ruyyaka puts it The next issue raised is about the uits that are said to possess the 174 common . Most writers insist that the धर्मिन्s be partly प्रकृत and partly अप्रकृत but they must not be all either it alone or Sata alone This last, according to them is a case of तुल्ययोगिना (see Note (i) to il 48, above). Now Dandin is not particular on this point: his examples suggest that he admits all प्रकृतs (eg ii 100), all अप्रकृतs (og ii 101), and some प्रकृतs and some अप्रकृतs (e.g. 11.99) Regarding the distinction between दोपर and तुत्ययोगिता the following extract from the अलंकारकास्तुभ (p 296-297) may be said to be tho last word on the controversy- अन पदन्ति-दीपरमपि तुल्ययोगिनायामेवान्तर्भवति धर्मस्य सद्वृत्तम्भयत्रा- विशेषात् प्रकृताप्रकृतत्वादिविशेषस्य चायान्तरभेदसाधक्लेपि अलंकारान्तरताया- मसाधरत्वात् । अन्यथा पस्य तद्भेदयारपिभिन्नालकारत्वापत्ते तस्मात्प्रकृनानामेच प्रकृताप्रकृताना चेकथर्मान्वय इति तुल्य योगिताया एव भयो भेदा वक्तमुचिताः । तम्माद्दीपास्य तुल्ययोगिताया भेदं वदता प्रानीनाना दुराग्रह इति तच्चिन्यम । नानाधिररणस्थाना शदाना संप्रदीपकः । एक्वाक्येन सयोगो यस्तु दीपम्मुच्यते॥ यथा- सरासि हंसे. कुगुमैश्च तथा मदिरेफेश्च सरोरहाणि । गोष्ठीभिरुद्यानवनानि चैप यस्मिनशून्यानि भदा कियन्ते । इति भगवता भरतमुनिना (xvi 55-56) दीपफस्याङ्गीकारात् तत्रैव तुल्ययोगि- तान्तर्भावस्यौचित्यादिति दिक् । (w) A large nuruber 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-yarieties under each according to the position of the common word Regarding this last principle of sub-division Jagannatha remarks (p 327) - .

·i.97-] Kāryādarta 1 118 वस्तुतस्तु धर्मस्यादिम यान्तगतत्वेपि चमत्कारखेलक्षण्याभावात् वैविध्योक्तिरापातमा. त्रात् । अन्यथा धर्मस्य उपाशुपमभ्योपान्त्यगतत्वे ततोपि किंचिन्यूनाधिकदेगत्तित्वे चानन्तभेदप्रसङ्गात् । -Mammata and others, as before ob. served, admit a variety called Flicia* defined in the अलंकारकौस्तुभ (p. 291) as-यत्रैकमेव कारकमन्वयमेति क्रियासु वहीं and illustrated by विश्वनाथ (p. 520) as- दूरं समागतवति त्वयि जीवनाथे भिन्ना मनोभवशरेण तपस्विनी सा । उत्तिष्टति 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 F14, and Bo we have Dipakas of कर्तृ, कर्म, करण, संप्रदान, अपादान, संबन्धिन् , and अधिकरण-all severally illustrated in the अलंगारकास्तुभ pp. 292 ff. Regarding E. Jayaratha remarks (p73)-अत्र...नियाणा प्रस्तुतानामेकाधारगतत्वेन समुनीयमानत्वाच समुचयाले- कारो न तु कारकदीपकम् । तद्धि प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुताना कियाणामोपम्यसदावे भवति । Similar remarks are also passed by Jagannātha (pp. 324-325). The varieties illustrated by our author in it 109, ii, 111, ii. 113 are an attempt to combine the दीपक्वैचित्र्य with the वैचित्र्य of some other figure or mode of expression; while the HII variety and other chain. varieties can always be superadded to almost every figure-of-speech. This alamkāra is liable to foram 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 Bôhtlingk. The elephants are of course the king's war-elephants and not .dls welt tragenden Elephanten." Notes to II. 103-106—(i) The distinction between the Dipaka variety illustrated in ii 106 and the figure called सहोक्ति illustrated in 11.352-354 consists in the fact that while has to be supplied severally in the ·119 Noles 111. 119 various statements in ii. 106, no such necessity oristo in the an illustrations The omission of अयमेतत् सम would have been an improvement. Notes to II, 107-115-(1) As Dandin says distinctly, the instance in ii. 107 contains an ama Since tho word mi is the common word it follows that in an amfety. it is enough if It oocurs somewhere in tho first sentence and not necessarily in the very beginains of that sentence (11) The variety illustrated in ii. 111 is distinct from tho so-called T6147 of the moderners. See above Noto (ii) to il. 97. The emendation suggested by Premachandra is good but not backed up by any m spuscripts (ill) The statement in 11. 115 testifies to the criatence before Dandin's day of writers who gave # still larger number of Dipaka varieties Bhamaha (it. 25) gives just three Notes to II. 116-(1) Deodin distinctly says that every aft is an amplified ; the one can therefore always be turned into the other. Consequently, regarding the necessity of a basic 14, and the requirement that the things adduced be all als alone, or Brutas 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 Chandra - loka (stanza 45 ) who calls it anser 19 Bhoja (1v. 78) regards it as a sub-variety of Dipaka. Notes to II. 117–(i) The figure called ad illustrated in ii. 111 also employed synonyms; but they were connected with one word; here the synonyms etc. are connected with separate words. Notes to II, 118-119-(1) The TR called * also has words or syllabic groups repeatod: but there the ·in 119-1 Kavyadarta [ 120 repetitions cannot be dispensed with, while in an aritt the sense of the passage does not suffer by doing away with the repetitions. In other words, fu can be turned into 8 दीपक while यमर cannot be co.trans formed Notes to II 1204(1) Different views about the nature of Akshepa aro current and naturally the definitions of this figure differ from writor to writer Dandin s de fination प्रतियोक्तिराक्षेप -1s the simplest in the field and of widest application As Jegannatha (p 424) remarks- इतरे तु निषेधमानमाक्षेप । चमत्कारिख चालकारसामान्यलक्षणप्राप्तमेव । तच व्यधार्थे सति सभवतीति सव्यद्गयो निषेध सोप्याक्षेपालार । Others delimit the field of this alamkara to the negation of the उपमान alone A VImana (2v 327) says--उपमानाक्षेप- श्वाक्षेप । तुल्यकार्यार्थम्य नैरथक्यविवक्षायामाक्षेप , as he explains the Sutra in his Vrittı Vamana s example 19 तस्याश्चन्मुगमस्ति मौम्य मुभग किं पार्वणेनेन्दुना सौन्दर्यस्य पद दृशौ यदि च ते किं नाम नीलोत्पले । किंवा कोमलकान्तिभि विमलये सत्येव विम्याधरे हा धातु पुनरुक्तवस्तुरचनारम्भेष्यपूर्वाग्रह ॥ This is the same as प्रतीपालकार which Mam mata (p 894) thus defines and explains- आक्षेप उपमानस्य प्रतापमुपमेयता । तस्यैव यदि वा कल्प्या तिरस्कारनिबन्धनम् ॥ अस्य धुर सुतरामुपमेयमेर वोदु प्रोगमति कैमर्थ्येन यत् उपमानमाक्षिप्यत यदपि नस्येवेपमानतया प्रसिद्धस्य उपमानान्तरविवनया अनादरार्थमुपमेयभाव क्लयते नत् उपमेयस्योपमानप्रतिकरवर्तिवात् उभयरूप प्रतीपम्। As we have seen Mammate 8 second Pratipa is the same as Dandin e विषयासोपमा (117) while Dandin 8 प्रतिषेधोपमा (1134) perhaps comes nearer to the first kind The प्रतिषेधालमार recognised by the कुरलयानन्दकारिकाकार (stanzs 164) 1s of course a different species altogether (ii) Others introduce other.delimiting conditions They say for instance that while आक्षेप 18 प्रतिषेधोति it ought not to be , Tesl downright ne The thins intended ought to be conveyed (in an even more talling fashion) by the apparent denalotat...AR the Alamkarasarvagya (p 114) clearly puts 1t- ·121] Notes [-11 120 इह प्रारणिमर्थ प्रारणिक्लादेव वक्तुमिप्यते। तथाविधस्य विधानाईस्य निषेध पर्नु न युज्यते । स कृत आधितस्वरूपत्वात् निषेधायत इति निषेधाभास सपन । तस्येतस्य वरण प्रकृतगतत्वेन विशेषप्रतिपत्त्यर्थम् । अन्यथा गजस्नानतुल्य स्यात् । The definitions of most lster writors are framed so as to include all these conditions. Thus- Mammata-~ निषेधो वृक्तुमिष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिघिल्लया। Visvanātha (r 65)- वस्तुनो वतुमिष्टस्य विशेषप्रतिपत्तये । निषेधाभास आक्षेप । Bhamaha (11 68) and Udbhata (p. 29)— प्रतिपेध येतस्य यो विशेषामिधिगया। आशेप इति त मन्त शमन्ति द्विविध (कवय ) यथा (भदा)। It will be soon that Dandin's example of metat fits in with all these requirements and it would be a regular illustration for the figure as above defined (su) With regard to the 14 described in Note (11) the negation of the $2987Tíu ta theme is usually ground ed on the fact of the thing being already too well known, or of the speaker's being powerless to do justice to it-वक्ष्यमाणविषये अशक्यवक्तव्यत्वम् उक्तविषये अतिप्रसिद्धत्व च-- commentator observes It is divided into four sub-variotics Compare Sahityadarpana (p 547)-- 17 वक्ष्यमाणविपर्य क्वचित् सर्वस्यापि सामान्यत सूचितस्य निमेष क्वचित् अशोक्तो अशान्तरे निषेध इति द्वो भेदौ । उक्तविषये व क्वचित् वस्तुस्वरूपस्य निषेध क्वचित वस्तुक्थनस्येति द्वा । इत्याक्षेपस्य चत्वारो भेदा । For illustrations see the work cited Dandın 18 alono, amongst extant writers, to give a classification of this figure based upon आक्षेप्यभेद (10) As the Akshapa described in Note (11) 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 Alamkarasarvasya (p 120)-यथा इष्टस्यष्टत्वादेव निषेधोनुपपत्र एवमनिष्टस्याप्यनिष्टत्वादेव विधान नोपपद्यते । तत् क्रियमाण प्रस्खलदूपत्वात्रिोधे पर्यवम्यति । ततश्च विधेश्पहरणीभूतो निषेध इनि विधिनाय निषेधोनिष्टविशेष- पर्यवसायी। It will be seen that most of Dandin's exam. 16 (Kavyadarsa) as ·122 11. 120–) Kavarurta pies of Alslepa fall under this variety. The figurl. of-speech called or is, as Bhoja says, (iv. 64)—aret : 991 Its nature is NITTA ATT Jet 419 FARUHI Some of our author's examples (e. g 9847071, ii, 123) are primarily of the nature of Rodba as thug understood. (v) Howsoever understood Āksbepa has to be distic: guished from Virodha and from Apahnuti; and the di: tinction is not very difficult to make. In Virodha Isee. ii 333) there is expressed contradiction between the two.. things with a view to bring out some peculiar fenu_of. the theme__under_discussion In Akshepa with the same intention there is a contradiction, but it is between the actual expression and the real intention of the speaker which is not expressed. In an_Aps. hnuti a certain thing (in some aspects of it or as regards its entire_nature) is negated and another asserted in its_place, the negated and the asserted things being both actually expressed in words Such is not tho caso in an Akshopa as we have just seen - The distinction between some specific variaties 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) Vrittakshopa is the same as Uktavishaye Akshepa of later writers The four-fold condition for this variety, in the words of the Alamkara. sarvasva, ism 372 : are atar. far. Fred Asta a 62444954Hore case is the themo intended to be described that has been declared to bo impossible: this declaration of course_is_ngt RAriously intended. And ultimately the marellous nature of the_victory standz_out_m044 promiscate Honce this is a regular example fulfilling all conditions (ii) Vartamánikbhepa je otherwise designated as Rodba Bhoja (p 422) honerer calls it I ATITETI and obsenes-37 TT TTR Fit form معلممعععمعممنا ·123 ) Notes 1-1 132 क्मिपाङ्गमित्यादिना प्रश्नपरेणापि निषेधपर्यवसायिना वाक्येन समर्थन क्यित इत्यय Ja ADETI --As to Bhavishyat Akshepa it is to be noted that it is not the samo as the 24 variety of the other school for in that variety वस्तुग्थनमेव निपिध्यते whereas here it is the ting that might happen in future that is attempted to be averted by anticipation Notes to II 127-130-(1) Compare the illustration given in 11 127 with the illustration of Virodha in 11 337 Most modern writers would regard both as cases of Virodha It will however, he...abserved that while the second line of.11. 127 is enough to make it an ex ainple of Virodha, it 18 the first line with its denial of tenderness that makes the verso un example on Ahshepa (11) The principle underlying these two varieties is the samne as that in z 15-16 Notes to II 131-132—(1) The example is of the nature of an attempt to deny an actually existing fault and the consequent fear The epithet e 2s to be noted Now in a Vibhavana (11 199) there is a negation of the cause but an assertion of the effect leading to a guessing of some subsidiary cause Here there 19 H negation of the IT or principall cause (au but likewise & negation of the effect (240) In addition there is an assertion of subordinate causes of fear such 88 THU etc together with a negation of their effect viz fear Thus fear is an effect of a HRV) as well as of art ( martu) and if the principal cause 18 said to be lacking there is nothing unusual if the result does 1 ot follow irrespective of whother the subordinato Causes are or are not present Consequently Pre na chandra s attempt to distinguish this figure frona Vibba vana (which is reproduced in our Sanskrit Commentary) is not very much called for The main point of the illustration is the cool and unlushing der of fault by the lover ·( 124 fi. 132– Kūvyūdarta (ii) We can more reasonably attempt to distinguish this variety from Visoshokti (ii 323), osp. tho variets known as हेतुविशेषोक्ति (ii 328) Mammata defines famille as-अखण्डेषु कारणेषु फ्लावचा, and we have seen that in tho illustration under discussion at least the subordinate 1778 are all thoro, but to effect onsues. But tho gist of the illustration is in the epithet TEZRT. That is what makes this a प्रतिषेधोक्ति. Notes to II. 133-134-(i) In ii, 131 the subordinate cause were present but as the principal cause was nogated the effect was lacking Here in ii 133 the causes (all of thom) are present and yet the expected result does not follow. This would accordingly be a case of Miglior as usually understood. Only, Dandin's ides of Viseshokti appears to have been a little different from that of Mammata and others (see Notes to ii. 323). According to our authoraविशेषोकि is intended विशेषदर्शनायब. The laua of death, the expected result, does not imply any special for at belonging cithor to the 76973 or tho नायिका that we can discover. Hence this is no विशेषोक्ति in Dandin's acceptance of tho term. (ii) An Akshops as understood by the writers quoted in Note (ii) to il 120 is also for fastlagfei; compare- न नियमाप्रमाक्षेपः किंतु गे निषेधो याधित' मनान्तरपर्यवामित. विद्विशेष. TT 7 oemt: 1 But that is not Dandin's view of the matter, and while we are trying to read Dandin's work we must lay aside all extraneous iden, Notos to II. 135-156-(i) In these verses Dandin shows how ono idontical themc-the hinderance of the lover's departure can be poctically treated in various ways so as to form biamples of different kinds of Akahepa. The versea_dro_probably of Dandina_own authorship, which shows that he was not without ROMO poetical powers. The verreg havo beert much quoted in utbos writers : thie Aproudis on Parallolistus. The Alsinkárakaustubha gives an <* SCO ·125] Notes [--ii i56 ample of a which combines most of these probibi. tron-varieties and adds some more of its own (p 309)-- मा याहीत्यपमद्गल ब्रज पुन स्नेहेन हीन वच- स्तिष्टेति प्रभुता यथारुचि कुरुप्वेवाप्युदासीनता । नो जीवामि विना लयेति वचन सभाव्यतेचा नवा तत् किं शिक्षय नाथ यत् समुचित वक्तु त्वयि प्रस्थित ।। Our readers are probably already familiar with the classical passage in this strain from the end of the Purvardha of Bana's Kadambari (12) Regarding the illustration of Baran (11 137) Bhoa observes (p 427)-अन यद्यपि यानोद्यत प्रियो रुध्यते [तथापि] प्रभूतार्थलाभादीना कारणाना गमनपरत्वमेव न निवारणपरत्वम् । अतोय न रोध किं तर्हि आक्षेप एव भवति । (111) Regarding the illustration of arritqaret (1 142) Bhoga obsorves (p 421)-अन गच्छ इत्यस्य विधिवाक्यस्य ममापि जन्म तव भूयात् इत्याशिपानुकुलतयेच मरणसूचनानिषेध क्रियते इति शुद्धोय विण्याक्षेप । The Alamkarasarvasva passes the following comment on the same stanza (p 120)-अन कयाचित् कान्तस्य प्रस्थानमा मनोनिष्टमप्यनिराकरणमुखेन विधीयते । न चास्य विभिर्युक्त अनिष्ट- लात् । मोय प्रस्सलद्रपूत्वेन निषेधमागूरयनि । फल चान अनिष्टस्य प्रस्थानस्यास- विज्ञानपदनिबन्धनमत्यन्तपरिहार्यत्वप्रतिपादनम् । एतच्च ममापि तवेत्याशी प्रति. पादनेनानिपर्यवसायिना व्यजितम् । (iv) Regarding the illustration of यत्नाक्षेप (u 147) Bhora observes (p 424)-अन यथोक्तमुक्वा किं करोमि इत्यानुकल्ये. भवाह । अन क्मि प्रश्नायवेपि युक्त्या निषेधार्थत्व गम्यत । सोय योक्तोनुकूलन विन्याक्षेपो रोध इत्युच्यते । अयमव चास्या देयात्योतिपते योक्त प्रतिकूलविध्या- क्षेपो रोधी भाति । (v) The tro stanzas about Tuzy (1 155, 156) are probably interpolations Our oldest Mas J and N omit tbon, and the fact that the Madras edition takes them before the two stanzas dealing with teet points to the sanje 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] Kävyjádar sa | 126 Notes to II, 157-158 and 161-162--(1) Even our oldest Mss J and N give in the first pīda of ii. 158 the hypermetrical reading nagt: I The reading given by us is a conjectural emendation suggested by the variant given by V. Our Ms. N puts stanzas li 159, 260 after stanza ii. 162 and this fact we believe is not a pura 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 hypermotrical reading which is clearly influenced by haarata of ii. 162, which words were probably, in the original exemplar, written immediately underneath the words FITATE9. or in such a position as to make the wandering of the eye from the one to the other quite easy.-Since all our Mes 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—(i) While most of the preceding varieties of Akshepa were based upon some psychological or other attendant of the prohibition, in tho varietios which follow Dandin as usual is attempting to combine the आक्षेपपैचित्र्य with the वैचित्र्य of some other figure. The examples are self-explaining. (ii) In view of the use of the words Td and it in thib stanza 89 applied to the actual and the figurative moon the explanation of the same words we gave in our Notes to iL. 88 gains additional plausibility. Notes to II. 163-164--(I) Compare il. 26 and 27. It will be noticed that in सशयोपमा tho पद्म was अप्रत and the भुरा the 291; such a distinction is not intended betwcen भरदम्भोद and हंसरदम्यक. Further in the उत्सगळtil. 163 thore is only a removal of the dowht, not an regnrtier na in ii. 21, second line ·[-ji. 169 127 1 Nules Notos to II. 166-166-For Dandin's conception of upptage PR gee Note to ii. 169 below. Notes to II, 167-168-(i) In il. 131 the TV itself was negated; here something else is negated on the strength of a more adduced Gonerally a FITOT 18 कारक or productive cause and a हेतु ज्ञापफ or probatory cause, See it, 235. Notes to II. 168–(i) As in tho_case_of Akshepa, Dandin's definition of Arthantaranyága is also rather crude and wanting In the later pruning and reining with a view to mnahe it more precise and to delimit its field from that of other slamkaras or sub varieties of them. To begint with, Dandin speaks of वस्तु प्रस्तुत्य अन्यस्य वस्तुनः न्यास: and at has been hero taken to mean a theme or a com. plete statement, so that an ordinary te of an ergata is naturally excluded. Compare Vámana, Vritti on iv. 3. 21-7048417 m pat aterata: The figures-of.speech known as agac or Profesa (neither of which however our author admits) are in consequence differeatioted from this figure. Between groter and 3r the element of mutual distinction is the fact that in the former it is the काररहेतु (0. 5. यहि of भूम) whilo in the latter it is the sपाहेत (e.. धूम of वहि) that is set forth, and there is further the circumstance that in the figure-of-specch known as agar there is adduocd the complete paraphernalia of a logical inference including the 277. Both the figures neverthe. legs egree in this that both at the man and a the Arra are individual objects and pot statements or चम्म (ii) Objections can be talen however to the above statement of the case on the ground that in en 1914 the quer is often a condensed and even complex statement, and in the root Mammala and others recognise a variety where the कारसंतु Is A वायाध. Hence a botter differentia betneen अनुमान and दानित ·fi, 169-] KuvyŪdarsa ( 128 on the one hand and so on the otljor is furnished by the condition that while the relation between say as and in first two figures is not of the nature of genus-to-specios or specios-to-genus, it is invariably that in the case of the समर्थ्यवस्तु and the समर्थक्वस्तु oceurring 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 and are however (ii. 235) does duty for both in and toylar 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 7267 in the definition of this figure. This means that in an अर्थान्तरन्यास it is always the प्रस्तुत or the प्राकरणिक that is Bought to be corroborated by the tja, both on and 0978 being actually expressed, and that further the statement of the ser 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 मुह देह।, दहणहदूमिआणं वि वइढइ त्यणआणं रोमचो । अन साधनसमर्थं वस्तु प्रथमत एवोपन्यस्य पश्चात् तत्साध्यमभिहितमिति विपर्यासा- दय विपर्ययो नामार्थान्तरन्यास | Similarly when an attempt is made to suggest (and corroborata) the unexpressed प्रस्तुत by the expressed अप्रस्तुत or the unexpressed अप्रस्तुत by the expressed on there results tbe figure of speach called Ahafth (il. 205) that has to be distingnished from अर्थान्तरन्यास, where both प्रस्तुत and अप्रस्तुत are oxpressed. With reference to this distinction it may be noted in passing that Dandin's TATHI em. braces both समासोफि proper (प्राकरणिकेनाप्राफराणिशक्षेप) and the antgarth of Mammata and others (201409 1710- TT:), and that his account of state (if 340 ) is slightly different from the one usually curront see Notes to that figure] (iv) If we compare Dandin's definition of stainaam with his definition of 91, (ii, 46) we become conscious of a distinctive characteristic of this figure ·1291 Notes -11 169 which must be carefully grasped In an अर्या तर याय there is always समीसमर्थक relation between the two quas one being adduced in corroboration of the other Jagannatha gives a clear exposition of corroboration (p 471) समर्थन च इदमेवम् इदमनेव वा स्यादिति सशयस्य प्रतिवधक इदमित्थमवेति दृढप्रलय । In प्रतिवस्तूपमा ( 2nd in Dandan's View this embraces the so called compare Notes to 146) the tro.वस्तुs are merely related by an element of similarity, upon which in fact the figure depends cp साम्यप्रतीतिरस्तीति in the definition The मान्य 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 प्रहारे दुराग (p 35)-न सलु तस्य [ दृष्टान्तस्य ] समयसमर्थभावपुर मरीकारेण प्रवृत्ति विम्वप्रतिबिम्वभावमानस्य शब्दस्पृष्टत्वात् । अर्थाद्धि तन समयममर्थकभावावसाय । अर्थान्तरन्यासे तु समर्थ्यसमर्थक भावनेवोपकम । (v) The analogical samblance-requed_for_afael [and fee) is mara. Likely to be found between two general statements or between two particular. states ments while corraboration is usually_made of.. particular by general or of a general by a particular statement Most later writers accordingly introduce the above circumstance into the very definition of अर्था तरन्यास which has been accordingly defined by Ruyyaka (vin79)- धर्मिणमर्थ विशेष सामान्य वाभिधाय तत्सिद्धये । यत्र सधर्मिकमितर न्यस्येत् सोर्थान्तरन्यास । by Mammata (p 804)- सामान्य वा विशेषो वा तदन्येन समर्थ्यते । यत् तु सोर्थान्तरन्यारा । and by Jagannatha (p 71)- सामान्येन विशेषस्य विशेषेण सामान्यस्य ना यत् समर्थन तदर्थान्तर न्यास । Our author however does not regard this as essential and accordingly in u 175 he makes one particular corroborate another particular (see Notes to the stanza) Bhamaba (11 71), Bhoja (14 67), Vămans (17 3 21 ) and others give also non commital defini. 17 [Kavyadarsat ·- ii 169-] Kavyadarsa [ 130 tions similar to that of Dandin. Ve give the first- उपन्यसनमन्यस्य यदर्थस्योदितारते । शेयः सोर्थान्तरन्यासः पूर्वार्थानुगतो यथा ॥ and the last- उक्तसिद्धथै वस्तुनोर्थान्तरस्यैव न्यसनमर्थान्तरन्यासः । (vi) Finally. अर्थान्तरन्यास has to be distinguished from निदर्शन (ii. 348). According to the अलकारकास्तुभ (p. 265) the two themes or statements brought together in a Font have an identical or very nearly identical pur port (किंचिन् तन्मदश फ्लम्), while in an_अर्थान्तरन्यास there is between the two & समर्थ्यसमर्थक-relation based uporn सामान्यविशेषसवन्ध. Compare (ibid.)--एवं च पूर्वोत्तरवाक्यार्थकार्यकारण- भावद्वये यत्र सामान्यविशेषरूपधर्मावच्छिनत्वं 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 उपन्यस्तवस्तनां साधम्र्येण च कथ्यते। वैवर्येण च विद्वद्भिर्वपरीत्येन चुत्रचित् ।। Udbhata (p 32) gives a further classification हिशब्दोक्त्या- न्यथापि वा। Alamkārasarvasva (p.109), Sahityadarpana (1. 62) and other works mention a third important sub-variety:-चार्य च कारणेनेदं कार्येण च समर्थ्यते। The majority of writers however refuse to recognise this sub.varioty. Visvanatha trics his best to establish its existence, while the last and one of the very best incisivo comment on the same is by Jagannatha(p 474). We refrain from going here into the controversy (viii) A further varying upon the nature of this i figure is responsible for the figures of speech known as विरस्वर, उभयन्यास, प्रत्यनीदन्यास, and प्रतीकन्यास. An illus. tration of निम्म्नर is-स ने जिग्ये महान्तो हि दुर्जयाः सागरा इव। regarding which the Alamkārakaustubha obscrvcs (p. 320)-अन विशेषसमर्थनाय मामान्योपन्यागेपि पुनः सामान्यसमर्थनाय विशेपोपन्यास इति विकस्वरोलारान्तरम्। Rudrati (vifi. 85-86) thus explains and illustrates Ubhayanyāsa-- सामान्यावप्यों स्फुटमुपमाया: स्वरूपतोपेतो। निर्दिश्येते यस्मिनुभयन्यासः स विज्ञेयः ।।

·1311 Notes 1-ii. 175 सरलजगत्साधारणविभवा भुवि साधवीधुना विरला । सन्ति फियन्तस्तरव मुस्वादुमुगन्धिचारुफला ॥ Bhoja, finally, thus illustrates and explains प्रत्यनीकन्यास and प्रतीकन्यास (p 430)- विरला उखआरिचिअणिरवेक्खा जल्हरव्य वचन्ति । यिनन्ति ताण विरहे विरलचिभ सरिप्पवाहब। अन यदिदमुपकृत्य अनपेक्षितप्रत्युपकाराणा गमनम् यच्चाकृतप्रत्युपसराणा तद्विरहे वसादनम् तदुभयमपि जलधरसरि प्रवाहयोरन्योन्यातिशयितयोरुपन्यस्यमान प्रत्यनी. कन्यासो भवति । का कथा वाणसधाने ज्याशब्दनव दूरत । हुकारेणैन धनुप स हि विधानपोहति ॥ अन विघ्नप्रोत्सारणसमर्थाया बाणमोक्षणलक्षणाया क्रियाया प्रथमावयवभूत ज्या शब्द धनुयो हुकारमिवेति तत्साधनमुपन्यस्य प्रतापन्यासमभित्ते । Vakassara is admitted by the Kuvalayanandakara (verse 123), Ubhayanyasa as an independent Alainkara by Rudrata and Vagbhata (p 44 ) and as a subrariety of अर्थान्तरन्यास by Bhoja, who is alone recognising the last two alamkıras as addational subvarieties of the same figure 112 Notes to II. 170-173-(1) Dandin's distinction between fananit and festges 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 ralive 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 Notesto II. 174-175-(1) The eight sub-varieties given hy Dandin go by pairs and hence our Sanskrit Commentary, following the commentary called श्रुतानुपारिनी, renders पाविद्ध by अविरोधिन् In the illustration the अविरोध 1s brought out from the circumstanco that प्रियभवन and दाक्षिण्य go harmonlously together, while tho विरोध 18 shown in as much as मालिन्य (or दोप) and आहादन do not sort together This is perhaps posselle, ale thourh vu this interpretation varieties 3 ud i liayn - ·ii, 175-) Kavyādarta ( 132 little to distinguish them from the next pair As it is however not absolutely necessary that all the varieties go by pair, it would perhaps involve less forced interpretation if is given the usual intorprotation of the use of words in two senses The word ge-- upon which the entire point of the corroboration turns -18 so used in 11 174 Other sub-varieties, it is true, may also use paronomastic words, but in taliana variety it is the most important word that is so used Compare Cb-fifequeftregi Fannaryf 27 1 àg साध्यतया निर्दिष्ट साधनतेनान्यतमेन सान्यते इति श्लेषाविद्ध । विरोधवति युफात्मनि युकायुक्ते च अर्थान्तरन्यासे श्लेपामुयन्धे सत्यपि प्रागुक्तन्यायेन न तद्वयपदेश । (11) In 11 175 the heat is made up of a proposition which embraces a faiu and it is corroborated by an other proposition which also embraces a similar fit The two propositions, as we understand mattors, are both particular It would accordingly be an instante of Ezra in other writers, but Dandín vould classifyias GEISTERT because the idea of corroboration ascvideadly the leading idea of the PTT If the idea of Fire were the more prominent one it would be, according to Dandin, a case of afanya Wo consequently prefer taking the word it in the sense of 'n good lorail- 10 an Notes to II, 178-19.-(1) The distinctive principle under lying the last four varieties is very elusive In 176 the nमर्थ्यवस्तु [ and not the समथररस्तु also as an ॥ 1751 involves some one doing something improper or against one's nature, in 1 177 both tho *77277 and tbo 7AUF propositions involve the doing of an appropriate acuion, in ii 178 the action in tho tre proposition is accordant for one agunt but dlacordant for anothor agent, and in ti 179 the action is discordant for one agent and therefore accordant for another agent CL And Co understand विपर्ययअन्यभाषापत्ति or अतथाभननम् and explain इन्दो शीतनया [नाय] मधिनामपि शीतयेन भवितव्यम् । आया * T The point is lonoser derntablo ·. 1331 Notes 1-11, 180 Notes toII. 180-(1) Vyatireka consists of two parts- साधर्म्यक्थन and भेदकथन-both of which are essential to the nature of the figure The Upamā-variety called अतिशयोपमा (122) amed at bringing out the साधर्म्य alone (इयत्येव भिदा नान्या), the varieties called निन्दोपमा and प्रशसोपमा, although mentioning with disapprobation or approbation certain points of inferiority or superiority in the Upamāna did nevertheless content themselves with asserting the साधर्म्य with more or less emphasis (ep समानमपि सोत्सेकम् and तो तुल्यो), and the variety named विपर्यासोपमा, 1 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 TR and tho must each concern itself with a distinct गुण As Jagannatha observes (p 341)-प्रतीपादी उपमान- तामानकृत एवोत्कर्ष न वैध→कृत । साधर्म्यस्येव प्रत्ययात् । अधिकगुणवत्व मा रम् उपमानगतापकर्षमान वा न व्यतिरेक्स्वम्पम् । The same writer later likerwise remarks (p 350)-ननु अस्यालकारस्य वेवयं. मूलस्य उमाप्रतिकूलत्वमेवोचितम् न सूपमागर्भवम् तम्या माधर्म्यमूलकत्वात् अम्य च तनिधरूपेणेय प्रत्ते । न चेटापत्ति सिद्धान्तभद्गग्रसङ्गात् । सत्यम् । यद्गुणपुरस्कारेण यस्य यत्सादृश्यनिषेध उत्वपपर्यवमायी तस्य तद्गुणपुरस्कारेण तत्मादृश्यम्याप्रतिष्टानेपि गुणान्तरेण सादृश्यप्रत्ययस्य दुर्वारत्वात् । यदि च तत्मादृश्य- गामान्यनिष गो विवक्षित म्यात् गुणविशेषपुरस्कारोनथर स्यान धनेनायमस्मादधिक इत्युक्त विद्यया रूपेण कुलेन च सम इति सर्वनीनप्रत्ययात् । एव च प्रतीयमानमपि सादृश्य गुणान्तरकृतनिषेधोन्थापिनेनोलण इतप्रभमिव बन्द कृतमिव न चमत्कार- विशेषमाधातु प्रभवतीति प्राचामाशय । (u) The variety called प्रतिषेधोपमा (11.34) comes nearer to this figure As Dandın gives it as an Upama variety some kind of in between the moon and the face must evidently have been intended The point of the साम्य is not here actually expressed If we imagine that it is the कान्ति the example becomes a regular व्यतिरेक with the implied ST 35 regards Frient and the expressed भेद in consequence of क्लङ्क and जडता-compare 11 187 below If however we regard the point of R and धम्य to be the same-say आह्लादकत्व-and interpret the cumle to mean that the moon because of its two Jelocis, cannot be a tuatah to the face as rebarde cbari.se ·it. 180-1 Kavyâdarta 1 134 ingness-and this is how Dandın wants us to under stand the passage-we can distinguish alath from व्यतिरेक because in the former there is not गुणविशेषवत्त्वेन उत्कर्ष as Jagannatha would say Compare to the game effect the definition of Rudrats (vu 86 ) यो गुण उपमेये स्यात् तत्प्रतिपथी च दोप उपमाने 1 व्यस्तसमस्तन्यस्तो तो व्यतिरेक विधा कुरुत ॥ As the Agnipurāne does not recognise Vyatıreka as a distinct figure, what it defines as Vyatıreh opama (344 13-14)- बहोर्धर्मस्य साम्येपि वलक्षण्यं विवक्षितम्। यदुच्यतेतिरिक्तत्व व्यतिरेकोपमा तु सा ॥ must be taken to include both व्यतिरक and प्रतिषेधोपमा (111) As to the varieties of this figure, since one aspect of it is उपमा,-as Jagannatha observes--उपमाप्रभेदा सर्व एवान सभवन्ति। But it is usual to recognise only three of them according as the साधर्म्य 1s शब्दोपात्त (1e both इवादीनामुपादाने शाब्दम् and तुल्यादीनामुपादाने आर्थम् ) or प्रतीत Next as to भेदक्थनम्-उपमानस्यापपर्षनिमित्तम् उपमेयस्योत्पनिमित्त चेत्युभयमपि स्त्रोक्त तनेर । अपपहेतुमानस्य उत्कर्षहेतुमानस्य उक्ती द्वयोरप्यनुत्तो च यो मंदा इति चत्वार I This gives by combination 12 varieties, and the introduction of a in the statement of 5 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 night be either class concepts or individuals (Falfa व्यतिरेक or स्वव्यक्तिव्यतिरेक) and the last differentia is the motive for a which may be simple or rendered complex by involviog a further process of similarity within the difference, as in ll 193,194 All these principles are admitted by Dandin though not actually illustrated (1) In all latter day discussions about Vyatireka there is a theme that comes in invariably for treatment the gene818 of which 18 to be found in the following statement of Rudrata (VII 89 90)- यो गुण उपमाने वा तत्प्रतिपन्थी च दोष उपमेये । भवतो या समस्तो स व्यतिरेपोयमन्यस्तु ॥ क्षीण क्षीणोपि शशा भूया भयो विवर्धते सत्यम् । विरम साद मुदार योवनमनिवर्ति यात नु॥

·135 ] Notes . [-11.184 Ruyyaka (p 80 ) explains the point of the example of this उपमानादुपमेयस्याधिकगुणत्वे व्यतिरेक by saying-चन्द्रापेक्षया च योवनस्य न्यूनगुणत्वम् । शशिवलक्षण्येन तस्यापुनरागमात् । As against this Mammata asserts (p. 784)-अन योवनगतास्थैयाधिक्यं हि विवक्षितम् ! Jayaratha the author of अलंकारसर्वस्वविमर्शिनी and Visvanātha the author of farciu side with the older school while Jagannātha follows Mammsta Tbe following full extract from the रसगगाधर (pp 352-353) will make the position on either side quite clear नन्वन उपमानादुपमेयस्य न्यूनत्वं व्यतिरेर इति न युक्तम् तस्य हि धास्तवेनाहा. त्वात् । यौवनस्य चास्थिरत्वे प्रतिपाये चन्द्रापेक्षयापिकगुणत्वमेव विवक्षितम् यदेत- चन्द्रवत् यातं सा पुनरायातीति। [इति चेदमदेतत् । ] यतोन चन्द्रवात सद्यौवन यदि पुनरागच्छेत् तत् प्रिय प्रति चिरमीÜद्यनुवन्धो युज्येत । इदं पुनर्हतयौवनं यातं सत् पुनर्नागच्छतीति ईर्ष्याद्यन्तरायपरिहारेण निरन्तरतयैव प्रियेण सह जनु' सफलयितव्यम् । धिगीवा॑म् । त्यज प्रिय प्रति मन्युम् । कुर प्रसादम् । इति प्रिय- वयस्योपदेशे प्रिय प्रति कोपोपशमाय चन्द्रापेक्षया यौवनस्यापुनरागमनं न्यूनगुणत्वेन विवक्षितमिति न्युनलमपि व्यतिरेक रसपरिपोषकतया चास्यापि हृद्यत्वम् इति ॥ [ Jagannatha replies] तदुभयमा यसत् । अस्मिन् हि प्रियहितकारिण्या पवने चन्द्रादप्यधिक्गुणत्वमेव विवक्षितम् न न्यूनगुणत्वम् । चन्द्रो हि पुन• पुनरा- गमनेन लोके मुलभ अत एव न तादृशमाहात्म्यशाली । इद व पुनयौवनमपुनरा. गमनेनातिदुर्लभतरत्वादत्युत्कृष्टमिति मानादिभिरन्तराये शठजनश्लाघनीर्विदग्धया भवत्या मुधा गमयितुमसाप्रतमिति तावदुपात्तगुणकृतमुत्कृष्टत्व स्फुटमेव । सकल- मुखनिदानत्वायनुपात्तगुणकृतोप्युलन वाक्यार्थपरिपोषाय सहृदयसरणिमवतरति । अन्यथा किमित्यस्य कदर्ययोवनस्य कृते मया मानाद्विरस्यते यातु नाम योवनमिति प्रतिकूलेनार्थेन प्रकृतार्थस्यापुष्टतापत्तेः । ~ Notes to II. 181-184-(1) As we have seen (Note (iii) to ii 180) it has been customary to have, along with एक and उभय Vyatireka, अनुभय Vyathroka with the threo sub-varieties depending upon the manner of espress. ing साधर्म्य, each with further two-fold differentiation depending upon the presenca or absence of The three y varieties from out of these sir are declared to be impossible. Says Uddyota on Kavyaprakasa. pradipa (p 793)-अनेद चिन्त्यम् । उपात्तवेधाशे पेणव व्यतिरेकस्य श्रेषमूलकन्वमुचितम् नतु यनकुत्रापि पेण । एवं चोभयानुपादाने शेपकृतभेदत्रय चिन्यमेव । To which may be added the conclusion of Jagannatha-"इन्थ च चतुर्विंशति दा इति पानामुक्तिर्विपुलोदाहरणा- मिनर्यथास्यचिदुपपादनीया ।

·11. 185-] Karydilaria [ 136 Notes to II. 185-188--(i) These three varieties are attempt, nfter Dandin's mannor, to combine the first of this figure with that of some other figure or figures an . Notes to II. 189-(1) As before observed (Note (iii) to it 180), शदोपादानगादृश्य includes what is called गादगाधर्म्य as well as आर्थसाH Rogarding this distinction Mommata notes (p.664M)-यथेरादिगन्दा यत्परा' नम्योपमानताप्रतीनिरिति गद्यप्युपमानविशेषणान्येने तथापि श दशत्तिमहिम्ना भुत्येव परीत् गंबर प्रति- पादयन्तीति तत्सद्भाये श्रोती उपमा । तथैव तन तस्येय (पा.v.i 116) दलनेन विहितम्य यतेम्पादाने ॥ तेन तुल्य मुग्नम् इत्यादावुपमेये एव तत् नुल्यमस्य इत्यादी चोपमाने एवं इद च तच तुल्यम् इत्युभयवापि तुल्यादिशन्दाना विश्रान्ति- रिति साम्यपर्यालोचनया तुल्यताप्रतीतिरिति साधर्म्यम्ग आर्थवान तुल्यादिशन्दो. पादाने आर्थी । तद्वत् तेन तुल्यं मिया चेद्वतिः (पा• v. i. 115) इत्यनेन विहितस्य वते स्थिती ॥ In प्रतीयमानमादृश्य the उपमापाचशद is altogether absent Notes to II. 190-192--(1) Compare ii 190 with ii 22. In the latter a fi TT omphatically declares the TITT In tlio former only the 3 is stated and tlie गाधर्म्य is left to be inferred It should also be noted that it 22 mentions a circumstance that can be regarded as उपमानोवर्षहेतु while the जलमरोहि of in 190-by an easy change into 308 and even without it-can constitute an उपमानापार्यहेतु (ii) On ii, 191, which Bhoya quotes, he observes (0237)-अनकान्तामगेक्षशयोः प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोःभूविलासमदरागोतदभावो च विसदृशी भेदकाविति सोय प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोरमहशव्यतिरेक । Notes to II. 193-186-(i) The essence of a सदशव्यतिरेक .consists in the fact that in it what is offered as a or distinguishing characteristic between the start and the उपमेय has in it an element of माश्य The सादृश्य however is sufficiently subdued to allow the Facila to gain hold upon our mind at least in the first instance Bhoja observes on this stanza as follows (p. 305 ) ·1371 Notes [-1. 196 अन मुसाम्भोजयोः फुले सुरभिगन्धिनी इति पदाभ्यामभिधीयमानसादृश्ययो' सहममेव भ्रमद्भमरत्व लोलाष्टित्व च भेदकमुपन्यस्तमिति सोयं शब्दोपातसादृश्ययोः सदृशव्यतिरेक। (ii) The illustration in ii. 194 and its explanation in. ii. 195 have given rise to a serious difference of opinion amongst the commentators, which is partly helped by a difforonco of reading in ii. 195. The reading adopted by us is supported by strong manuscript authority while r's substitution of चन्द्रहमयो- for वियदम्भसा: is hardly motivated, although he remarks-अन पूर्वार्धान्त वियदम्भसोरिति उत्तरार्धान्ते चन्दहंसयारिति पाठो न मनोरम. । It is even doubtful if P. had any Mss. to back him (iii) The conmentaries A and B printed in the Madras odition are at one in regarding ii. 194 as containing two illustrations of सदशव्यतिरेक, one in each urdha, the first being प्रतीयमाना-पथचिन् उनीयमान)माथम्य and the second paral = 1)377), both however being distinct from ii. 193, which is a case of शन्दोपात्तमाम्य The full statement of tho ſiguro according to this view is- पूर्वाध उत्तरार्षे इपमान-चन्द्र उपमान-भम् उपमेय-हंग उपमेय-पयस् प्रतीतमाम्य-शुद्धि प्रतीयमानमाम्य-शौम्य [v.! सोम्य] भंदक-अम्परतोय भेदक-नक्षत, तुमुद भेदकमादृदय-नलिव भेमसाट्य-मनोहारिल Our criticism of this viow is-(i) it is not quite clear why two examples aro nccded: Dandin hardly over introduces an extra sub-variety in this way. (ii) The words gata and 49 are given a rather unusual (iii) The $7715T has to bo extraneously brought in It 14 not likely that where the main point of the illu-tration is the one of tho 7 Dandin would leavo thint to be entirely supplied (is) It Is pot explained why the 1% of tho first crample 110 mado tho 1117 and 4 in the second. It cannot be a mcro accident Lastly.) Why should शुद्धि ba प्रमिस and चोपय or मोक्षा] be अप्रगिल! And in any cass why does ii. 195 first explain the example in the ai sod thon that in thom rather than vico rorsa ? 18HKAryadarity senso ·it 196-] Kūvvadarta [ 138 (iv) A better way of understanding the passage would probably be to regard if If as forming one example of सदृशव्यतिरेफ्तिा with प्रतीयमान(शदानुपात्त)साम्य Thus- उपमान-चद्र उपमेय-हंस शब्दानुपात्तमाम्य-शुद्धि, which ts apprehended irst (प्रतीत) भेदय--नमस्, पय भेदक्सादृश्य--नक्षत्रमाल्तिा, उत्कुष्पमुदत्य, this is apprehended as an after thought Tho only difficulty in the way of this interpretation in the two dual locatives (or genitives) connected by च in 11195 The locatives can be translated by—" between the moon and the hansa, in regard to sky and water, a difference eto' and could be regarded as explative Bhoja, it must be added, favours the earlier interpretation His remarks on this stanza org (p 305) अन पूर्वार्ध चन्द्रहसयो प्रतीयमानसाटश्ययोरम्बरोत्तसत्वतोयभूपणत्ये उत्तरार्धे तु नभ पयसोनक्षत्रमालित्वोत्कुमुदत्वे सदृशे एव भेदक । मोय प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययों सहशव्यतिरेक. . Notes to II 197-198-(1) Bhoja remarks on this illustra tion as follows (p 303)-अत्र योवनप्रभवस्य तमस समोतात्या सह दृष्टिरोधकरमिति सादृश्यमुस्त्वा अरत्नालोक्सहार्यमवायें सूर्यरश्मिभिरिति व्यतिरेको विहित । सोय स्वजातिव्यतिरेक । (11) This stanza 1s made to support the weight of a chronological argument for the priority of Bana's Kadambari over the Kavyadarsa of Dandın-a weight which it 18 too weak to sustain, for, even though the conclusion be sound it should not be supported by an unsound argument Peterson (Dasa humara, First Edı tron, Preface) and Pandit Mahesch andra Nyagaratna before him (AS B, Proceedings 1887, p 193) regard Kavyadarsa in 197 as a reminiscence of Bana. in his Kadambari, (B s sp 102 1 16) केवल च निसगत एव अमानु- भेद्यमरनालोकोच्छेयमप्रदीपप्रभापनेयमतिगह्न तमो योवनप्रभवः। Nothing need hinder us, as far as the two passages alono are concerned, fromn regarding the Kadambari idea as an elaboration of that in the Kárgadarsa More probably the two are quite independent of each other ·139] . Notes [-11.199 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 donial of the cause the main point of the latter turas rather upon the face or imagining of the new cause tor स्वाभाविकत्व) to explain the effect. The name of this figure can be explained as विभाव्यते कारणान्तरादि यस्याम् (the way that Dandin suggests) or विशिष्टस्य कार्यस्य. भावनं यत्र (the way that Bhamaha (ii. 77), Udhhata (P.38), and Ruy. yaka (P. 124) prefer), both explanations of course amounting to the same thing, But it is interesting to note, as an indication of a difference in tradition, that Dandin and Bhamaha give different explanations. We may also mention another fact in this connection that would point to the same conclusion. In the definition of this figure Bhamaba, Udbhata, Vamana Mammata and others use the word for instead of the or हेतु, which is chosen by Dandin. Bhoja, Ruyyaka, Rudrata, Visvanāths, Jagannatha, and others. Pratihārendurāja explains the use of the word fra as follows (p 38)--इह यकिचिन ज्ञायते तत् सर्व क्रिगफलम् । किन्यामुसेन कारणेभ्यः कार्यात्योः प्रातातिरेन रूपेण परिदृन्यमानत्वात् सर्वेषां फलभूतानां किन्येवाव्यरहितं कारणम् । यन च किया प्रतिषिध्यते अथ च क्यिाफलस्योत्पत्तिरुप. दिश्यते नर विभावनाग्योलंकारः! Ruyyaka's comment on this terminology is worth quoting (p. 125)-इह च लक्षणे यद्यप्यन्यः गरणपदस्थाने वियाग्रहणं कृतं तथापीह कारणपदमेव विहितम् । नहि सर्वैः कियाफलमेव कार्यमभ्युपगम्यते वैयाकरणेरेव तधाभ्युपगमात् । अतो विशेषमनपश्य सामान्येन कारणपटमेह निर्दिष्टम् । (ii) The production of an effect without a cause is a violation of the natural law of causation-is a मुटि- क्रमविरोध. As Jagannatha observes (p 435)-विरोधमूला हि निभानायलंकाराः । पिरोधम्या विद्युप्रभाश्वदापाततः प्रतिभागमानस्य नमन्कार वीजवान Vihhivani, however, is to be distinguished fronu the ficure-of-speech called Virodha (ii.333f.) whers the things brought in opporjtion to aach other aro equipotont and are not rolated to cach other by any cauwal relation As the Alainkasasarvasso $*y* (p. 1210-कारगाभान चषकान्त न्यलाता गाया वाचमानलेन प्रनायने न तु मन कारणामात्र इयनोपचारामानुपाणिनागलकारा मेर। To ·in 199-] Kavyādarda 1140 the same effect writes the author of the Sahityadarpana (p 551)-विभावनाया कारणाभावेन उपनिबध्यमानत्वात् कायमेव वाध्यत्वेन प्रतीयते। विरोपोतो च कार्याभावेन कारणमेव । इह सयोन्य द्वयोरपि चाध्यत्वमिति भेद । IVe can in brief say that Virodha is a general name for figures of speech based on contradiction, and that विभावना as well as विराशक्ति are particular cases of Virodha that have been recognised as independent figures (in) The contradiction, involved in a Vibhavana is of course an apparent contradiction which admits of an easy solution by कारणान्तरविभावन or स्वाभाविकत्व विभावन The solution however, ought to be quite easy समाधौ मुलभे titat, as Bhamaha (1177) and Udbhata after him (p 38) observe, and yet at the same time there must be some hind of an actual problem to be solved Thus in the illustration in 200क्षावन्य has two senses पानमत्तता the primary sense, and शर कालननितोन्माविशप the secondary sense Now मुगपान Is not the cause of the रमाहावशेष and so there is no contradiction in the statement that the कादम्बs are अपात भीन Such is the solution or समाधि The difficulty arose from the identification of the secondary sense of affect with the primary sense Adapting the explanation of Jagannatha (p 432) to the case in point we can say-अन यस्य कार्यस्योत्पत्तिनिवध्यते न हि तदीयमारणत्वेनावगतम्य व्यतिरेर प्रतायते । यदायकारणव्यतिरेपथ प्रनीयत न हि तस्य कार्यस्यो पत्तिानबध्यते । क्षावल चान शरत्कारजनितोत्साहविशेष । न तु पानमत्तता । पान च न कानिनमत्तनाया कारणम् । अपि तु वारणाविकार विशेषस्य । तथा च क्थमन विभावना इति चेन । मुख्य हि धावत्व पानमत्तता । गौण च शरत्वालजनितोत्माविशेष । तयोगोणमुख्ययो क्षीवयो सादृश्यमूलन अभेदाभ्यवसानरूपेणातिशयेन मति भैदस्थगने मत्ततामारणमपि पान शरत्कालानो त्साकारण मान । तदभात्रे चार कार्याभिनायाभ्यवमितस्य पाझविशेषस्याप निवधनान विभावनानुपपत्तिरूपा दाप । एव चास्मिनलमारे सूचनापि गायोशे अभेदाध्यवसानरूपातिशयोक्तिरनुप्राणस्तया स्थिता । तथा च आयमा दिपिण्डवदेकी कृतम्य वस्तुन स-शवस्तुत्येकावयवसमधिमारणश्यतिरेक्सामानाधिकरण्येा अपरा दयपणदाय, पयजमान भनि । तरच कार्याश, कारणभावरूपाविरोधिनो बाध्यता येत स्थित न वाधम्तया। कार्याशस्य कत्पितन्त्रात् कारणाभानस्य च स्वभावसिद्धन्वात् । अत एव कार्याशा रूपारेण पर्यवस्यति इति । तथा च प्रकृतस्थले एव निष्पनम् । वस्तुन कारणभेदात् पानादितय क्षाबन्च भिनम् भिन च नरकालगन्यम् । तच्च यादृश्यात् अमदा यवमानेन अभिनभवनि । तथा च पानादिकारणाभाव प शरम यम्य - ·1411 Notes 1 --11,199 विजातीयम्य क्षीवत्वस्य स्थिति सभवत्सर । तस्मात् कारणाभावे क्थ कार्योत्पत्ति इति शमाया नोस्थिति । (iv) Vibharana can be variously sub divided The commonest division is two fold उतनिमित्ता and अनुकनि मित्ता, but we can have more For instance the प्रसिद्धह्तु might be itself bodily negated (स्वरूपत) or there may be a statement of its powerlessness to discharge its function though actually present (व्यापाराभाष as in 11 338), or its deficiency in regard to its qualities and attributes (अवच्छेदकाभाव as in 1 324) or as regards its BESociated adjunct (सहकार्याभाव ) For allustrations and details see Alamkarak3ustubha, pp 311-12, where some of the examples given are, according to Dandin, cxamples of Vzrodha and not of Vibhavana The Kuvalayanandakara gives six kinds of Vibhavana, as under (stanzas 76ff)-- विभावना विनापि स्यात् कारण कायसन्म चत् । आयलाचारमासिक रक्त तचरणद्वयम् ॥ हतनामममग्रत्व मार्योत्पत्तिय सामता । अधरती परठिगनयति मन्मथ ॥ मार्योत्पात्तस्तृताया स्यात् सन्यपि प्रतिवधा। नरन्द्रानव ते राजन् दशत्यमिभुनगम ॥ अकारणात् कार्यजन्म चतुर्थी स्याद्विभावना। शाडसाद्वाणानिनादोयसुदेति महदद्भुतम् ।। विरूद्धात् कायसपत्तिया काचिद्विभावना । गीताशुकिरणास्तवीत मापयन्ति ताम् ।। सायात् कारणसम्मापि दृष्य काचिद्विभावना । यश पयोराशिरभूत कर पतरोस्तव ।। In criticism of this six fold division Jagannatha says (p 434) तस्मादागेन प्रकारेण प्रकारान्तराभामाठीढत्वात् पट प्रकारा इत्यनुप पनमेव । Rudrata (1x 16 21) in a like manner, after laving down that विभावना 16 1 figure of speech based upon stiasty attempts a tliree fold division of it, which is also not distinctive enough More worthy of corsideration is the cl15sification of Bhoja who after giving the two fold distinction of कारणान्तरविभाव and स्वाभाविपत्तविभवना after the manner of Dandin gives a three fold sub classification as follows (lu 100E ) -— शुद्धा विना विनिता च विवि सा निगद्यने । शुद्धा यनेकगुद्दिश्य हेनुरका निवर्नत ॥

·ii. 199- Kavyādarsa [ 142 अनेको यनमा चिना मिचिना यन्त्र तो प्रनि । तयान्यया घा गीर्भद्या विशेष कचिटुच्यते ॥ Vibhavanı is closely allied to Viseshokti and more comment on this figuro will be found in our Notes toil323 Notes to II. 200-202–(i) Bhoja regards those as oramples of शुद्धा विभावना as above dofined His explanation of 11 20018-अस्क कादम्बादिक्मुद्दिश्य क्षीयतादे पीतन्यादिरेका प्रसिद्धहेतु- यावतते हेत्वन्तर च शरत्यभारो विभाज्यते । रोय सुद्धा नाम कारणविभावनायां विभावना | and of in 201 in similar terms-अनेक दृष्टयादिक- मुद्दिश्य अमितत्वादेरनञ्जितत्वादिको हेतुव्वर्यते स्वाभाविकत्व चासिनत्वादि दृश्यादेविभाध्यते । राय शुद्धा नाम स्वाभाविकृविभावनायो निभावना । Notes to II. 203-204-(*) In i 203 thore is no fan of anything There is 10 कारणान्तर and the स्वाभाविरुव 15 शब्दोपात्त We can possibly say that the प्रसिद्धहेतु that is denied is itself futat, but it is a question af Dandin so understands the matter Notes to II. 205-207-1) The following are some of the inore important definitions of Samsohti Agnapurana (345. 17)- यत्रोत गम्यतेन्योर्थस्तत्समाविशेषण । सा समायोक्तिरुदिता सक्षेपार्थतया बुधे ॥ Bhāmaha (u 79) यत्रोक्त गम्यतेन्योर्थस्तत्ममानविशेषण । सा समासोफिरद्दिष्टा सक्षिप्तार्थतया यथा ॥ Udbhata (pogo 39) — प्रकृतार्थेन वाक्येन तत्समानैर्विशेषणे । अप्रस्तुतार्थक्थन समासोक्तिरदाहता ॥ Vamana (iv 33)--- उपमेयम्यानुक्तों ममानवस्नुन्यास समामोक्ति } मक्षपवचनात समा- मोक्तिरिखान्या।

·1431 Notes [-11 207 Ruyyaka (page 84)- विशेषणाना साम्याइप्रस्तुतम्य गम्यत्व समासोनि । Bhoya (iv 16 49)- यनोपमानादेवैतदुपमेय प्रतीयते । अतिप्रसिद्धेस्तामाहु समामोति मनीषिण ॥ सक्षपेगोच्यते यस्मात् समासोक्तिरिय तत । मैवान्योक्तिरनयोतिरुभयोक्तिश क्थ्यते ॥ Mammata (page 741)- परोक्तिभंदके लिये समायोक्ति । Visvanatha (x 56)- समासोक्ति समयंत कायलिङ्गविशेषणे । व्यवहारसमारोप प्रस्तुतन्यम्य वस्तुन ॥ And finally Jagannatha (page 367)- यन प्रस्तुतधामको व्यवहार साधारणविशेषणमानोपस्थापिताप्रस्तुत धर्मिरुव्यवहाराभेदेन भासते मा समासोफि । (11) It will be observed that while Dandın gives for this figure & 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 ufaf1941 TAPINTAT अर्थान्तरन्यास, तुल्ययोगिता and अप्रस्तुतपदामा 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 undor tete designating the latter as अप्रस्तुतप्रशसा Dandin recognises the figure अग्रस्तुतप्रशसा but as he understands प्रशसा as स्तुति and not mere क्थन his definition is not tister See our note toil 340- In the second place whilo Dandın only requires that the two mos be Tat some of the later writers want that thoy should be alike as regards their time and that further these 1999 be paronomastic Ruyyaka & remarks in this connection are quite ez. pltant (p 84)-इह प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुताना बचिद्वाच्यल बचिद्गम्यन्नमिति द्ववि ध्यम् । वाच्यत्व च श्लेपनिर्देगभगया पृथगुपादानेन वेयपि वैविध्यम् । एतद्विविधमपि or fogy ·ii. 207-1 Kavyadaria [ 144 पालंकारस्य विषयः । गम्यत्वं तु प्रस्तुतानिरामप्रस्तुनमयगानिपय अप्रस्तुनिष्टं तु समासोक्तिविषयः । तत्र च निमित्तं विशेषणगाम्यम् । विशेष[प्यास्यापि साम्ये भाषप्राप्तेः । विशेषणगाम्यादि प्रायमानमप्रस्तुनं प्रस्तुतावच्छेदफ्त्येन प्रनीयते । अवच्छेदकत्वं च व्यवहारसमारोप' न रूपसमारोपः । स्पगमारोपे तु अवच्छा- दितन प्रतस्य तद्रूपापिलादेव रूपरम् । तय विशेषणमाम्यं श्लिष्टतया साधारण्ये नौपम्यगर्भयन च भारान विधा भवति । (iii) In प्रनियस्तपमा, नुत्ययोगोपमा, तुन्ययोगिता, and अर्थान्तरन्यास, for one roason or anothor, both the प्रस्तुत and the अप्रस्तुत aro शब्दोपात्त; in समासोक्ति only one of them is present, the second being TT by one of the three modes described at the end of the above quotation We have just referred to Dandin's conception of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंगा. Dandin does not recognise the figure called , regarding which the प्रतापरद्रीय says (p 410)-समासोक्तो विशेषणविशेष्ययोयो- स्पाटानाभावाचलेवाद्विशेष । Lastly the commentators spend much ingenuity in distinguishing एवंदेशविनर्नि रूपक from समामोक्ति, regarding which the following brief statement of conclusion should suffice (Jayaratha, p. 85)-- समायोक्तो व्यवहारगमारोपादप्रस्तुनेन प्रस्तुतम्य वैशिष्टयलक्षणमवच्छेदकत्वं विधीयते रूपके तु रूपममारोपादूपरूपितवार यमाच्चादालम् इत्यनयोर्भेदः । This statement of the caso has however beert much criticlsed We would refer the curious to Sāhityadarpana (p 530), Kuvalayananda (stanza 60, Vriti), Rasagangadhara (pp 373 ff.), Alamkårhaustubha (pp. 254 ff) and Sahityasára, (pp 446 ff) (iv) For sub-divisions of Samāsokti see Notes to li.208 below. Samásokti is liable to a en called अनुपादेयत्व, which Mammata fp 958) thus explains-- साधारणविशेषणपशादेव समामोतिरनुक्तमपि उपमानविशेषणं प्रमाशयतीति तस्यान पुनरुपादाने प्रयोजनाभानादनु गदेवरम् । यथा •पृशति निम्मरमर दरितमच विभिनन । अननुनानपरिमच्यामि रचिरया चिस्यापिदिनप्रिया ।। अनतिग्मरुचे ककुभ च यथा सदशपिशेषणवशेन व्यतिरिशेपपरिग्रहेण च नायकतया नायिकात्वेन च व्यति' तथा ग्रीष्मदिवसाधियोनिप्रतिनायिमान्वेन भविष्यतीनिकि दयितयेति स्वान्दोपादानेन । . - ·145 ] Notes 1-1214 Notes to II 208-213-(1) A detailed classification of this figure is ns follows (cp Alamkarasarvasva pp 88f)- ममासोक्ति शुद्धकार्यसमारोपेण उभयमयत्वेन विशेषणसाम्येन लियाविशेषणे माधारणपणे औपम्यगर्भविशवणे धर्मसमारोपेण बायममारोपेण उपमासवरेण समामेन And this bas been combined (loc ct) with another four fold classification --सर्वत्र चान व्यवहारममारोप एर पीवितम् । म च लोक्केि वस्तुनि रोकिश्वस्तुव्यवहारसमारोप । शाम्बाये वस्तुनि शाम्रीयवस्तु- व्यवहारसमारोप । लोनि वा आधीयवस्तुल्यवहारसमारोप । शास्त्रीये वा लोविश्वस्तुव्यवहारसमारोप इति चतुर्धा भाति । तदेव बहुप्रमारा समासोक्ति । (11) Bhoja gives an independent eight-fold classifica. tion as under (10 47)- प्रतीयमाने वाच्ये वा सादृश्ये सोपजायते । पाघा गर्हामुभे नोभे तदुपाधीन् प्रचक्षते ॥ as also the varnettes called अन्योक्ति, अनन्योक्ति, and उभयोक्ति the अनन्योक्ति (= अध्यासविषया तद्भावापत्ति ) being further disthnguished into शुद्धा and निना (111) Bhoja quotes stanza 11 208 ( = Bhoja iv 48) read ing तुन्यातुन्य for भिन्नाभिन Mammata would regard 1: 209 aran अतिशयोक्ति of the first variety Notes to II 214 - (1) The treatment of artit by Alam karihas falls under two main categories Sono writors look to tho etymology of the word and describe the figure in a general mander as a heightened or hyper bolic modo of expression The main definitions in accordance with this vies are the following Agnipurana (314 20/- कमीमानिमत्तस्य वस्तुधर्मस्य वीर्तनम् । भौतियो नाम राभवामभाइद्विधा । 19 Chevyadars] ·॥ 214- Katyadarti 1140 Bhimaha (11 81) and Uabhata (p 40) - निमित्ततो पचा यत्तु (यत्तु वच Udbhata) रोकातिकान्तगोचरम्। मन्यन्ततिशयोक्ति तामयारतया यथा (युधा Udbhata) ॥ Homachandra (p 264)- विशेषविरमया भेसभेदयोगायोगव्यत्ययोतिशयोति । Vagbhata (p 37) - असुक्तिरतिरायाक्ति। Varana (1v 3 10) - समाव्यधर्मगदुत्व पापनातियोकि । and Bhoja who, besides quoting kivyadarsi 11 214 and 11 220 gives the following extra characterisation of the figuro (av 82, 83) मा च प्रायो गुणा च रियाणां चोपरल्यने । नहि द्रव्यस्य जाते; भवत्यतिशय चित् ।। प्रभावातिशयो यक्ष यथानुभग्नात्मर । अन्योन्यातिशयो य र तेपि नातिशयात् पृथक् ॥ (ii) It is during the process of division and sub division of the possible hyperbolic statements of a thing--the most complete is by forta (Kuvalaya nandavritti on stanza 36) into [रुपकातिशयोक्ति ] भेदकाति कायोक्ति.वधातिशयोक्ति जसरधातिशयोक्ति अम्मातिशयोक्ति चपलाति शयोक्ति and अत्यतातिशयोक्ति-that the later idea of the five fold arfurther as understood by Mammata comes to the fore Some of these later divisi in definitione are- Mammata (p 762)— निगीयोध्यवसान तु प्रकृतस्य परण यत् । प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्यव यद्यर्थोत्तों च कल्पनम् ।। कार्यकारणयोर्यश्च पौर्वापर्यविपर्यय । विनेयातिशयोक्ति सा ॥ Visvanatha ( 47)— भेदेष्यभद मधेसवपस्तद्विपययो । पोदापर्यायय कायहेलो सा पचधा तत ॥ Ruvyaka (p 65) 18 most explict in the matter- अध्यवसाने नय सभवति-स्वरूप विपयो विषयी च । विषयस्य हि विषयिणा तर्निगीणवेध्यवसायस्य स्वरूपात्यानम् । नत्र साच्यत्वे स्वरूप प्राधान्यम् सिद्धवे त्वध्यवसितवप्राधान्यम् । विषयप्राधान्यमध्यवसाये ·1471 Notes -11214 नैव सभवति । अध्ययसितप्राधान्यैवातिशयोति । अस्याश्च पञ्च प्रकारा । भेदेभेद । अभेदे भेद । सबधेसवध । असबर्धे सबन्ध । कार्य कारणपौर्वापर्यविध्वसश्च । Rudrata perhaps marks the middle stage in this pro cess of evolution in as much as he regards are not 88 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) यनार्थधर्मनियम प्रसिद्धिवाधाद्विपर्यय याति । कश्चित् कचिदतिलोक म स्यादित्यतिशयलस्य । पूर्वविशपोत्प्रेक्षाविभावनातहणाधिकविरोधा । विषमासगतिपिहितव्याघाताहेतवो भेदा ॥ Just the opposite of this is the view of Hemachandra who says (p 267)-एवविधे च सर्वन विषये अतिशयोक्तिरेव प्राणत्वेनाव विष्टते ता विना प्रायेणालकारत्वायोगादिति न सामान्यमीलितकावलीनिदर्शनाविशे पायलकारोपन्यास थेयान् । (12) Atisayoktı understood in this extended sense is called allt by Bhamaha in the oft quoted stanza (185)- सपा सदैव वक्रोक्तिरनयाों विभाव्यते। यनोस्यो कविना कार्य मोलकारोनया विना॥ Vakrokti is formally defined by Vāmans (2v 38) at सादृश्याक्षणा the point being-यत्र सादृश्यलक्षणा सहदयहृदयेष्वविलम्बन लक्ष्यार्थप्रतिपत्तिमुद्भावयितु प्रगत्भते तर वक्रोक्तिरलझार इति रहस्यम् । (19) the most modern school as represented by Jagannatha (p 313) and others refuses to recognise the five or more sub varieties for the figure put forward by the Middle School As the Alamkarakaustubha observes (p 285)-उपमानोपमेयस्य निगार्याध्यवमानमेवातिशयोक्ति । प्रसारान्तरे त्वतिरिकालकारान्नरकल्पनमेवोचितम् । न होतचतुष्टयसाधारणमति शयोतिलक्षण सभपनि सकधर्मावच्छिनत्वेनालकारत्व स्यात् । न चैतदयतमत्वमेव मवानुगतमस्ताति वाच्यम् । विच्छित्तिलक्षण्यसत्वेन्यनमन्वस्याप्रयोनम्त्वात् । अन्यथा उपमानरूपरादिकतिषयान्यतमन्च मरगन्यतमन्च वातिशयोक्तिलक्षण विधाय उपमादानामध्येतद्नेदलापत्ते । This school therefore approaches the most ancient school ropresented amongst others by Dindini ·ii. 11-1 kāryadartu [ 146 (v) Bhoja's statement (iv. 82) quoted above probably differentiates अतिशयोचि from कान्ति (i.85); see also our Snuskrit Commontary p. 236 11, 6-12. . Notes to II. 215-216-(i) Verse 215 is given by Bhoja (p. 462) asanexamploofकान्त्यतिशय with the remark-अनवं चन्द्रालोकस्य लोरमीमातिन्मेण याहुल्योपविवक्षा येन तस्मिन् समानाभिहारेगाभिसारिका अपि न लक्ष्यन्ते सायं कान्यतिशयो नामातिशयभेदः ! Hemachandra (p.265) cites this as an example of योगे अयोगः-अनाभिमारिकाणा लक्षणनियायोगेपि ज्योत्स्नागाहुल्योलविवक्षया अयोग उत्तः । Mammeta would regard the example as containing an indepen. dent figure called Alfex or forca ; but Bhoja observes- अथास्य पिहितान् को विशेष । उच्यते । पिहिते चन्द्रातपस्योमणाभिसारिका- निरम्बारो विवभ्यते इह त्वभिसारिवानिरस्कारेण चन्द्रालपोप इति । (ii) The foot-note on p. 237 contains a misprint For सर्वाङ्गीणाई read सर्वाङ्गेणाई for मर्वागीणा : and for Rोमवत्यो In the last line rend क्षोमवन्यो. Notes to II. 217-218-(i) Bboja (p 462) gives this as an example of तनुवातिशय with the remark-अप्रैवं मध्यस्य लोक्सी- मातिरमेण तानवातिगविरक्षा येन तदन्ति नाम्नीति या मंदिह्यते । सोयं तनुया. तिशयो नामातिायभेद.। Notes to II. 219-(i) Bhoja (p. 462) gives this as an example of गुणातिशयेन महत्त्वातिशय and remarks-अत्रे यशोराशे- रशस्यमानस्याप्यतिशयोक्त्या विशेषविवक्षा येन निभुबनोदरमपि संर्णिमाशङ्कयने। सोय महत्त्वातिशयो नामातिशयभेद। Mammata and others re. cognise this as an indeper dent figure-of-speech called अधिव . Notes to II. 220–(i) Bhoja gives other sub-varieties of this igure such as प्रभानातिशय, अनुभवातिशग, and अन्योन्यातिशय or क्रियातिशय (ii) Bhāmala also delivers himself in a similar strain (ui 84)- इत्येवमादिरादिता गुणातिराययोगत । मवानिपोकिनु मर्मागेत का THIगमम् ॥

·149 ] Notes [-11.221 We have already mentioned Rudrata's attempt to regard starry as a fundamentum divisionis for classi- 'ffing figures Notesto II.231-225-(i) Wegive below some of the more important definitions of Utpreksha- Agnipurana (344.24)- अन्यथोपस्थिता वृत्तिश्चेतनस्येतरस्य च । अन्यथा मन्यते यन तामुत्प्रेक्षां प्रचक्षते ॥ Udbhata (p. 43)-- माम्यरूपाविवक्षायां वाच्येवाद्यात्मभिः पदैः । अतहणक्रियायोगादुत्प्रेक्षातिशयान्विता ॥ Bhanaha (ii 91)- अविवक्षितसामान्या किंचिच्चोपमया सह । अतद्गुणकियायोगादुत्प्रेक्षातिगयान्विता ।। Vamana (iv.39)- अनपस्यान्ययाध्यवमानमतिशयार्धमुत्प्रेक्षा। Ruyyaka (p. 55). - अध्यवसाये व्यापारप्राधान्य उत्प्रेक्षा। Rudrata (viii. 32,36)--- अतिसारूप्यादेक्यं विधाय सिद्धोपमानसद्भावम् । आरोप्यते च तस्मिन्नतद्वणादीति सोत्प्रेक्षा। यत्र विशिष्टे वस्तुनि सत्यसदारोप्यते समं तस्य । वस्वन्तरमुपपत्त्या संभाम्यं सापरोत्प्रेक्षा ॥ Vagbhata (p.34)-- अत्यन्तसादृश्यादसतोपि धर्मस्य कल्पनमुन्प्रेक्षा । Tixhhata (iv.90)- कल्पना काचिदचित्याद्यत्रार्थस्य सतोन्यथा । द्योतितेवादिभिः शब्दप्रेक्षा सा स्मृता यथा ॥ Bhoja (iv. 50) अन्यथावस्थितं वस्तु यम्यामोश्यतेन्यथा । द्रव्यं गुणः क्यिा चापि तामु प्रेक्षा प्रचक्षते ॥ llevia chandra (p 217)— असद्धमंमगननमितादियोयो पेक्षा ।

·11 221-] Külyüdarsa [ 150 Vidyanatha (p 383) and ChitramImansa (p73)- यनान्यधर्मसरधादन्यत्वेनोपतम्तिम् । प्रहत हि भवत् प्राज्ञास्तामुत्प्रक्षा प्रचक्षते ॥ Vidyadhara (viil 12- अप्रतत्वेन स्यादयवसायो गुणाभिमपन्धात् । माध्य प्रातस्य यदा यथितोप्रेक्षा तदा तज्ज्ञ ॥ Mammata (p 707) मभावामयोप्रेक्षा प्रकृतस्य समेन यत् । Visvanātha (x40)- भवेत् गभावनोत्ता प्रकृतस्य परात्मना । Jagannatha (p 285)-- तद्भिन्नत्वन तदभावनत्वेन वा प्रमितस्य पदार्थस्य रमणीतद्वृत्तितत्म- मानाधिकरणान्यतरतद्धर्मसरन्र्धानमित्त तत्त्वेन तद्वत्वेन वा मभावन- मुत्प्रेक्षा। And Vasvesvaratp 180)- राभाव्यते सह यदा साम्यप्रतियोगिना तदुपमेयम् । तामु प्रेक्षामाहुर्मिना हेत्वादिविषयत्वात् ।। (11) All these definitions from the simplest to the most elaborato agree as to the essentials The points to be noted aro 1 that it should be : सभावन-अन्यथोत्प्रेक्षण == अन्यथाध्यवसान - अन्यथा क्ल्पन अन्यत्वेनोपतर्कण - असदारोपण, । ०, उत्कटकोटिमसदह) 2 That it should be deliberato or आहार्य and not due to atual error 3 That it should be between things having similarity, and so baged an sunilarity That it should be striking or pictures que 5 And that it should concern itself with the धर्म or गुण and किया or व्यापार of the thing under discussion Regarding this last requirement ratiharendurija observes (p 44)-द्रव्यथम सिद्धो गुण । साम्यस्त्वमावस्तु किया । इद पर विच स्वतन्त्रपरतन्त्रपदार्थात्मकत्यात द्विविधम् । यत्र स्वतन्त्र पदार्थ ग मात्यभिधीयते । तच इद तदिनि गर्वनामप्रत्यवमर्शयोग्यत्वात् द्रव्यम् । परत त्रस्य पदार्थम्य धर्मस्पना । तम्य च वैविध्यम् सिद्धमाध्यताभेदात् । तर य मिद्धौ धम ग गुण यस्तु साध्य सा किया । एतावन्तश लौविका पदाथा मामान्यानीनामा प्रातीतिकेन स्पेगान्तर्भूतत्वात् । (111, Numerous subdivisions of this figure are given by Alambarkas compare Alamkarasarvasra (p 7), 4 ·1511 Notes [-11.225 Rasagangadhara (pp. 283-87), and especially Pratapa. rudriya (p. 386). We can exhibit them in a tabular form thus- उत्प्रेक्षा T वाच्या प्रतीयमाना जातिविषया गुणविपया क्रियाविपया द्रविषया T जातिविषया गुणविषया कियांविषया द्रव्यविषया Further subdivisions of each of these varieties are as under- जातिविषया वाच्या भावाभिमानरूपा अभावाभिमानरूपा गुगनिमित्ता क्रियानिमित्ता गुणनिमित्ता क्रियानिमित्ता T उपात्तनिमित्ता अनुपातनि० उ०नि० अ०नि० उ०नि० अ०नि० उ०नि० अ०नि० The four main divisions of gear are in this way divi. alble into 8 sub-varieties, thus giving rise to u total of 32 varieties under areat. Each of these varieties can be further sub-divided into three sorts thus- उपात्तभावरूपगुणनिमिना जातिविषया वाच्या T. स्वरूपोस्प्रेक्षा हेतू प्रेक्षा फलोत्प्रेक्षा Thus we have वाच्या जातिविपया of 24 varieties : चाच्या गुणविषया of 14 varieties ; चाच्या क्रियाविपया of 24 varieties: याच्या द्रव्यविषया 8 varieties (द्रव्यस्य मागः स्वरपोयेक्षणमेत): प्रतीयमाना जातिविषया of 12 varieties ( निमित्तम्यानुवा- दानं तम्या न संभाति):

·11 225– ) ( 152 Krityarlarsis FARHFT min of 12 TIFgifage of 12 Thai oulara of varieties varieties vgricties Total 120 varieties Illustrations for all these varieties, especially the 7WTZAIT varieties, are not always quotable Jagaa natba's criticism of these manifold varieties is also worth quoting He says (p 295)-- KIT BORT माचामनुरोधादुदाहृता । वस्तुतस्तु नेपा चमत्कारे वैलक्षण्यमस्तीत्यनुदाहार्यतेय । चमत्कारवेक्षण्य पुर्हेतुपरस्वरूपात्माना त्रयाणा प्रकाराणामेर । (1) For the distinction between helt and sealth compare our Note to ti 23 Bhoja however, considers (iv 51) 941 as 3yrrafsy and says that it is not distinct from tal proper His example is विस्थ्यप शेन तस्मा ह्म भरत । दग्पादग्यामरण्यानी पनीर विभावम" अत्र व्यपदशाब्देन किंगुक्तुमुमानामग्निमादृग्यमभिधाय दर्शनक्रिया उत्प्रे यत । This bowover 19 distinct from the 344 varlety roong nised by Dandin (v) As to engga being a compare our Notes to 1 359 . Notes to II 226-234-(1) This famous discussion of the Rendia stanza which has been taken over from our author by most subsequent writers such as Ruyyaka Mammate, Viyanatha Jagannatha eto raises certain side 19 ues 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 Dandın s own composition and he cannot be reasonably supposed to bave been the author of tbe work from which the stanze is taken The next question is to determine the source of the_quotatiop Until the discogery of Bhasa (Daridra-]Charudatts All were content to 1912. the richehhakatihin. as Ibe source for Dandın, but there are reasons 10 suppose that cho Míticbuhbahatika is utselt an elabora tion of the Charudatta (compare a paper on the subject ·153 1 Notes ii. 228 read by me before the First Oriental Conference held at Poona, 1919), and this leaves it an open question 88 to whether Dandin was indebted to Sūdraka orto Bhāsa. Exact grounds are lacking for deterniining the question one way or the other, but so much we have gained by the discovery of Bhās3's plays: we need not any more link the date of Dandin to that of Sūdraka. (or of Bhasa). If Sidraka is to be assignod, say to cir. 600 A, D, and if reasons exist to assign Dandin to an earlier datė, we can do so by making him refer to Bhasa who gives our stanza in Chārudatta i. 19 as well as in Balacharita i. 15. If on the other hand Bhasa turns out to be a ninth-century play-wright (I have seen this only asserted but not actually proved or even made probable) and if Dandin comes earlier, we can still preserve our countenance and make Dandin borrow from Südraka, Dandin here quotes the first balf of the stanza. One of our Mss. quotes the full stanza in this place and gives besides another extra stanza which is noticed in the Chitramimānsă (p 77). The full stanza is repeated also as fii, 362) which we regard as an interpolation (see Note to the stanza). (ii) The word 39 is used in gras woll_as_gen. Compare Note (x) to il. 14. In the latter half of 11. 227 Dandin is actually quoting the words of Patañjali. See our Sanskrit Commentary, (lii)-Tho gey in 11. 228-229 can be thus ozhibited: The stanza Asmara la contains an 371 with 3972–Rafa -2147 i e. 997: Tofia 1 उपमेय तमस् माधारणधर्म-लेपन वाचक-स. AMTIH Meto di 11733 18 muwe mode to perform to fungtions, which is obviously a mistake. (iv) In the above grist the verb Proza was interpreted as Jazzre following the usual practico of the Vaisakaranas or Grammarians. According to tliem 1 20 KIryadarbs.11 ·Now we have seen the subordinate elements जापानमुना mrata II 228-) Kāi jādarg? ( 154 रिम्पनि अमुसस्नुप-अमुस्मा लेपनव्याधार that we cannot make the व्यापार the उपमान Can we make tho simile of the 1977 the and the m2 This is the point con sidered in is 230 The answer is in the negative, for if the व्यापारधन interpretation of लिम्पति is to be retained the ti factors are lost in the principal and can have no independent locus standı This is quite obvious Derto della (v) The urin ii_331 suggests that, following the Nagasikas we should so intorprot the verbre as to QVAR non suborilmate_position to the time of the टेपन दिया In this view लिम्पति-अमुसक्म]त्तिपजनक- उन्नारगतिमान् कर्ता So the proposed उपमा statement is- “पमान-लिम्पतिस्ता or पर उपमेयन्तमस HTETICOTT- नाचन-इच Now the questun 15. ue is the ? YI! the idea is T41 #f-8 967 Uhrin's furqa_31771a festa we obv! nusly can connect with the az along and not with tho 1977 also shoreae, 19.1.matter offaat. Ut seems to buintonded in the stanza as going with both Honce Dandin $318— iria 7 17 (or adopting the varunt which also has good ms authority-97 Inila 779) Turther, the point of similarity betsreon tho proposed to an Izzor, adopting the variant, tho point in which war the sus compared wi h the ATE. the 3180) has got to be extrineo rely supplied_it is not actually sison in the stanza (vi) Can we not, as a possible alternative connect Ta with both the 7am and the St proposed in v nbore and In this manner?- यथा यी पुरण महानि लिगनि lor TOTT) an Stizmal This would obviato the first dificulty of 1277 10. buliha Bo_and diſli culty tall seinains 11e can, it is true concoirably imagine tor como sici characteristic or thopu as the suppos common dharma but it is f17 and ·155 ) Notes 1-11 234 more or less unsatisfactory The common proporty in in ZIAI as Dandın says (11232). ouglat to be evident, which is not the case hore 1 (VII) The proper way to understand the verse is not to regard it as containing an tar but rather an art The poet intends to ascribe to me the character of a STE--the qera or 7197 19 THTP FTCT TAPITAfeft Fara Arteta era*9791 97 us it has been well observed The word g accordingly can be a RE of उप्रेक्षा also (vii) We have said that the line feda etc con tains an aT There are however two possible ways of understanding the We could say that horo # FF-15757177 (which is the startina Tea) *7 Tula 791-37Timesaft? Waafra (which is also 317) तम कर्तृक अङ्गकर्मा पनतादाम्येन सभाव्यते । Or we could say that hore-3157 779141ghafahria (the STATE) व्यापनेन निमित्तेन (this being अनुपात्त) अत्तिफलननफ्लपनानुकूति मक्तृतादाम्येन सभाव्यते । The first is the CT View adop ted by Dandin, Mamniato Visvanatha Appayya Dikshita and others tho second the Tita view coun tenanced by Alankarasarvasva Rasagangadhara and other modern texts The difference does not however seem to be very vital Compare Alakarakaustubla pp 194-195 . (1x) Some Mes give here (aftor 11 226 first half) an extra verse which can be thus rendared- The Ocean by its billowy summits, 18 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 (s) It 19 usual to render I by Poetic fancy Tancy, however is a lighter product of our plastic or creative faculty which generally concerns itself with associutions or combinations of ideas which are re mote, recondite, arbitrary, and unexpected. while Ut ·fi 234-1 Kārvādaria ( 156 prekshå knows of no such limitations At the same time, while a simile is & more or less bustained effort of the imagination to hold two things together in one consciousness with a view to establish a complete picturo, an Utproksbā 18 & passing_suggestion of the intended similarity, which may occasionally be very pioturesque and which, while it lasta. siyos a point of view from wbich the poot wishes us to understand the fact, the quality, or the action described Hence we would render the word by Poetio-Conception. Notes to II. 235–(1) The three figures , #, and at, and in this order, are enumerated by Bhamaha (il 86) who however says-हेतुथ सूक्ष्मो लेशोय नालारसया मत ।, 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 tbree figures by these names aro 134 (u 12 in 21, IV 56) FC (VII 82, vii 98 yil 100), 4147 (p 43), and 1214177 (stanzas 166, 150, 137) Othors recognise one or two of them only, subsuming the remaining under some other figure or figures Dandin illustrates Hetu 11 236-259, defines and illustrates Sukshma in 11 260-264, and treats of Lesa in i 265-272 in (11) Hetu is a poetic cause, and Indian Alamkār! kas recognise a number of figures of speech based upon causal relation These are (op Note (1) to il 2 also)- PT (11 169), FH1971 (il 199), AKIỆN (11 298), fast- Gilera (11. 323). facta (11 348) -amongst the alamkaras recognised by Dandidas also the alamkaras known as wes, BarA, FUTAI, Bèa, fue lafat, 54, FRITTI, व्याघात, अमगति, etc. not to mention alamkaras like दृष्टात प्रतिनस्तूपमा or तुल्ययोगिता (where similarity serves to illus trate as well as to corrohorale) or some sub varieties Irke कारणाक्षेप or Mammatas 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 alamkaras not found in the Kavyadarsa, it is to be noted that th=hted, Dandın preserving the first word for the mu and the second for the_alamkara Writers like Bhoja (in 34, 1v 44). Ruyyaka (p 163, P 189), and Visvanatha (x 86, 96), at 18 true, recognise both wife and while as two distinct alamkaras, but the waifea of the last two writers 18 a UGT, while we have already commented upon Bhoja's Samadhi as an alamkāra (see Note (11) to u 99) About 2 we shall have something to say in the Notes to ii 298, while FRVATH is only the ed with शृङ्खलावेचित्र्य super-added The figure area as recognised by Bhoja (111 18), Rudrata (1x 54), and pe (p 44) comes very near to our author's Art (11 323) The figure काव्यालङ्ग (defined by Manmata as हेतोर्वाक्यपदार्थता) 18 practically the same as Dandin's do whue era is tho game to set forth with the usual arfg and other paraphernalia of a logical inference For the rest compare Notes (1) to (v1) to u 169 The other figures need not be here considered in details See however Notes on faca varieties (m) Daudin las given illustrations for 16 varieties ofe of which 14 are illustrations of ce and only? (viz_u1 244, 11 245) are of the 197_We have already (p 127 above) explarned the distinction between $15 and ज्ञापक हेतु, from which it will be clear that the कारकहेतु (@getal normally precedes the home, while the 31s 19 the logical mark or fee&_tu) which_in_is_most valid from is actually the end of the_3122_(viz. (ata) But a poetic si need not always have that rigorous validity in its sia which logic requires For instance in 11_243 the ATH CYFATYRKIR273 ET 17 Hall Heat-may conceivably bo vitiated in a partioular person who 18 rostless, but not by Tove It is only if the ITF 18 the F19 of the free that the on 15 invariably valik ·ii 235– ) Kāvyādarda ( 158 (19) An er, as we have seen abovo (p 128), involves a साध्यसाधन relation between two things or वस्तु Now although it is true that the most valid form of proof is the one that depends at each stage upon demonstrahlo 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 AU and the TT are related as particular to universal, or vice versa The particular is the rosult of the universal by deduction, while the universal is the result of the particular by induction In hird-477. accordingly, the causal relation between the two statements (even where it is demonstrable) is ignored and attention is fixed upon the FF F tela. tion between them In a e, even in the 3/4 variety, the causal relation is naturally what comes to the fore, and as the two as in question aro normally two particular objects (eg 5 and 9th in u 245) and not two statomants as in an laatst, tho distination between that figure and $197€is generally not very difficult to make 1 given (v) Some important definitions of laro below - Agnipurāna (344.29 32) सिपाधयिपितार्थस्य हेतुर्भवति साधर । कारको ज्ञापक इति द्विधा सोप्युपनायते ॥ Bhoja (111 12)- कियाया कारण हेतु कारको ज्ञापनश्च ग । अभावश्विनहेतुश्च चतुर्विध इहेप्यते । Vagbhata (1 105) गनोत्पादयत चिदर्थ कर्तु प्रकाश्यते। नद्याग्यतायुक्तिरमौ हेनुरुक्को बुधैयथा ।।

·159] Notes [-11235 Rudrata (v1.82)-- हेतुमता सह हेतोरभिधानमभेदद्भवेचन । सोलकारो हेतु स्यादन्येभ्य पृथग्भूत ॥ Vägbbata (p. 43)- कार्यकारणयोरभेदो हेतु । Viswanatha (r.64)- अभेदेनाभिधा हेतु तोहेतुगता सह । Kuvalayananda (stanzas 166-167) — हेतोर्हेतुमता मार्धे वर्णन हेतुरुच्यते । हेतुहेतुमतोरक्य हेतु केचित प्रचक्षते । (v1) Of these definitions while the first two and the first given by the Kuvalayanandakara agree with that of Dandın, in the others is distinctly noticeable an attempt to give a special lazy to the figure besides the mere fact of one thing being the eg 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 वक्रोक्तयभिधान in it at all and this criticism has so much weighed upon later Alamkarikas that even soastute a writer as Jagannatha questions the validity of काव्यलिङ्गन (which with these later writers does duty for a) as a distinct figure of speech The view is thus set forth and criti cised by Visvesvara (p. 340 f.) यत्तु [ रसगङ्गाबरे] काव्पलिन नालभार कविप्रतिभानिर्मित वायुक्तचमत्कारविशेषा मकविच्छित्तिविरहात् । हेतु- हेतुमद्भावस्य लोकसिद्धत्वात् । लगादिसमिश्रण जन्यस्तु चमत्कार श्लेषप्रयुक्तत्वात तदशस्येवालकारता कल्पयति न तु कान्यलिङ्गस्य त प्रयोज्यचमत्कारा तराभावादिति तत्तुच्छम् । लौवि मवेपि कविप्रतिभामागतन्यतया चमत्कारजनकत्वात् । एवमुपमादरप्यतकारत्व न स्यात् सादृश्यस्य वास्तवत्वेन कविप्रतिभारल्पितन विरहात् । (v1) The sixtcon varieties of Hetu illustrated by Dandın are exhibitod in the following Tabular state ment. Bhoja has olaborated Dandin's own scheme adding minor sub varieties ·[-98 ॥ कारक ज्ञापफ 1244,245 भावरूपहेतु अभावरूपहेतु दूरकार्य कार्यसहन कार्यानन्तरज अयुक्तकार्य युक्त कार्य 12551256 11 257 1258 1259 Kāvyādarda निवर्त्य विरार्य ॥ 242 प्राप्य 1243 भावप्रतियागियाभावरूप अनावप्रतियोगिमाभावरूप भावस्पकार्य 11236 अभावस्पकाये 1238 प्रागभावप्रति प्रध्यसा अयोन्या 1251 not illustrated । प्रागभाव 11247 प्रध्वसाभाव ॥248 अन्योन्याभाव 11249 अत्यताभाव 1250 [ 160 ·161 ] Notes [-11 240 Notes to II. 235-237-(1) Bhoja thus explains the illus. tration-मोय यथोक्तो मलयमास्त प्रीत्युत्पादनरियासमाशात् प्रवर्तको नाम कारबहेतुभेद । Notes to II 238-239-(1) Bhoja thus explains the illustration -अवविधस्य पवनस्य पथिषप्रमाधसाधनक्रियाया कर्तृत्वेनावेशानि- वर्तमो नामाय कारकहेतुभेद । (11) In 11 2394 the reading ancrat, as being the lectio clifficilior and as yielding a very good sense has to be naturally preforred to the other variants available Notes to II. 240--(1) The threefold division of Fi here given by Dandın is also to be found in the Vakya padiya of Bhartrihari (ul 45-88, धर्माधिशर), some perti nentatanzas from the section being- निर्वत्यै च विकार्य च प्राप्य च निविध मतम् । तोपिरातत्ग कमै भनुभोन्यत्तु कल्पितम् ॥ ४५ ॥ औदासीन्येन यत् प्राप्त यच तुरनीप्सितम् । सज्ञान्तरैरनाग्न्यात यद्यचाप्यन्यपूर्वकम् ॥ ४६ ॥ मती वा विद्यमाना वा प्रकृति परिणामिनी । यम्य नाधीयते तस्य निर्वय॑त्व प्रवक्षते ॥ ४५ ॥ प्रकृतेस्तु विवभाया विसर्य कश्चिदन्यथा । निय॑ च विकार्य च कर्म शास्त्र प्रदर्शितम् ।। ४८॥ यदसज्जायते सदा जन्मना यत् प्राशते । तनिर्वयं विमार्य च कर्म द्वेधा ध्यरस्थितम् ॥ ४९ ॥ प्रकृत्युच्छेदमभत किचित्काष्ठादिभम्मवत् । किंचिद्गुणान्तरोत्पत्त्या मुवर्णादिविरारवत् ॥ ५० ॥ क्रियाकृतविशेषाणा सिद्धिर्यत्र न गम्यते । दर्शनादनुमानामा तत् प्राप्यमिति कथ्यते ॥ ५१ ॥ विशेषनाम सर्वत्र वियते दशनादिभि । पाचित् तदभिव्यनिमिद्धिशिविधादिषु ॥२॥ यथा चैक्मणदान शा भेदेन दलितम् । तधेकमेव कर्मावि भेदेन प्रतिपादितम् ॥ ७॥ निर्व या वा विकाया वा प्राप्यो वा साधनाश्रय । दियाणामेव साध्यत्वात् सिद्धरपाभिधायते ॥ ७८॥ (1) Professor K BPathak (Ind Ant LI, Oct 1912, p237) has argued that this threo fold division of कर्म- 91 Kirvidarsa?

·ii. 240-] Rävyādarta [ 162 unknown both to Panini and Patañjali-was evolved out of Panini's kūtra I. iv. 49 by the genius of Bhartrihaci himself, Dandia having borraxed it from Bharti hari. No definite proof, however, has been adduced to prove that the three-fold division of was first made by Bhartfihari himself. The fragmentary Berlin Ms. of Bhartrihari's commentary on Patanjali's Mahābbā. shya-the only Als, of the work hitherto discovered unfortunately does not go beyond I. i. 55, and we have no other clea: evidence one way or the other. Secips. however, that Bhartrihari himself, as Kielhoro points out (M. Bh, vol, ii, Preface p. 20), had an extensive commentorial literature before him, it is unsafo to assert in the absence of compelling evidence that a particular doctrine originated with Bhartribari, and to buse upon that assertion other chronological superstructuro. So far as the evidence foes therefore it is not proved that Dandin lived after 650 A. D, tho traditional date of Bhartribari's death. (iii) A नियम is वट in the sentence भत्यः पटं करोति। Here the causal activity consists in the manufacturo of the . and its exact naturo is determined by the object to be produced A Fair is iti in the sentenco मुरर्णमारः मुवर्ण संरसराति Here again the exact nature of tho caueal operation deponds upon the sort of fair or संस्कार effected As distinct from these is the_25. viz. um in the sentonca Hani fa or a gold. Hore thora or ma involves tho samo kind of activity whether its object in or something else. Hence Dandin says that in निर्य and चिरार्थ कमs tho हेतुल्य is 741997; while in arzt it is generally (562.777a giky. Timbag sang a UTAT Tfal wees ways Ca) that only, As a further consequence it follows that in the first two instances other areas (oxpressed by othor F117. cases) are roquired; but they are unnecessary for the last. It will be incidentis noted that insolros tho a or the issuing out of tho TT to its objects, in accordanco with the arm TTTTTT thrors of songc. perception.

·163 ) Notes ( - 241 Notes to II. 241-245-1) In i 242 the forests have been transformed into poison A fare involves & chango of form and quality, the inner substance remaining the same (1) Bhoja has given u 243 as an illustration of what he calls 2017 fenerangat ! For explanation see Sarasvatikanthabharana, p 274f (in) Dandın has given for an illustration that depends upon our understanding the doctrine of SAMT प्राप्यकारिता A straight forward illustration would have used an ordinary verb of motion This he has done un 11 244, only, mere statements like 'birds are repairing unto their nests have no poetry if interpreted wholly and solely as containing the statement of a प्राप्यकर्म Bhamaha orticises such bald or unpoetic statements in the following words (u 87) - गतोस्तमर्को भातीन्दुर्यान्ति वासाय पक्षिण । इत्येवमादि कि काव्य वार्तामेना प्रवक्षते ॥ (1v) Here an interesting chronological question has been raised Is Dandin by his wordsreda (11 2144)-expressing his dissent from Bhamaha's unjust condemnation of the 4, or is Bhamaba criticising Dandın by refusing to allow as poetry what Dandit 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 19 Bhåmahs who is criticising Dandın though it is possible that the verge was one of the floating tradı. tional lines-like many anotherin Patanjala s Mahabhashya-which had been made the object of exposition by several Alamkarikas before them Dandın, we think, gives it as his opinion that the line is unpoetic, and so is not an illustration of 172 wath size But it can be a good na for indicating the time Mammața thus brings out the suggestion about the कालारस्था (P290)-गतोस्तमर्क इत्यत सपल प्रत्यवरन्दनावसर इति अभिसरणमुपमभ्यतामिनि प्राप्तप्रायस्ते प्रेयानिति कर्मरणानिर्मामहे इति माया विहिपकम्यतामिति दूर मा गा इति मुरभो म प्रेम तामिति माोधुग न ·ii 245- ) karyādarta - 164 भवतीति वियपरतूनि मंदियन्तामिनि नागतोयापि यानित्यादिरनवधिय॑योर्थ- स्तत्र तत्र प्रतिभाति । (v) Dandin uses the words cigafa Arza to explain why he has not taken a regular vorb iniplying motion as his illustration for at A mere motion as that of birds to their nests has no 412 if understood as an illustration of a 417 with TFH. But, says he, the instance can be a gooi Illustration for a 14hd After this Dandin proceeds to give a regular example of a ETTY FEU in ii. 245 Similarly Bhāmaha can be understood as criticising the line in question even as the illustration of a ज्ञापनहेतु It then becomes more वार्ता, mere report of tbe weather, and hence void of any alankara. The chronological relation between Dan. din and Bhāmaha 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. 247-27 auram: ATTITRI paifa Frei ii 248-17 कामकथोन्मादगमनादः प्रध्वंमाभावम्य पुण्याश्रमानुसंधानकारणत्वम् (with the variant tar for at ) ii 219-17 galla A a Terregrafi सरेतराभावस्य मन-प्रमोदकारणत्वम् ! 11 250-अनानालोचितचेरितस्यालन्ताभावो fantefiat fafanuitet (with the variants ng for dat and fart. farz: for audi TTİ :). ii 251—37 atau Ser: 91- भावाभाव उच्यते । तेने महामार्गणामु दम्य पथिकनारीणां मरणे कारणवम् । For a moro socurate explanation of the last illustration see our Sanskrit commentary ii. 251. The commentary also gives the other three illustrations not given by Dandin. Notes to II. 253-254-(1) A fee is a violation of the law of Nature Hence Dandin suggests that the viola. tion should not be prominently erpressed but sbould be conveyed in a secondary or subdued tone. Otherwiso it would be a different figure of speech ·165 Notes [11257 . Notos to II. 255-(1) The cxample given involves only स्थलकृतदरता, Bhoja gives also an example of कालकृतरता in the verse parranda etc quoted by us in our Sanskrit conimentary to il 255 (n) Several writers who do not recognise Hetu as a distinct alamkara designate the farmacia between कारण and कार्य as a distinct figure of speech known as असगति Mammata thus defines it (p 869).- भित्रदेशतयात्य त कार्यकारणभूतयो । युगपद्धर्मयोयन ख्याति सा स्यादसगति ।। explaining the point thus in his Vrutti-इह यद्देशं करण तद्देशमेव कार्यमत्पद्यमान दृष्टम् यथा धूमादि । यत्र तु हेतुफलरूपयोरपि धर्मयो केनाप्यतिशयेन नागदेशतया युगपदवभासनम् सा तयो स्वभावोत्पनपरस्परसगति स्यागादसगति । Notes to II 256-(1) A more familiar example of this variety is- समगेव समाकान्त द्वय द्विरदगामिना। तेन सिंहासन पित्र्यमखिल चारिमण्डलम् ॥ regarding which Bhoja observes-मन राज्याभिषेकरिपुमण्डला- क्रमणयोहेनुहेतुमद्भावन स यपि पौर्वापर्ये क्षिप्रकारचात् तुल्यमेव कार्यकारणभावो विवक्षित । तेन सहनो नामाय चिनहेगु । (n) The figure can be confused with सहोक्ति (11352-354) The distinction between the two explained in our Sanskrit Commontary, P 324, lines 8-10 Compare for the distinction between this figure and the Dipaka variety illustrated in ॥ 106 our Note to this last stanza (11) Several fator writers have subsumed this fa variety under alth and particularly that variety of it known as कायसारणयों पौवापयविपर्ययरूपा विषययन द्विविध कार्यस्य प्राथम्येन सहभावेन चेति-as a commentator explains Thus this variety of अतिशयोक्त would include also the next or the कार्यानन्तरज variety of चिनहनु Notes to II 257—(1) Bhoja thus explains the illustration अत्र चन्द्रोदयलक्षणाद्धेतो पूर्वकालमेव गगमागर उदाण इति कार्यस्योदयलाभ मदह गुणात्याश्रयणे हेतावतिशय पुग्यतात्रय कार्यानतरजो नाम पिरनु ।

·il 258-) Kavyādarsa | 166 Notes to II 258-2594(1) The figure called fafaz as recog nised by w (wlio defines it, P 133, as-fararea पत्तये प्रयत्न), by विश्वनाथ, and by most later writere differs from these two parieties, if at all, only in the circumstance that the cor is in that figure supposed to be making a voluntary effort to produce an unsuitable offect When such an effect is produced unexpootedly and disconcerts the agent we have the figures of-speech called Faqe in its several varieties, thus defined by Mammata (p 875)- इचिवदतिवैधान रूपो पन्नामियात् । तु क्रियाफलावाप्तिनवानर्थश्च यद्भवेत् ।। गुणक्रियाभ्या कार्यस्य कारणस्य गुणरिये । अमेण च विरुद्ध यत् स एप विषमो मत ॥ or the figure of speech known as 2017, if the agent of the unexpected or disconcorting result 18 different froin the original agent Cp Mammata (p 911)- यद्यथा साधित केनाप्यपरेण तदन्यथा । तथैव यद्विधीयेत म व्याघात इति स्मृत ॥ (11) Bhoja quotes Kavyadarsa 11 83 as an illustration for the जयुक्त yariety of चिनहेतु Dandın apparontly regards that alamkara in tho stanza as subordinate to the रूपन Probably there is a mixture (ef) of both these figures in that stanza The Bret alamkāra defined by Bhoja 18 (m 18)- वस्तुनो वा स्वभावेन शक्तको हानिहेतुना । अवृतात्मीयकाय स्यादहतुव्याहत्तस्तु य ।। can also be-यथासभवम्--subsumed under Dandin's चित्रहेतु Notes to II. 260-264-4) Ruyyaka, Rudrata Mammata Vagbhata Visvanatha and most subsequent writers recognise Sukshma as a distinct alamkara It is not easy to understand why Bhāmaha found the alambára void of a fi iar Sukahms involves a process of inference but it is not to be confused with artig since the 2 is here subtle and discovered only by shrewd observation of gestures or postures ·167 ] Notes (ii. 267 (ii) A figura-of-speech called fafea and defined in the Fauna (151) as-wed 46191 ISE: HAPETI I is very difficult to distinguish from सूक्ष्म. Tho चन्द्रिनाकार thus formulates the distinction (ibid, p 191) -Fit 21- भिप्रायमवगत्य साकूतचेष्टितेनोत्तरसमर्पणम् । पिहितालंकारे तु गुढं परवृत्तान्तं ज्ञात्वा माकूतचेटया नत्प्रकाशनमिति भेदो बोध्य । Norrnally, however, पिहित is understood differently, Vägbhata (p 43) defines it as-T para FTTE foaftita na rahi Rudrata on the other hand defines it as (ix. 50)- यत्रातिप्रबलतया गुण- समानाधिकरणमममानम् । अर्थान्तरं पिदभ्यादाविर्भूतमपि तत् पिहितम् ॥ Notes to II. 265-267—(1) In ges there is the discovery of the hidden thing, but not disclosure In लश (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 our fi defined by Rudrata (p. 174) as-signar talapot and by Visvanātha (x. 92) as-antenga organa atga: 1 Vamana's definition (iv. 3. 25) -SI FTATUI for is tantamount to the samo thing. (ii) This figure has to be distinguished from arrara (il 301). As will be clear from Dandin's definition of the latter figure (op also Note (iii) to ii 95) he does not regard साम्य as the invariable basis of an अपहुति : and so the usual distinction between these two figures cannot be stated as it is generally stated by commen. tators ---T52Y+6E I 3 (ie (227377 or ) 7 Fra 3:1 We can perhaps formulate the distinction between them by saying that in an ara noither the thing negated nor the thing asserted is maything like subtle or mysterious In the subtlety of the thing constitutes the very essence of the figure (iii) Vapana's example for the figure is my(v I, NRT HAI Fiyata HYTA I 774(v. I. 7) 11 ·il. 267—1 Rāvyadaria ( 168 This is from Bhäsa's Svapnayasayadatts (is. 7) Our example (ii. 267) uses the same ant but under entirely difforent circumstances. Notes to II. 268-272-(i) Writors who define in tho alternative way mentioned arc- Bhoja (iv. 56) दोषस्य यो गुणीभावो दोषीभावो गुणस्य यः । गलेश स्यात् ततो गान्या च्या जस्तुतिरपीप्यते ॥ Rudrata (vii 100) alumat HUTZ ICE a Tora: 1 अभिधीयते तथाविधकर्मनिमित्तः ग लेगा स्यात् । Kuvalayānanda (137) लेश. स्याहोपगुणयोर्गुणदोपवकरपनम् । Vagbhata (p. 43) - कार्यती गुणदोपविपर्ययो लेश। and Jagannātha (n. 512) गुणस्यानिष्टमाधनतया दोपन्येन दोषस्येष्टसाधनतया गुणवैन T: 1 But none of these writers are earlier than Dandin, and it is difficult to ascertain what writers Dandin designates by . Bhīmahs cannot be one of them, as he rejects in both the alternative forms. (ii) Bhojn already has raised the question of the distinction of this figure from regra (ii 343). We have already quoted the view of Appayya Dikshita on the point in our Sanskrit Commentary (p. 269"-- Dandin who recognises both a (No 2) and 15e as distinct figures makes the distinction turn naturlir un murtant. n. , Ture Mix kārakaustubha (p 407 f.) would subsume 19 (No. 21 under tita, an alamkārs not recognised by Dandin. (iii) The fact or pa may at times involve a similarity between things; and Bhoja accordingly gives p. 270%) ·Notes 169] [-11.274 examples involving what he calls a समासोक्ति and also not involving it (see p. 409), For further remarks see Notes to ii. 313. Notes to II. 273-274–(i) Except Bharata, Agnipurāna, Hemachandra, and Alamkārasekhara this figure-ofspeech is recognised by all extant writers Sorme distinctive definitions may here be collected Bhamaha (ii 89) and Udbhata (p. 42) भयसामुपदिष्टानामनामसधर्मणाम् । क्रमशो योनुनिर्देशो यथासंग्यं तदुच्यते ॥ Rudrata (vii. 34)--- निर्दिश्यन्ते यस्मिनी विविधा ययेव परिपाट्या । पुनरपि तत्प्रतिवद्धास्तयेव तत् स्यायधामख्यम् ॥ Vāmana (iv. 3. 17) - उपमेयोपमानानां कमसंवन्धः ऋमः। • Bhoja (iv.797- शब्दस्य यदि वार्थस्य द्वयोरप्यनयोरथ । भणनं परिपाट्या यत् क्रमः स परिकीर्तितः॥ and Mammata (p. 803) - यथासंख्यं क्रमेणेव ऋमिकाणां समन्वयः। (ii) It will be noticed that while Vámana requires that the things mentioned in succession should have between thom a relation of similarity, Bhimaba contrarywiso holds that the things should not be so lated. Jagannatha, as also Hemachandra before him, argues (p 478) that tey should not be recognised as a distinct figure. His words are- यथासंस्यमलंकारपदवीमेव तावद कथमारोढुं प्रभवतीति तु विचारणीयम् । न ह्यस्मिलोकमिद्धे कविप्रतिभानि- मितत्वस्यालंकारतासीवानोलेशतोप्युपलब्धिरस्ति येनालंकारव्यपदेशो मनागपि स्थाने स्यात् । अतोपक्रमत्वरूपदोषाभाव एव यथासंख्यम् । Vamana's requiremeut of similarity would probably supply the element of ajay 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 alarnkāra deserves to be recognised as an independent alankara. re- 20 [Karyadarsa ] ·it 275- Kūvyādarin ( 170 Notes to II. 275-(1) Dandin now defines together a group of three Alamkaras known as TATTIS Bhamaha (11. 1-7) and Udbbata (p 49, generally following Bha maha in his treatment) are alone amongst ancient whiters to recognise these three alamkaras in the sensd in which Dandin understands them Ruyyaka (P 18) Vispunatha (3 95-96) and one or two later wilt to accept these alamkaras and even add to their nuober the alamkaras designated as Samāhita, Bhāvodaya, Bhavasamdhi, and Bhavasabalata (see Kuvalayanandachandrika on stanzas 1697 ), but they have radically altered the nature of these figures in as much as they require that in these figures the , 7, etc ought to be introduced in subordination to another 177 and not prominently and for their own sahe This view was first propounded by the author of tho ATEIS (op u 5, p 71)-- प्रधानन्यत्र वावयार्थे यनाट्य तु रसादय । काव्ये तस्मिन्मलकारो रसादिरिति मे मति ॥ Ānandavardhana's Aloka on this bărika runs as follows -यद्यपि रसबदलाारस्यान्यदर्शितो विपयस्तथापि यस्मिन् काव्ये प्रधानतयान्योर्थो वाक्यार्थीभूतस्तस्य चाभूता ये रसादयस्ने रसादेरलकारस्य विषय इति गामकीन पक्ष । Dandın, Bhamaha, or some predecessor of them 28 porhaps intended to bo alluded to in the kārika in question Abhinavagupta in his 4741214019a to the passage actually mentions Bha maha Our Sanskrit Commentary on 11 275 lines 123 quotes Premachandra's attempt to defend the position taken by Dandin and Bhamans as against the new Bchool (11) We have explained in general way in our Noto (i) to : 18 the nature of Rasa, but it is neces. eary to afford a detailed expozition of the theory of Rasas in all its bearings Poetry consists of two ele. ments words and sense (ignoring the question of their relative prominence) Now there are excellonces and defects belonging to words and to senso and those are treated at great length in the works of the earlier Alamkarikas They were considered as character- ·171 ) Notes (ii. 275 istics inherent in the "body" of poetry. Dandin calls them 3 or life-breaths (i. 42). And as a body can have extraneous ornaments to set forth its natural charm so poetry also had its "ornameats" or alamkāras, these being specific turns of expression or thought which could not be covered by the usual us (and ans). For a time advance in the science of Poetics consisted mainly in an elaboration of the Tus and FTS, their number and mutual distinction. The next stop of importance taken was the formulation of the doctrine of Ofes or styles. It was probably dis. covered that certain schools, courts, or literary coteries developed only specific gunas and alamkāras to the exclusion of others; and as these originally wore confined to definite territorial divisions the stylos cultivated by them got the nicknamos of atzar, ital, 4141, etc. This may have led to emulation which in time degenerated into jealousy and animosity; and the ultimate compromise effected only ended in the doctrino that all the pas had each an element of good and of evil in it. (iii) All this time however no attempt was made to explain why certain Ts or tasks afford pleasure more than others. A mero external labelling and classification was naturally felt to be inadequato in s science of Esthetics. Help was bought at first from tlie sister science of Dramaturgy. The Natyaģistra had led down the Sūtra--forarguqarTE TATI: (Adhyâya ri, p 62, where this ancient theory is quoted and explained). The generating and intensifying factors (भालम्बन and उद्दीपन विभावs) are सीता, शकुन्तला, etc. and 1=1, 345FRI, Aalty, etc. And they produce in 14. 7 etc. in the first place one or more of the 8 alean arrure, which are somewhat involuntary and pbysio. logical in origin, and along with them a number of psychological moods or feelings tbrough which the boro passes. These latter are some of them dominent feelings or Fag of which there are nine enume. rated; and some, concurront feelings or falas of ·विम्मय to अद्भुत fi. 275] Kavyādarta ( 172 which no loss than 33 are enumerated. The tras, स्थायिभावs and व्यभिचारिभावs together inaks up the 49 (50) kinds of भावs, and those भायs, bolonging to राम, दुष्यन्त, etc. (or to the actors representing them), called into existence by definite "factors," produce in the audi. ence by sympathy the nino as or sentiments. This is the thoory of the Nātyasăstra which can be graphically thus presented :- are as produco 8 alfa 3tguas rroiluco 8(9) 8 (9) Fas रस उद्दीपन (in Actor) 33 व्यभिचारिन्छ (in Audienco) The eight as are onumorated in our Sanskrit Com ii, 27575–76, the FIFTHias in ii 27569-59, and white tas in ii. 27569–) Tho eight (or nine) as corres. pond to the nine स्थायिभावsfa to >7577 try to la जुगुष्गा toबीभन्य ETVT to TRT 3FIT to r $to 75 174 to RRIT IAR to sa ] (iv) Dandin is aware of tho existonco of the A theory (cp. I. 51, ii. 280. iii 170, and especially the lagt passage) but he did not know low to organically incorporate it with bia theory of Pootics. Accordingly ho morely gives a recognition to tho ty theory hy introducing a now variety of 37TITS for cases whero tho 778 for their own sake word pro-ominantly devoloned in a pocin which was otherwise devoid of thio usual गुणs or अलंकार Thom comes in for rocognition also in connection with Dandin's treatment of high (i. 31). This was merely borrowing a feather from the sister science. Rasa is of thonature of an inner consciousness (hence called IT), and it is evident that it can be folt oven in poemy not containing tho 1174 alamkara. Somo Alamkarikas, as wc saw, triod to get out of the problom by recognising ATI alamkars only in those cases whore the ti is folt ns boing Rubordinated to the #17tů proner. (v) Tho real solution of the matter camo from the srainmariang If poetrs consists of morda haring *pircific sense (ur words and senac), it is necessary to ·ben80 1731 Notes - 275 detormine at first the varieties of sense or 37 There 18 the expressed senso or tho and the figurative or indicative sense or लक्ष्यार्थ In the stock instanco Et moans literally and primarily the stream, which is the atzer But in statements like it ar the word must mein not the stream but the bank This is the secondary significance of the word or its a Now why should a person be prompted to say 1991 instead of गजातटे ग्राम Clearly there nmust be a प्रयोजन (ignorans for the moment the feu cases where overpowers at), and this was discovered to be the intention to bring out the शेय, पाननल and othor qualitics inherent in the art by roason of its proximity to the stream The 7 of a GTVT is therefore the 59 In cases like the above where the app and the senses can be clearly distinguished from the 754 conse there is no difficulty of any kind But there are cases where the व्यय 15 अमलक्ष्यकम where the state ment as a whole brings in a subtle suggestion without our being able to locate it as resulting from some spe cific word or words and all the could now come in under the 3THES (vi) One inevitable consequonce of the share which the grammarians had in the formulation of the en theory was the adoption of their fits theory by the Alankarikas Anandavardhana in his birt (p 47 48) clourly recognises this indebtedness He says-प्रथम हिं विद्वासो पेशाकरणा व्यारणमूमन सांविद्यानाम् । तेच श्रूयमाणा वर्ग ध्वनिारति व्यवहरति । तथैवा यन्त मतानुसारिमि सूरिभि कान्यतत्वार्थदर्शि भिवाच्यवाचकमंमिश्र शब्दामा काव्यमिति व्यपदिश्यते व्यजकत्वसाम्यावनि- रित्युक्त । In other words- वया• call शब्द = ध्वनि as being the व्यन्जक of स्फोट (to which I sounds are subordinate) आल. call शब्दार्थ- ध्वनि as being the व्या of व्यगय (to which the area sense is subordinate) This means that there is no 39 but only an arrangi of the रम That is to say, the gestures and move mnants of tho actor can prevail over you only if you are Ary and havo once experienced feelings and emo ·( 114 il 275- ) Rāvyādarta tions answerable to those depicted or enacted The Alamkarikas who followed this view of the case naturally kuve no independent place to THR and other Alamkaras If Mammata in one place (Ul'ass 1 p 23) mentions the TIFF II 18 HTAZHIT paratatsutaa, as & commentator explains it (v11) If T. (or TZIE) be the body and qus the lifebreaths of poetry, the question-what is the soul of poetry-which is naturally suggested by the metaphor is answered (1) by Vamana (1 116) as a fatica #THET, (ii) by the ध्वनि school (धनिसारिका 1) as काव्यस्यात्मा पनि and (11) by Visvanatha (1 3) as 17 THAT THE On this point compare Notes to 1 10 The question can havo only an academic interest once we have roalised the function of रम,रीति or ध्वनि In poetry (vu) How TT is produced in the heart of the EU 1915 its exact modus operuntı, bas given rise to & number of divergent views which it would take us too for afield to discuss hero in detail Consult on the quostion PT1T P 69, Mammaţa, Ullása iv. pp 101-111, and Rasagangadhara pp 22-31 (ix) Tho distinction between प्रेयम्, रमवत् , and ऊर्जस्विन् can be thus formulated If tho 50 7173 described above (Note 111) are any of them produced by certain fantes the nature of which prevents the manifestation of a corresponding full-fledged r in the audience or the render-when for instanco, the FYTITRE called this produced not by some lady lovo but by गुरु देर नृपति, पुन, etc --we have an incompleto 7 or rather THATTIERIT. which gives rise to TT The alamkāra is gometimes called भारासार also-cp अनारमईस्व p 189 A रगान alankara of course exhibits the विभाव, अनुभावs, and atas in regular scquonco As Bhimaha kay: (11f 6) UTFW RYT! Finely 0.7 t ex W: s inchoato Rasa (ag in Preyas) or a full fledged Rasa (as ID Rasr vat) but the manner of extoriorisation adopted is art77 is I Am is in flagrant opposition to tho normol or the convectional, purposely with a vion to stamp ono # own individuality upon it Ihus in the ·175) Notes il 278 example given (11 293-4) to allow on onomy hemned in battle to depart is what is unexpected, but the hero doos it owing to his over-tyeening self confidence Notes to II 276-277-(1) Tho samo erainple is given by Bhamaba ni 5 On also our Note (in) to u 37 The verse seems to be an adaptation of the last verse in the 92nd Adhyays of the Udyogaparvan It is difficult to ascortain whether the adaptation was the work of Bhāmala or of Dandın or of an unknown predecessor of both The example illustrates the giai of विदुर for श्रीzrm and also of श्रीकृष्ण for विदुर Notes to II 278-279-(i) The example illustrates the ata on the side of the King alone The yargalesat gives us this information about the King-apat 77777 rajare_ पतिरत्सन्ताशिवभक्त । सोगि दिग्विनयवशेन कैलास प्राप्त पाशुपतमन्त्रेण पशुपति त्र्यम्बरमाराध्य 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 genoology is almost nil Dandın 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 Dandın in u 114 mentions a city with a name of 5 vatnas, the middle one being a nasal, where rule kings with a name of 8 quis Here although the city could be asit or as (the capital of ancient Korala) as well as wat (Coojeeyeram) the capital of the Pallayas, yet the name 71 consists of 8 quis (in cluding the visarga) wlule the Kerala hings cvcn adopt ing their ancient local name of 'Cheraladando not give the required number of varias In the present state of our kropledgo therefore Dex lon seems there defipitely alluded to the Pallasis of hanchi and the temptation to regard aga as 1 Pallrva king is irresistible Unfortunately, in the published names of the Pallava kings there 19 none of this name but if the variant 1994 is adopted we can identify hum ·1279-] Küm id iron [ 176 with नरसिंवा II who had राजमिवर्मा as his other name Narasimhavarman s dats is A. D 690-715 (seeG Jou. vesu Dubreul, Ancient History of the Deccan p70) and he is described as a devout Saiva and as a builder of several Siva temples including the noble Kailāsa. natha temple (Indian Antiquary for 1912 p 90 92) Hiuen Tsang who visited Kanchi in A D 640 during the reign of Narasimhavarman I (630-668) affords some testimony for the triumph of Snivism at the time (11) In partial variance with this we have the testimony of the Ms of अवतिसुदरीस्थागार (Report of the Part patetio Party of the Government Or Mss Library, Madras, for the years 1916-19 Ms No 194) which connects Dardın s grand fat: er with the Pallava hing Simhavishnu (575-600) thus mahing Danhin a contem porary of Narasimhavarman I (630 668) The portinent verses from the poem (copied down on the occasion of the laret Oriental Conference in Poona where the Ms was amongst the exhibits) may here le given - स्ति प्रासादविस्तारग्रस्तव्योगातरा पुरी। काशीपुराग्या कल्याणी कुभ युम्भमन ॥ तस्यां न युधयातध्वस्तापिरविपणन ! ल्वेषु महीपाल सिंहविणरिति श्रुन ॥ भरपूर्वा गस्त सभामटमे।। उदगति मनीपारमुपवीणार्यया ॥ श्रोगमन्युटाराथों पर पाप । जनवीन नेयं निर्मिना पनि । न्त्युपिगि प्रन्यूपे गधरन पने वरम् । रामनामदेर मोतरे। आयोगशिपारनामन् यहलो दिना ॥ तनामिना शक्ति को माननगन तम्या पारायण मिशाना नारायणीरा। नामोरगति धीमा ॥

·1771 Notes [ -1279 स मेधावी कविर्विद्वान् भारवि (वि) प्रभव गिराम् । अनुरुयाकरोन्मेनी नरेन्द्र विष्णुवर्धने ॥ - तस्यान्तिके वसत्येष तेनार्ययमुदीरिता ।। इति श्रुत्वा महीपालस्तदालोकनलोलुप । नृपनि धनिर्दिष्टे प्रकृष्टविभवे गृहे । वहत पैतृकी वृत्तिं तस्यासीत् तनयनयम् ।। मनोरथाहयस्तेषा मध्यमा वङ्गवशग (१)। ततस्तनूनाश्चत्वार स्रष्टुर्वेदा इवाभवन् ॥ श्रीवीरभद्र इत्येपा यवीयानस्य च श्लाघ्या गौरी नामाभवत् प्रिया । तत कर्थ चित् सा गौरी द्विजाधिपशिखामणे । कुमार दण्डिनामान व्यक्तशक्तिमजाजनत् ।। स वाल एवं माना च पिना चापि व्ययुज्यत । अयुज्यत गरीयस्या सरस्वत्या श्रुतेन च ॥ सविक्रिये पुरे तस्मिन् परचक्रोपरोधत । स चचार शुभाचार सर्वामुवाँमुदारधी ॥ अथाहूत क्षितीशेन प्रशा तोपवे पुरे । स्वमुहृद धुमायस्थ स भेजे निजमास्पदम् ।। Tho story goes on to mention a visit which Dandin subsequently pays to the templo of Visbnu in Mah.. mallapuram in Keral country adjoining tho sca-- महामपुरे देव स्वेर वारिधिसनिधो । आस्ते मुकुन्द सानन्द फणीन्द्र इव मन्दिरे ॥ (in) We need not of course take all the gossiping tales in the 2 as sober history but the present story has some verisimilitude about it Dandia Is here made a contemporary of Simhavishnu's successors Mahendravarman I (600-630) and Narasiniha. varman I (630-668), the first of whom is famous as the king under whose orders were constructed tbo remarkable monolithio temples known as the 'Seven Pagodas' at Mamallapuram (see Smiths Early History, 3rd ed the trouble hunted at in the last vorse above quoted is therefore probabis tho invasion of the Pallara 23 (Kavyadursa) p474) ·11 279–) Kūryādarsa (178 country by the Chalukya monarch, Pulakesın II, about 600 or 610 Pulahosin was victorious at first, but was later defeated by Narasimhavarman I in 643 A D Malendravarman is reported to have been a Jain originally, and to have beon converted to faith in Siva by a famous Tamil saint If therefore ne can imagino that रानवर्मन् !s a postic varnant for महेन्द्रवर्मा or that bore maar as an additional name, we have here all the ovidence that we can expect from tradition for placing Dandin at the court of the Pallavas of Kanchi in the first half of the 7th century And as the Pallava power was at its height during this very poriod, their kingdom might have at this time included the old Chera or Kerala country We may add that tho king Vishnuvardhana mentioned in the earlier part of the extract can bo the princo Vislınuvardhana who founded, about A D 615, the line of the Eastern Chalukyas Anandapura the city I am unable to adontily (1) The eight forms of manifestation mentioned in 11 278 are of course the same as tho erzar e or A alluded to by Kalidasa in the benodictory verse of the Sakuntala Notos to II 280-281--(i) Dandin is now going to go in succession thic illustrations for 777, a soparato one for each रस (1) Our M« N, in a different hand, giros the marginal note ldentifying अवती with यासरदत्ता Vása vadatta was an Avanti Princoss, comparo Synpnavāsavadatta An intcrosting question is to determino whothor Dandın is referring to Bhisa Definito indications ato tinfortunately lackin The pretended burning of Vasayadattá at 1.443naka is an old story not inyonted by Bbása Biany dramatists besides Bhusa bave work. ed on the theme Ta pabavatsarāja is & play later than Ratuivalı (see the account giron by Hultsch in Nach KG14 Gott 195, Ablunnvagupta in his Natya. 1 dayısriti (Madrus Ms , Tulall, p 11) epears of a play ·179] Noleg [L-286 of Subandhudealing with the story of उदयन and वासवदत्ता His exact words are-तनास्य बहुतरम्यापिनो बहुगर्भस्वप्नायिततुल्यस्य नाट्यायितस्योदाहरण महाविसुवन्धुनिवद्धो वासवदत्तानाट्यधारारय (?) समस्त एर प्रयोग । तत्र हि विन्दुस्वर प्रयोज्यवस्तुत उदयनचरिते सामाजिरीकृतोप्युदयनो वासपदत्ताचेष्टिते तन ह्युदयने सामाजिकीकृते सूरधारप्रयोग-तवसुचरितैरेव जयतीति । तत उदयन-कुतो मम सुचरितानीति सास विलपति । From this it appears that this particular play made use of a playwithin the-play in the dénouement There is also. newly discovered play called Vinavasavadatta (१) affording analogy in construction with the Bhasa plays Besides there are the arc 19 dealing with the story of Vasavadatta which were probably known even to the author of Vyakaranam thabhashya (see Kielhorn's ed vol 11, p 284) which however could not have contain. od a verse like the one given by Dandin Secing that Blasa s Swapnatasavadatta does not contain the pre Bent verse, It 18 perhaps possible that Dandin 1s hore alluding to the unknown play of Subandhu referred to by Abhinavagupta or to some other unknown work (m) In the variants to 11 280 read- 'R, B, सैषा तन्यो P, Rn, instead of 'P, R, B '. (iv) The following quotation from Abhinavagupta's Natyavodaviyriti (Madras ms p 201) 18 worth noting- चिरतनानां चायमेव पक्ष । तथाहि दण्निा स्वा(रसा)-काररक्षणेभ्यधायि- रति 2ङ्गारता गता रुपाट्ययोगेनेति । अधिव्य परां कोटि कोपो रोदात्मता गत इत्यादि। Notes to II 282-285-1) The stan719 1 28, Indin 284 aro appurontly of Dandın s own composition, and the samo explanation might have Icen available in the case ofi 280 niso Notes to 286--(1) Ille stanz! | undoul tells reminis. cont of Ruhusama vai 57 समान गृद्यत यदद्वतम् । तदिदभियो।चद वामोर रितारोहणम ॥

·ii. 287-] Kívyādarso ( 180 Notes to II, 287-291--(i) It is difficult exactly to perceive the point of ii 290. Possibly got is not to be construed with 2 but rather rofors to certain denizens of heaven that are the topio on hand The poet is struck to find all their wants answered by a mero tree. Notes to II, 292-(i) Having introduced as constituting the essence of a variety of Alamkāra as well as of guna, Dandin guards against the possibility of overy माधुर्यगुणवत् काव्य necessarily containing the रसवदलंकार, and vice versa. In my the emphasis is primarily upon 39Fuar. (ii) Dandin apparontly recognises only 8 777s, ignor. ing शान्ति, the ninth This is in conformity with the older view; comparo ATZT1 vii. 98. Notes to II, 293-294-(i) Udbhata thus defines 59 (p. 51) अनौचित्यप्रत्तानां कामशेधादिकारणात् । भायानां च रसानां च यन्ध ऊर्जस्विक्ष्यते ॥ A good example of it is Málatimādhava ifi. 12- धत्ते चक्षुर्मुकुलिनि रणकोकिले बालनूते मार्गे मान क्षिपति भकुलामोदगर्भस्य पायो। दाप्रेम्णा सरराविसिनीपनमात्रोत्तरीय- स्ताम्यन्मूर्तिः श्रयति बहुशो मृत्यवे चन्द्रपादान् ॥ where Midhaya tho desporate lover seeks the vors objeots that ordinarily lovers would carefully avoid, he being regardless of life and callous to all puffering. Notes to II. 205-287-(i) Vamana is the only other writer besides a who does not recognise qi Bhoja and Rudrata designate it as simply agih, a name which somo writers reserve for a distinct alamkara not recognised by Dandin A few leading definitions are here assembled- Agnipurana (31518) and Blåmaha ( 111. 8) पर्यायो गाम्येन प्रकारेणागिनीयते।

·181] Notes [-1 297 Udbhata (p 51) adds the extra line- वाच्याचरत्तिभ्या शन्येनावगमात्मना । Rudrata (vlt 42) वस्तु विवक्षितवस्तुप्रतिपादनशक्तमसदृश तम्य । यदजनकाजन्य वा तत्वथन यत् स पयाय " Bhoja (14 80)- मिप यदुक्तिमनिर्यावसरो य स सूरिभि । निरामाक्षीय साकार पर्याय इति गीयते ॥ Ruyyaka (p um)- गम्यस्यापि अद्यन्तरेणाभिधान पर्यायोक्तम् । Mammata (Ulasax p 828)- पर्यायोफ विना वाच्यवाचस्त्वेन यद्वच । Vagbhata (iv 108)— अतत्परतया यत्र कल्प्यमानेन वस्तुना । विवक्षित प्रतीयेत पर्यायोक्तिरिय तथा ॥ Vagbhata (p36)- ध्यनिताभिधान पर्यायोक्ति । Hemachandra (p 263)- व्ययम्योक्ति पर्यायोक्तम् । Prataparudriya (p 446)- कारणं गम्यते यत्र प्रस्तुनात् कार्यवर्णनात् । प्रस्तुतत्वेन सवर्द्ध तत् पर्यायोत मुच्यते ॥ Ekavali (viii29)- यन व्ययस्य सतो हेतो पार्याभिधानभदीभि । स्यादभिधान पधिय पर्यायोक्त चिदुस्तादिदम् ।। Sahityadarpana (r 61)- पर्यागोत यदा भद्या व्यपगेवाभिधीयते। Kuvalayananda (G7)- पर्यायोक्तनु गम्यस्य वचो भायतराधयम् । And Jagannaths {p 409) तितरमार्थम्य भागनरेग प्रतिपादनम् ।

·( 182 11297-1 Kavy idaršu (ii) Most of the definitions (except those of Bhā maba or Bhoja) contemplate the necessity of listin. guishing an ordinary caso of 2771 from gyfater Thus T9791 918 18 a round about way of saying that tlie git 8 cool and holy, but it is a case of pure era or suggostion, and not an Instance of 927111 Why ? Dnndın, Bhamaha, and tho carlior writers would answer that there is no poetic pretext (147, FT) that makes the periphrasis peculiarly charming Writers who adopted the fa theory would reply that if the sentonce 19 uttered merely with the primary purpose of telling us just the location of tho village, and consequently if the 14 and 1962 come in only by way of a back door euggestion, thon it is not pa If, lowover, the direct object of the apesher were to tell us that the IS शल्यपावा विशिष्ट, and if the writer merely says गया ग्राम or evon STAR alt with an emphasis on 6 tho case does not differ from an ordinary qiga except that the instance is 446 fast or unpoctic rerhaps In other words in पर्यायोक्त the व्यायाध (शेत्यादि) is itself the areret or primarily intended, though it is not conveyed as a arezref, but only TFT Mammata moans the bame thing when he writes in line Vritta-alaza 47779252 Het i Compare also the rate on the passage ~47 na 474 Fargefraid put उत्तेचित्र्यमिति न ध्वनित्यम् नागि गुणीभूतव्यन वन्यम् । (ui) Ruyyaha Vidyanatha and Vidyadhara go a step further They not onis require thrt tue 791T should convey the for the 1967 sense prinarily but also that the exact mode or 7TC of conveying it be by describin, the effects of it, or the cause of it or by an analogue of it-the last two inodes being ra cognised by Jagannaths Compare the Rasagangadhara (p 415) FRITT F9C FIO | FURI TPA वचित् कायण सारणस्य वरिटुभयोदासीनेन माधिमात्रण ममि नस्य नेति Tagyar ! This last is a limitation of the sphere of the figure which is not generally recognisel. (10) Paryzjohta along with two or three (ther alamlar48 has played in the lands of Bhamaha and ·183 ] Notes [-1 299 others the same role that was subsequontly assigned to safat Jagannatha (p 415) obsej ves on the point as fol. lows- वनितारान् प्रमान महोद्भरप्रभृतिभि स्वप्रथेगु कुनापि वनिगुणी भूतव्यद्वयादिशब्दान प्रयुक्ता इत्यतावतेव सैध्ययादया न स्वीक्रियत इत्याधुनि शाना थाचायुक्तिरयुक्त यत समायोक्तिव्यानस्तुल्यग्रस्तुतप्रशसाद्यलकारनिरूपणन क्यि तोपि गुणीभूतव्यद्गथभदास्तेरपि निरूपिता । अपरथ सपि व्ययप्रपञ्च पायोक्तकुक्षो निक्षप्त । न ह्यनुभवसिद्धार्थो वालनाप्यपह्न तु शक्यते । ध्वन्यादि- शब्दे पर व्यवहारो न कृत । न तावतानगीकारो भवति । (v) The sense intended to be conveyed and the sense actually expressed by the words used in a Paryayokta (as Dandın understands the figure) are both of them jga but they are not thorefore of co ordinate or equal importance and there is not be tween the two any relation of er etc, as there is m Samarokta (anoluding under the figure अप्रस्तुतप्रशसा as dofined by inudern writers-see our Note (11) to 1 205) Hence समामाक्ति and पयायोक्त are adequately differentiated from one another (v1) Bhoja gives (p 457 मया विमुक्ता बहिरव वलकी ब्रजेदवग्यायणैश्च साईताम् । दत तटेना करवै निचोलो कयाचिदव मिपतो विनिर्यये ॥ as an exemple of निराकारक्ष पर्यायाक्त because there is the express statement that the friend left the room under the pretext of jutting bao tholulointo its case Our verse 1 296 110 quotes as an example of the Alfrer Variety Notes to II 298-299-(1) Seo Noto (11) to 11 235 Bba rata Agnipurana Bhamaha Ub lhatz Rudrata and Hemachandra do not recogn 180 the alamkara at all Ruyyala Mammata Bhoja Visvanatha and Jagan natha designate it as समाधि making समाप्ति रमालकार defined by Udbhata (p 52) as- रसभावतदाभासवृत्तै प्रशमव धनम् । अयानुभावनि शून्यरूप यत् तत् समाहितम् ।। Blamala s illustration from Rajajnitra (1 10) points to a similar conception of the alamkara Vanaan ·11. 299-] Ruvyādarta 184 makes a A new category altogether in as much as he defines it (iv. 3. 29) as-यत्गादत्रं तन्गंपत्तिः समाहितम् illustrating it by the verse तन्वी मेघजलाईपवनया etc. from the Vikramorvasiya, Act iv, with the remark-अत्र पुरूरवमो लनायामुर्वश्याः सादृश्य राहतः मेव लतोशी मंपन्नति । Ruysakn defines the figure as-कारणान्तरयोगात् कार्थम्य मुफरवम् and quotes Dandin's example ; and Mammața does the same thing. Finally Jagannatha gives the definition in these words-एस्कारणजन्यस्य कार्यम्याकस्मिाकारणान्तरममवधानाहित. सौर्य समाधिः। (it) Tho figure-of.speech known as gur (not recognised by Dandin) involves also a number of co. operating causes, and the distinction betweon समुचय and समाधि (i.. समाहित) is thus formulated in the Alamkarasarvasva (p. 161)-इयत्र] होकस्य कार्ये प्रति पूर्णे साधकत्वम् अन्यस्तु कार्याय काक्तालीयेनापतति तत्र समाधिश्यते । यत्र तु गले कपोतिकया बहूनामवतारस्तवायं समुथयः। To the game effect also Jagannatha (p 490)-समाधो हि एकेन कार्य निष्पद्यमानेप्यन्येनाकस्मिकमापतता कारणेन सोकादिरूपोतिशयो यत्र संपाद्यते स विषयः । अस्मिस्तु समुशयप्रभेदे यकवाय संपादयितुं युगपदनेके सले कपोता इवाहमहमिकया संपतन्ति कार्यस्य च न काप्यतिशय सः। (iii) Bhoja distinguishes between different variaties of this figure according as the महायाप्ति is दैवकृता or अदेवकृता, and according further as each of those is 311 or बुद्धिपूर्वा Dandln's example hc gives as आकस्मिकी देवकृता सहायाप्तिः। Notes to II.300-303-(1) Most writers who recognise उदात्त are agreed in giving two varieties of it similar to those of Dandin. For instance, Bhāmaba (iii, 11-13)— उदात्तं शक्तिमान् रामो गुरुवाश्यानुरोधगः । विहायोपवनं राज्यं यथा पनमुपागमत् ॥ एतदेवापोन्येन व्याख्यानेनान्यथा विदु.। नानारलर्षियुक्तं यन् तत् किलोदात्तमुप्यते ॥ Udbhata (p 53)-- उदात्तमृद्धिमद्वस्तु चरित न महात्मनाम् । उपलक्षशना प्राप्त नेतिरत्तिन्वमागलम् ।।

·1851 Notes [-1 304 Ruyyaka (p 183-184)- समृद्धिमद्वस्तुवर्णनमुदानम् । अगभूनमहापुरुषचरितं च । Manmata (r p 831 ff)- उदात्त वस्तुन सप-महतो चोपरक्षणम् । Viswanatha(r 94f)- लोमतिमयसपत्तिवर्णनोदात्तमुच्यते। यहानि प्रस्तुतस्याङ्ग महता चरित भरेत् ।। (11) Some writers refuse to recognise the figure Thus Hemachandra observes (2293)-उदात्त तु ऋद्धिमद्वस्तु- लवणमतिशयोक्तानेर्वा न भिद्यते ! महापुरुपवर्णनारूप च यदि रसपर तदा पश्यि । It will be noted -and Udbhata lays it down AS A distinct condition that the targttarta must be 10- troduced only subordinatels As Pratihárenduraja ob. serves (p si)- न गवत महापुरुषचेष्टित वाक्यता पर्यगोचरतागनुभवति। अर्थातर परवणपर नात् । यन च रसास्ताप्तणावगम्यते तन तेषा पास्य- विधानिस्थानमेन चतुर्वर्गतदितरप्राप्तिपरिहारोपायभूतम्थायिभाउपरियोपा मनास्वा द्यमानत्वाद्रमरदलकारो भाति । This disposes of the second objection of Hemachandra and serves to distinguish उदात्त from रसात् (iii) The उदात्त which is विभूनिवर्णनपर Is not mere स्वभावाक्ति op Note (in) to 11 9 13 The Alamkarasarvasva also distinguishes उदारा from भाविक (अतीतानागतयो प्रत्यक्षायमाण वम् ) but this last is understood by Dandın in quite a dis tinct sense (cp 11 364 ff) The words of Ruyyaka are these (p 181f)-स्वभावोक्तो भाविने च यथावद्वस्तुवर्णनम् । तद्विपक्षत्वेन आरोणितपरत्वामन उदात्तस्यावसर । तत्रामभाव्यमानविभूतियुक्तस्य वस्तुनो वर्णन पविप्रतिभोत्थापितमेवर्यलक्षणमुदानम् । Notes to11 304-(1) A few leading definitiony of Apa hnuta are given below- Agnipuran2 (315 18) same as Dandin Bhamaha ( 120) And Udblata (p 9)- अमढतिरभीष्टा च प्रिनिदतर्गत पमा । भतापहवादम्या क्रियते च मिधा यया ॥ [निवध नियते बुधै | Uabhata] 24 [Kavyadarsa ·{ 186 13040-] Kūryādarta Rudrata (v11 57)— अतिसाम्यादुपमय यम्यामरादेव कभ्यते सदपि। उपमानमर मदिति 7 विज्ञेयापहृति सेयम ॥ Vamana (av 35)- रामेन वस्तुनान्यापापोपट्ठति । Bhoya (1v 41)- अपहृतिरपहत्य मिचिदन्यार्थदर्शनम् । ओपम्यवयनोपम्या चेति सा द्विविधाच्यते ॥ Ruyyaka (p 50)— विषयस्यापहवेपहुति । Mammata (x, p 735) - प्रकृत यतिषिध्यान्यत् साध्यते सात्यपहुति । Vagblata (p 39) प्रकृतस्य सदृशैनापापोपट्ठति । Vagbhata (iv 86)- नेतदेतदिद होतदित्यपहवपूर्वकम् । उच्यते यन सादृश्यादपद्धतिरिय यथा ॥ Kebavamisra (p 34)- किंचिदपहृत्य यदन्यार्थप्रदर्शन सापट्ठति । Hemachandra (p 281)--- प्रकृताप्रकृताभ्या प्रकृतापलापोपगुति । Vidyadhara (p 380) — निविध्य विषय साम्यादन्यारोपे ह्यपट्ठति । Visvanatha (r 381 ) - प्रकृत प्रनिषिध्यान्यस्थापन स्यादपछति । गोपनीय वम पर्थ द्योतयित्वा क्यचन ।। यदि पेणा यथा वा यथयेत् सा'यपद्भुति । Jagannatha (p978)- उपमेयतावच्छदकनिषेधसामानाधिकरण्येनारो यमाणभुपमानतादाभ्य- मपद्धति । Visvešvard (p, 235)- प्रकृत निपिध्य मिनात्मनया प्रोक्तावपहुति कर्थिता । and Achutaraye (VIII 131)- विपयत्वनिषेधस्म सामानाविपरण्यत । आरोप्यमाणविपयितादात्म्यं स्यादपहुति ॥

·1871 Notes [-1. 305 (1) It will be seen that while the majority of these definitions require that there should be a sort of a similarity betwcen tlie thung negated and the thing asserted, Dandın does not admit that necessity A सादृश्यमूलक अपहुति, according to Dandin, constitutes what he calles तत्त्वापहवरूपक (see Note (ni) to 95) The Alamkārakaustublis clearly states the position (p 235)— अन केचित् सादृश्यस्थल एपापह्नुति । न पञ्चेषु स्मरतम्य सहस्र पत्रिणा यत इत्यादौ तु नापट्ठति किंतु प्रकृतस्य यदन्यत्वम् इत्येवरूपातिशयोक्तिरित्याहु । अन्ये तु साहिन्यदर्पणोक्तदिश किंचिदपहृत्य कस्यचिद्दर्शनमपहुति . . इत्याहु । Bhoja, as we have seen, admits both cases (111) For the distinction between graft and spaar consult Note (11) to 11 66, and for that betweon smera and लेश (or व्याजोक्ति) our Note (n) to1265 Notes to II 305-308-(1) Dandın gives only two varieties of अपहुति, ४ विषयापद्भुति and स्वरूपापह्नुति Rasagangadhara gives the varieties सावयव and निरवयव which are based upon a different principle of division So also are the divisions into a where the negation is diroatly conveyed and arteff where it is suggested by words like $92, मिष, छल, छम, कैतव, व्याज, वपु आरगन्, परिणाम etc More im. portant is the six-fold division given by the Kuvalayananda (stanzas 25-30). 12 शुद्ध हेतु पर्यस्त भ्रान्त, छेक end क्त्तव Of these the first variety is a normal case of Apahnuti which can be made to include both the varieties rocognised by Dandin while the last is an आर्थी अपहृति His other varieties with definitions and illustrations are as under सयुक्तिो सदारोपे हेत्वपढुतिरुच्यते । नेदमिन्दुरनकत्वात् किंलिद मकुरो रते ॥ पर्यस्तापहृतिधर्मनिहवो यन सिद्धये । नाग मुभाशु किं तर्हि सुभाशु प्रेयसीमुखम् ॥ श्रान्तापह्नुतिरन्यस्य शङ्कायां भ्रान्तिवारणे । ताप करोति मोलप ज्वर किं न सखि स्मर ॥ छेकापहृतिरन्यस्य शङ्कानस्नध्यनिहये । प्रगन् मत्पदे सम कान्त किन हिनपुर ॥

·it. 308-) Kavyūdarta | 188 (it) In the illustration in ií 305 tho real nature of Ta ot is adınitted as perceivable by others it howover doos not hold good in the case of the sponker himself In 1 306 tlo nogated things is declared to be ontiroly void of its vory csEonco is assigned an alto. Gothor contradictory nature, so that the moun can no longer bo callod moon (charf-T3) In the example In It 301 only & part of the nature of tho thing was nogatod, in 11 305 ovon the negation of this part was tempored by limiting its fiqt In ii 306 the negation 18 absolute as regards its contents and its range Such rooms to be the basis of Dandin s distinction Notos to lI. 309-(i) Compare Noto (ii) to u 91 95 Aewe saw thare e can moan 11 31 (174), 11 36 (87477- TH), or ii 95 (aratugar97) In view of the difference of viow noted above, Note (1) to il 301, the temptation to accept the last of these interpretations 19 vorf strong For Dandın must have known the view which makes साहस्य the Bino qua non of अपहुति Blia maha in any case haows tho view and even adopta it Diftering from hinn Dundin considers सादृशमूसापडान as a variety of रूपक Ilo consequently must have made a slip lcre or wo c10 adopt the justification of C1-3MFTritaral there is sonothing for whatever the view we finally adopt to i 43 Notes to II 310-(1) It is rather unfurtunate that the same name (9 or forz) should signify both a Guna and an Alankara For the nature of the guna seo Note (111) The alainkara has nothing to do with the gune (11) Tbat Slesha involves the use of paronumystic words or woras conveymg more than ons sense is conceded by all the main controversy Is as to whether we should regard it as a TAISITConly or an au 077 only or partly the one and partly the other There are writers holding all those views with more or less show of re 15011 As so piuch depends in a Slesha upon the ·189) Notes | -il. 310 use of specific words it seems reasonablo to treat it as A TETS Fit and to assign to it a lowor place in criticism. At the same time it is necessary that we should undorstand the two fold sonse of the words in question the words as words do not give us the pleasuro of the figure as is done for instance by an alliteration Hence it is equally plausible to regard the 9 as exclusively an stafa Fry, as is done by Udhhata and Alamkarasarvasva. kara Jagannatha (p 401 2) gives a clear exposition of these views in these words-सोय श्लेष सभङ्गोभद्नश्वार्थालकार एवेत्योटा ॥ उभावप्येतो शन्दालकारी शब्दस्य परित्त्यसहत्वादन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां TATTUTTOTI । इति मम्मटमा ॥ अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां हि हेतुत्वावगमो घट प्रति दण्डादेरिवास्तु । न वाधयत्वावगम । अन्यथा प्रत्यर्थे शब्दनिवेठा इति नये पराभिमतोर्थ रेपोपि शदालमार एव स्यात् ।। A reasonablo view to hold as that of Mammata (ix, p 626), who observes- RTV FTTH Treff गोन्वयभ्यतिमाभ्यामेर व्यानिपते ॥यन हि पर्यायान्तरपयित्तिसहत्त्व नास्ति तस्य श दगतन्वम् यन तु तत्महत्व तनाथगतत्वमिति सिद्धान्तादिति भार -as a commentator explains it (11) Othors try to get out of the difficulty by recog. nising a distinct variety of 7 and of Swy Thus Bhoja givos &ix varioties of 97753 (11 688) viz yala, 954, fan 7*17, and art Man mata adds two more varieties to the list aui and Ros, vbile Bhoja includes the former under the variety and the latter under the stla variety In these varieties the word clcmont is distinctly tho all in all For ilustrations sco. DAsides the two works in question, Sahityadarpada pp 457ff, and Alamkarakaustubba pp 21217--The 374 on the otber hand includes the cases where the use of the paronomastic words brings about prominently a cost parison between the 19 and the 317 statements As we have a two in one statement in Afrit so also we have it in stat only the method is different Dandu dane pot trung out this point in his definuan. and it is in the sense that we wish to have our retnark on Slesha in Note (in) to u 207 understood), but most other writers including even Bhanaha (14) use 344157 and 397 in the very definitions of the figure -Rudrata 15 so much improssed by the different usos to which ·11. 310-1 Kanyadaria [190 paronomastic words on_be_put_that_ho makos #qa basic principlo of subdivision for alamharis along with वास्तव, ओषम्य, and अतिशय He gives (x 1 - 23) ton sorts of रूपमूलालंकारs, Vi2 अविशेष, विरोध, अधिक, यक, न्यान, उति,असंभा, अवयव, तत्त्व, and विरोधाभास For Illustrations see the Karyalamkara itself (iv) For the distinction of this figure from Samasokti see Note (ii) to॥ 207 Our romarks there apply to the dovoloped conception of Siesha leading to ar as it is found in othor writor Dandın's illustrations do indeed suit tho dofinitions of the later Alamkaritas, but hus definition is non-commital Notes to II 311-(1) Bloja quotes this illustation and thus comments upon it fp 465)-अयायमुदीयमानधन्दमा लोकस्य हृदय हरतीत्युच्युतिमाह-राजा अनुरतमण्डल उदयी मृदुकर कान्तिमानिति । यो होवभूतो राजा सोवस्य लोकस्य हृदयहारी भाति । अनापिच प्रारणिकेमाकरणिक उपश्लिष्यमाण पदानामभेदेनाभिनपद पो भवति । Notes to II 312--(1) Bhoja's comment on the figure e as follows-अन प्रदोषो राने प्रथमयाम विमिनि प्रियारहित मान याधते इत्युक्तेयुक्तिमाह इत्थम् आभूयमानप्रकारेण राज्ञा सरनन् । वीर्शन दोषारण नक्षनरवनामिति । यो हि दापाणामारण राजमार्गातिगामिना लामा प्रकृपदाप गरध्यते मोनियमवश्य बाधत एव । तदन पस्मिन् प्राररणिक्थें द्वितीयोर्यो- प्रारणिक पदभेदेनोपश्लिष्यमाणो भिनपदशेपापदेशमासादयति । Notes to II 313-(1) Parononias a constitutes the ingredi. ent of so many figures that a quostion has beon started as to whether in these several cases the alamkara is prunarily Slesha alone, or the other figure [उपमा (11 28), रूपफ (11 87), आक्षेप (1 159), व्यतिरेक (u 185), ete ] or समाधि or mixture 'of both The discussion is started by Udbhatas statementtp54/-- अलकारान्तरगतो प्रतिभा जनयत् पदे । द्विविधैरर्थशब्दोक्तिविशिष्ट तर (भिष्ट) प्रतीयताम् । Jagannatha (p 393ff) gives & résumé of it in these wurds-अयं चालकार प्रायशालकागार विसरमभिनिविशन तन विमम्य ·191 Noles [-11316 - वाधावं स्यादाहोस्विती कीर्ण पमुताहा बाध्यत्वमिति । अनाहुरद्भटाचार्या -येन नाप्राप्ते य आरभ्यने ग तम्य बाधक इति न्यायनालारान्तरविपग एवायमारभ्य- माणोलकारा तर याधते । न चास्य विपित चिदरित विपयो यन सावकाशो मान्य बाधेत । । तस्मादुपमादिप्रतिभो पत्तिहेतु श्लेष एव स्वविषये सर्वनालार ॥ एतचापरे न क्षमन्ते । तया हि एव च सावकाशत्वाच्छलेषस्यालमारा तरापवादस्त्वं न युक्तम् । अत एवोपमादीनां प्रतिभानमात्रमिति यदुक्त तदपि न रागतम् प्रत्युत्तश्लेपस्येव प्रतिभान मानमिति वक्त युक्तम् । तस्माच्च्ल्पस्य नापनादर व सफॉर्णत्व तु स्यात् ॥ अन्ये तु-अलारा हि प्राधायेन चमलाराधासरा स्वां स्वामारयां लभते । त एव परोपकारसतया वर्तमानास्तां त्यजन्ति । । एव चालकारा तरोपस्कार- क्तया स्थित श्लेष क्यार स्वगृहस्थ स पालकाव्यपदेश वोदमीष्टामिति बाध्यप्राय एव इत्यप्याहु ॥ The most reasonable view to hold 19 thatit 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-(1) Dandins classification is somewhat peculiar Bhoys gives the varieties भिनपद अभिनपद, मिनक्रिय अभिन क्रिय, भिनकारक-अभिनकारक Bhamaha after defining the figure (111 14) as- उपमानेन यत् तत्वमुपमेयस्य माध्यते । गुणक्रियाभ्यां नाम्ना च लिट तदभिधीयते । gives allustrations for लेपs involving सहोक्ति उपमा and a respectively as under- छयावन्तो गतव्याग स्वारोहा फलदायिन । मागद्रुमा महा तश्व परेषामेव भूतये । उनता लोक्दयिता महात प्राज्यवर्षिग । शमयन्ति क्षितेस्ताप मराजानो घना इव ।। रत्नवत्त्वादगाधत्वात स्वमर्यादाविरघनात् । बहुसत्त्वाश्रयत्वाच्च सहशवमुदन्वता ।। It will be seen that the last example is श्रेषमूलक हेतुपमा (1150) the second a regular पोपमा (ii 28), while the first has greatest affinity with 11 376 Notes to II 316-(1) Bhoja reads F HAT farar instead of वका स्वभावगधुरा 1 His comment is (p 467)-अनन्ति इत्येतस्या क्रियाया दशां दूतीनां च शिष्टपदत्वेनावेशादयमभिनकियो नाम लेपविशेष ।

·1192 || 317-] Krinyainti Notes to II 317—(1) Bhoj? (p 466) oxplains the point thus- अन आपर्यन्ते लिप्यन्त च इति क्रियापदवितयस्य प्राधान्यत समुचयेनोपात्तस्य मधुरा इत्यादिभि शिटपदै कोपिलागिर असितेक्षणा इति या विषयैकपदवजे पयागत सब धो भाति । यथा-आप-म । कोरियागर । दृश्य । मधुरा लिप्यन्ते च । का । अमितेषणा हरिणचष भूिता मदकला इति। Notes to II 318-(1) Here asalso in il 322 below we have a combination of श्लेपवेचिध्य with the वेनिध्य of विराध a8 oxemplified in 1334 Tor the distinction of this from तुल्यायोगिता see Notes to11 330 below Notes to II 319-320--Most writers with thio exception of besides Dandin, भामह उद्भट भोन, चामा and एयर-to any nothing of भरत and अगिपुराण,-admit a figure of speech called परिसरया which consists in १ तागायव्यपोह An ex ample will explain the nature of this figure भक्तिभो न विभो व्यसन शान युवतिरामाने। चिन्ता यशसिन वपुरि प्राय परिणश्यते महताम् । The Sahityadarpana (p 563) from which this illnstra tion as taken goes on toobserve-लेपमूरले चास्य वेत्रियविशेपो यथा यस्मिंश्च राननि जितगति पालयति मही चित्रर्ममु वणसम्राथापेषु गुण. च्छेदा इत्यादि। Notes to II 321-322-(1) It is difficult to distinguish 1 321 from 1 87, the illustration of a PAZETF All that we can say at the utnmost is that in 1187 the identity with a lotus is given an exclusive prominence while here the hing receives at least as much prominence as or कात्म्यि It cannot at the same time be श्रेषापमा llustrat ed in 128 because there is an absence of any उपमाप्रति पादकशब्द (u) Compare Note (1) to u 87 and Note (1) to 11 318 above Notes to II 323-(1) Some distinctive definitions of Vigo Bhakti sre- Agnipurana same as Dindin s definit ·194] Note: -1393 Bhamaha (122)- देशस्य पिगमे या गुणान्तरसस्थिति। विशेषप्रथनायासो विशेषोक्तिर्मता यथा ॥ Udbhata (p 58) यत् सामग्रोपि शक्तीना फलानुत्पत्तिवन्धनम् । विशेषस्याभिधिन्सातस्तद्विशेषोक्तिरुच्यते ॥ दर्शितेन निमित्तेन निमित्तादर्शनेन च । तस्या वधो द्विधा लश्ये दृश्यते ललितात्मक ॥ Vamana (IV iil 23)- एपगुणहानिकल्पनायो साम्यदाय विशेषोफि । Bhoja, same as Dandın Ruyyaka (p 126)- कारणसामगये कार्यानुत्पत्तिर्विशेषोक्ति । Mammata (x p 800)- विशेषोक्तिरसण्डेपु कारणेषु फलावच । and Jagannatha (p 437) प्रसिद्धकारणक्लापसामान्याधिारण्येन वर्ण्यमाना कार्यानुत्पत्तिर्विशे- पोक्ति |-compare has definition of Vibhavana- कारणव्यतिरेकसामान्याधिकरण्येन प्रतिपाद्यमाना कार्योत्पत्तिविभावना। (11) While Vamana's definition of this figure (which ho illustrates by यतं हि नाम पुरुषस्यासिंहासन राज्यम् ) is put down by later writers as a case of रूपक (as Jagannatha says- अन हि ते राज्य तादात्म्येनारोप्यते । तन सिंहासनरहित हि धूत सिंहासनसहित. राज्यतादात्म्य क्थ वहेदित्यारोपोन्मूलक्युक्तिनिरासायारोप्यमाण राज्येपि सिंहासन- राहित्य कल्प्यते । तेन दृढारोप रूपकमेवेदम् ) it must be admitted that Dandin's conception of Viseshokti, in as much ast 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 Vamana It is rather difficult to accurately distinguish this figure from कारणाक्षेप (1 131), कार्याक्षेप (1 133), and विभावना (u 199) Compare Note (11) to 1 131-132. Note (1) to it 133-134, Notes (1) and (11) to 11 199, and Note (11) to 11 235 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— ] Kavyadaria [ 194 presence of (i) principal causo, (il) presonco of accesaory causes, (ili) presence of extraordinary circumstances favouring the production of the cause, (iv) presonco of agreeable natural conditions, and (v) absence of spocial hindrances, -all co-operating to produce the normal result,--tye have-- IN धारणाक्षेप Principal causo absent " -Erect absent ; Accessory causes prolont IN FOTO Principal caune present -Elroot absent: (Citra circumstances lacking? ] IN ROTTEET 18T KIND Principal cause absent -Effect present : Extra circumstances inferrable * IN विभावना 2ND KIND Principal cause absent -Effect present; Exceptional natural circumstances inferrable * IN fatifita Principal cause present --Effect present through greatness but with special hindrances of cause ;* IN HET (Bhoja in 18) Principal cause present - Effect absent." (et unpropitious?) The point of the figure in each case is the item marked by an asterix (*) Notes to II. 324—(i) Bhoja reads (p 431) faahanap for fata- मेवासीत्. His comment on the stanza is-अन तीक्ष्णेनाकठोरण चायुधेन पुष्पधन्वा त्रीणि जगन्ति विजयते इति तस्य प्रभावातिशय मनीयते । सेयं प्रतीयमानविशेषहेतुर्गुणवैक्स्यवती विशेपोक्ति ।

·1951 Notes 1-11.330 Notes to II 325—(1) On this stauza Bhoja observe8-3771 कन्यकालाभावेप्यपा वेधमोपि तपोभङ्ग विधातुमलामति वर्णनीयाया रूपातिशय प्रतीयते । सेय प्रतीयमानविशेषहेतु तिवसत्यवती विशेपोक्ति । Notes to Il 326(1) Bhoja (p 432) explains the point thus अन भ्रभक्कादेरभावपि योय द्विपता जयस्तेन वर्णनीयस्य प्रतापातिशय प्रतीयते । सेय प्रतीयमानविशेपहेतु क्रियावैकल्यवती विशेषोक्ति । Notes to UI 327- (1) Bhoja remark8-317 Trafo TC-74 विजयहेतु स्त्रीणामपागावलोकनमभिधीयते । सेयमभिधेयविशेषहेतुर्देव्यवैक्ल्यवती विशेपोफि | Bhoja however is not correct in supposing that tha हेतु is here expressed The real हेतु is the मनोहारित्व of the glances which is to be understood. Notes to II 328 339-(1) Bhoja reads नगरवयम् for नभस्तलम् His remarks are-अन रथादीनां द्रव्याणामेकचकत्वादिभिर्वकल्येपि यदेत- द्भगवती भास्करस्य भुवननयाक्रमण तस्येह तेजस्विता हेतुरभिधीयते। सेयमभिधेय विशेषनुवैकल्यवव्या नामापरा विशेषाक्ति । Notes to II 330-332-(1) We have already given a few definitions of Tulyayogita in our Notes (1) and (ium) tou4849 We make room here for a few more- Vagbhata (iv 88)- उपमेय समीकर्तुमुपमानेन योज्यते । तुल्यैककालक्रियया यन सा तुन्यथोगिता ॥ Kuralayananda (43.4546)- यानामितरेपा वा धर्मैक्य तुल्ययोगिता । हिताहिते वृासतौल्यमपरा तुल्ययोगिता । गुणोत्कृष्टे समीकृत्य वचोन्या तुत्ययोगिता ।। and Jagannatha (p 317)- प्रकृतानामेवाप्रकृतानामेव वा गुणक्रियादिरूपैकधर्मा वयस्तुल्ययोगिता।

·il 330-1 *Kavyādarta ( 196 Vimans Bhá maha, Vágbhata, Kuvalayánandakara, Bhoja, and Dandın are all attempting, cach in his own way, to define the figure in conformity with the otymology of its name. Under the ciroumstances we will have to keep close to our author's conception of the figuro and try to distinguish it from afarga (11 46), 523111441 (11 48), $19 (ii.97), TATIA (i1 205), sida (11 310 ff), muara (11 340), la (11 343) and första (11 348) To begin with, in sfeerayat (cp the illustration in i. 47) the 3441 is not intended to be extraordinarily superior to the 39ay and the percubetween thom is not directly expressed, but is adia only. whoroas in care at there are things decidedly superior or are with which an inferior thing is joined In an assertiori The समीकरण (not the साम्य) is direct, apd not left to be suggested Further, the intention in the present figure is either alat or farzz, and this is absent in प्रतिवस्तूपमा (11) In ger14HT (11 48) we have the superior and inferior relation between the things and an attempt to equate them, as in der But while in the former FTTT IS Consciously sought to be expressed by reference to identical fat (or Tu), in the latter the 3941 relation 18 subordinate and the point of it 18 not fully brought out Further in arifar the desire to praise or blame 18 prominently present, the same being absent in the उपमा variety (iv) Consider the int illustrations in 11 99, and 11 100 In these there is । अधिकहीन relation and no alafasy 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 ICTATTEIT is quite obvious (v) In a RAI TRF the two things are cu, neithor being by nature अधिक or हीन Besides, only one of thern (970 or 71) 18 expressad directly, the other being saia only Nor is there here any conscious de sire to praise or blame In तुस्ययोगिता, besides the अधिक.

·197 ) Notes 1-1.833 sa relation and agents, we are required to make an express mention of the two objects compared. (vi) Though the illustration of a (ii. 310 ff.) might offor points of comparison with pihat, the figure they always turns upon an unmistakable peculiarily which is its sufficient distinctiveness. The paronomasis in ii. 332d is not intended or indispensable. (vii) Aprastutaprašamsa as Dandin conceives it in. volves स्तुति, if not स्तुति or निन्दा, but there is an absence of afastar relation, and an implication of sega through K statement, in place of the direct statement of the iwo found in a तुल्ययोगिता. (viii) Vyājastuti (ii. 343) involves afa (or A-GT) but it is foigned. And it is a gre made of a certain thing which might not be joined with any thing else in simile. A qulforat is necessarily based upon a relation between at least two things. (ix) In facta the 4 between the two things is not & well-established fact so that we could know before hand which is गुणोत्कृष्ट or गुणनिकृष्ट. The साम्य is evolved just in the very act presented to our eyes. Notes to II. 333-339—<i) All writers oxcept Bharata admit fait as a distinct figure. A few leading defini. tions are given below: 'Agnippräng (344, 28) संगतीकरणं युक्तया यदसंगरछमानयोः । विरोधपूर्वकत्वेन तद्विरोध इति स्मृतम् ॥ Bhämaba (lii. 24) and Udbhata (p. 59) 97774 ART FAIT [v. 1. 77:) 1 2 (4.1. 95] Faqlayiara los agen: [v.1 gaļu Kararan. 30,- यस्मिन् द्रव्यादीनां परस्परं सर्वथा विरुद्धानाम् । एकत्रावस्थान समकालं भवति स विरोधः ।। Vamana (IV. lii. 12) and Ruygaka (p. 121)— विरुद्धाभासम्व विरोधः।

·11. 339-- Kavyādarta [198 Bhojn (111 24)— विरोधस्तु पदार्थाना परस्परमसंगति । असगति प्रत्यनीकमधिक विषमश्च स ॥ Mammata (X. p 807) - विरोध सोविरोधेपि विरुद्धवेन यद्वच ! Vagbhata (iv 121)- आपाते हि विरुद्धत्व या वाक्येन तत्त्वत । शब्दार्थकृतमाभाति स विरोध स्मृतो यथा ।। Vagbhata (p 38)- अविरोधेपि विरोधप्रतीतिर्विरोध । साक्षाद्विरोधे तु काव्यवासभवात् । Kesavamisra (p 35)- विरोधो द्विविध । पारमार्थिकाविरोधेपि औचित्येन विरुद्धतया प्रतीयते यन । द्वितीयस्तु यथाश्रुते विराध[धा]सधानेपि यनाभिप्रेतार्थमादाय विरोध । अयमेव विरोधाभास इत्युच्यते । Hemachandra (p 269)- अर्थाना विरोधाभासो विरोध । Vidyadhara (viin 33)- स्फुरति विरोधाभासे भवति विरोधाभिधो दशधा। Vidyanatha(p416)- आभासत्वे विरोघस्य विरोधालकृतिर्मता। Visvanatha (x 68)— जातिचतुर्भिजात्यायेगुणो गुणादिभित्रिभि । झिया क्रियाद्याभ्यां यद्न्य द्रव्येण वा मिय।। विरुद्धमेव भासेत विरोधोसो दशाकृति । Kuvalayananda (st. 75)- आभासत्वे विरोधम्य विरोधाभास इष्यते। विनापि तन्धि हारेण वक्षोजो तब हारिणो । Jagannatha (p 127)- एकाधिकरणसंवद्धन्वेन प्रतिपादितयोरर्थयो समानेकाधिकरणसंबद्धत्व. मेराधिकरणासंबद्धत्वभान वा विरोध । Visvesvara (p321)- अविरोधेपि विरोधो यनोस स्याद्विरोध स । Achyutaraya (vul 302)- विरोधस्याल्पभामधेविगेधामाम उप्यते।

·1991 Notes | -11 339 (u) The figure is gaid to be the when a word lıke arft is used in the statement, otherwise it is airt This division is however disputed (cp Rasagangadhara p 428) It is called शुद्ध when not based upon लेप or paronomasia Dandin's last example (1339) 15 arx The ten fold division of the figure given by most writers us, like that of स्वभावोक्ति or दीपक, based upon the four fold pa of words recognised by gram mariang Jagannatha (p 428) rightly calls this classi fication अहृद्य Bhoja gives four kinds, Viz असगति प्रत्यनीक, अधिक, and विषम Rudrata gives 13 varieties, denying the validity of जातिद्रव्यविरोध, and adding 4 addi. tional varieties (cp ir 33, exemplified in ix 41-44) not generally recognised by other alernkarkas Dandin's classification 18 based on no definite principles (11) Virodha enters into the composion of a number of other figures such 88 उपमा (133), रूपक (184) दीपक (1 109), etc, while figures like विभावना or certain varieties of any are, on ultimate analysis special kinds of विरोध only Cp the list of विरोधमूलक figures on p 69 Above, as also Note (ii) toil 199 Hemachandra in fact even observes (p 272)-एव च विभावनाविशेषोक्तधसगति विषमाधिकव्याघाततगुणा पृथगलंकारत्वेन न वाच्या । विरोध एवान्तर्भावात् । The Kavyaprakåsakara however takes a different view These alamkaras, as being special cases of fasta and having a distinct charm of their own, can be considered as Independent figures. For he says (about असगति, p 871) एषा च विरोधबाधिनी न विरोध अपवादविषयपरिहारेणो- सर्गस्यावस्थिते । (19) Strictly speaking every poetical identification such as मुख कमलम् involves an element of विरोध but that has to be ignored Jagannatha observes (p 430)- इह हि अलकारखर्गे यो यत्र सहृदयचमत्कृतिपथमवतरति स एव तनालकार इति निर्विवादम् । एव च रूपके याप्यस्ति विरोधम्तथापि न स तन प्रतिपिपाद यिपित । । विरोधरथले तु कुमुमानि शरा इत्यादी अभेदम्य विरोधोत्थापनार्थमुपात्तस्याचमत्कारित्वात् रूपकालकारत्वमयुक्तम् । (v) Dandan and Bhamaha are alone in putting विशेष Fla specially into the very definition of this figure Other definitions imply this ·II. 339-] Kāwādarta [200 (vi) In ii. 339 the reading दुःशासनीयत्वं ote. for विश्वसनीयत्वं etc. is worth noting. It is a deliberate attempt to improve the original. Notes to II. 340-342-(i) Dandin understands अप्रस्तुतप्रशसा In the literal sonse of अप्रस्तुतस्य [प्रस्तुतनिन्दाथै ] प्रशंसा, and so strictly limits the application of this figuro to this case alone. Cp, note (ii) to ii 205, where (p. 143 line 11 from bottom) read 'latter' for 'former' and 'former' for 'latter'. The definitions of other writers for this figure are Bhamaha (iii. 28)- अधिकारादपेतस्य यस्नुनोन्यम्य या सुतिः । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंमेति सा चैवं कथ्यते यथा ॥ Udbhata (p 61) reads the second line thus- अप्रस्तुतप्रशंगेयं प्रस्तुतार्थानुवन्धिनी ।। Vamana (IV. III. 4) and vagbhats (p. 36)- [उपमेयस्य विचिदुको सिमानवस्तुन्यागः) अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा । Bhoja (iv. 52) अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा स्यादस्तोतव्यस्य या स्तुतिः । युदोपि देतोर्याच्या च प्रत्येतव्या न गोच्यते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 104)- अप्रस्तुतार सामान्यविशेषभारे कार्यकारणभावे मारूप्ये च प्रस्तृतप्रती- तावप्रस्तुतप्रसंगा। •Mammata (r. p.250)-- अप्रस्तुतप्रागा या गा रोव प्रस्तुनाया। कार्य निमिने सामान्ये विशेष प्रस्तुते सति ।। तदन्यस वस्नुल्ये तुल्यम्येति च परधा Vagbhata (iv. 134)- प्रांमा किन्यते यन्नायानुनम्यापि वस्तुन । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंगा तामाङःकृतधियां यथा । मेर पिरति स्वैरं ते पर चजन्यति । मिथुरेव मम्मी लोकराजचोरभयोति ॥ Jagannatha (p 402) अप्रानुन ध्याहारेण मासादियश्यमाणधारान्तमप्रकारेण प्रानुन. म्यवहारो गत प्रमायने गामानाप्रभंगा. adding in explana. tion. प्रम निमायम् न तुतिः।

·2011 Notes 1-tl. 342 (ii) It will be seen that while to lator writers- भप्रस्तुतवर्णनेन प्रस्तुतवर्णनप्रतीतिः is अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा to Dandine अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसनेन प्रस्तुतनिन्दाप्रतीतिः is अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. This bos saved Dandin from the necessity (i) of dis. tinguishing this igure from समासोकि,अर्थान्तरन्यास, सेय,etc.: and (ii) of explaining the circumstances which mako it possible for the अप्रस्तुत to suggest प्रस्तुत. Thoso cir. cumstances give the several varieties of the figure as admitted by subsequent writers. In order to show how very complicated tbe whole business of classification has become at the hands of thege later writors w. give below a tabular statement based on the Kavyaprakasa- (i) कार्ये प्रस्तुते कारणाभिधानम् (ii) कारणे प्रस्तुते कार्याभिधानम् अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा (HI) सामान्य प्रस्तुते विशेषाभिधानम् ! (iv) विशेषे प्रस्तुते सामान्याभिधानम् ((v) तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्यान्तराभिधानम् Variety (v) further divided into A. Use of श्लिष्ट B. Through व्यवहारारोप words for as in समासोक्ति (with विशेषण+विशेष्य विशेपण alone श्लिष्ट) Or again, independently, into C. Through simple सादृश्य A. अनध्यारोपेण B. अध्यारोपेण Cr. अंशेवध्यारोपण (iii) Bhojagives for अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा the twofold classifics. tion into वाच्या and प्रत्येतव्या, his instance for the latter being Dandin's illustration in ii. 341 paraphiased; viz कामं वनेषु हरिणास्तृणानि खादन्त्ययलमुलभानि । विदधति धनिषु न दैन्यं से किल पशवो वये सुधियः ॥ 20 [Kavyadarsa] ·1202 ii.342-] Kavyādaria The aizqt variety he illustrates by- पनो वन्यस्त्वमसि न गृहं यासि योर्थी परेषा धन्योन्धर्व धनमदवता नेक्षसे यन्मुखानि । श्लाघ्यो मूक त्वमपि कृपणं स्तौषि नार्थाशया यः स्तोतव्यस्त्वं बधिर न गिरं यः खलाना गणोषि ।। Notes to II. 343-347— (i) A few representative definitions of this figure are Bhamaha (iii. 30)- दूराधिकगुणस्तोत्रव्यपदेशेन तुल्यताम् । किंचिद्विधित्सोर्या निन्दा व्याजस्तुतिरसौ यथा ॥ Udbhata (p. 61)- शब्दशक्तिस्वभावेन यत्र निन्देव गम्यते । वस्तुतस्तु स्तुतिश्चेष्टा व्याजस्तुतिरसो मता ॥ Rudrata (z. 11) - यस्मिन् निन्दा स्तुतितो निन्दाया वा स्तुतिः प्रतीयत । अन्या विवक्षिताया ब्याजश्लेषः म विशेयः॥ Vamana (IV. iii. 24) संभाव्यविशिष्टकर्माकरणानिन्दा स्तोगार्था व्याजम्नुतिः । Bhoja (iv. 56). दोषस्य यो गुणीभावो दोषीभावो गुणस्य यः। म लेशः स्यात्ततो नान्या व्याजस्तुतिरपीच्यते ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 112) स्तुतिनिन्दाभ्यां निन्दास्तुत्योर्गम्यत्वे व्याजस्तुतिः। Mammata (r, p 815)- म्याजस्तुतिर्मुसे निन्दा स्तुतिय डिग्यथा । Hemachandra (p 276)- स्नुनिनिन्द रोरन्यतरपरता म्याजस्तुतिः। Vidyadhara (viil. 30)- यत्र प्रमानायां रचि प्रनीयते निन्। निन्दायां स्तुनिरपरा मे व्याजम्नुनिदिविधा ।। Vidyanatha(p. 443)- निन्दया याच्यया यग्न स्तुतिरेवावगभ्यते । स्नुल्या या गम्यते निन्दा म्याजस्तुतिरसो मता ॥ and Jagannatha(p.416)- आमुग्वनीनाभ्यां निन्दास्तुतिभ्यो स्तुतिनिन्दयोः कमेण यदमा ध्यारम्नुतिः।

·203) Naes (-ii. 317 (ii) It will be noted that all writers except Dandin, Bhimsha, Udbbața, and Vamang consider both a स्तुतिः and स्तुत्या निन्दा as the legitimate spheres of this figure. It is not certain therefore whether Dandia really would permit the 34t 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 botween 200l and my defined as in Kävyādarsa ii. 268. (iii) According to Dandin's view it seems that Losa No.2 is distinguished by the presence of a subtle alomont in the praise or blame, while in a rela no suoh subtle element is necessary. This is the only distinction between these two figures Hepca wo must either auppose that Dandin did not intend to accept Lesa No. 2 without reserve, or that Bhoja is justified in making y = auritala. (iv) In an emegania there are two things: a gen and an अप्रस्तुत. Further the स्तुति of the अप्रस्तुत is real and not intended to be withdrawn. So also the Art of the अप्रस्तुत. The स्तुति and निन्दा, it is also to he noted, is of two distinot things: it is not a case that the same thing is outwardly censured but really praised (and vice versa), as in a regla (v) Similarly, while in la the apparent Ast is to be ultimately set aside, and ofà obtained by im. plication, the case is not one of simple , in ag much as the area is here entirely thrown overboard a thing which does not necessari hap in an ordinary A. Cp. on the point Jagannātba (p. 416) अत एष नास्या प्वनित्तम् । घनो हि वाच्येनागूरणमहिम्ार्थान्तरमवगम्यते । न चैवं प्रकृते। (vi) Bhoja quotes both the examples given by Dandin and remarks (p. 410)- wiajuci 1:19SETT 9451 (vii) In ii. 345*Reis a better reading than ako, but we have no Ms. authority for adopting the im. proved reading ·[ 204 li.348--1 Rāvādaría Notes to II. 348-350-(i) A for representative definitions of निदर्शन or निदर्शना are here assembled. The igure is not recognised by भरत, अमिपुराण, स्ट, हेमचन्द्र, देशदमिय, and both the वाग्भट- Bhamaha (iii. 31)--.. क्रिययेव विशिष्टस्य तदर्थस्योपदर्शनात् । शेया निदर्शना नाम यथैववतिमिर्विना ।। Udbhata (p. 62)- भगवन्वस्तुसंवन्धो भवन् वा यन कल्पयेत् । उपमानोपमेयत्वं कथ्यते सा विदर्शना ॥ Vámans (IV. iil. 20)- फिययेव स्वतदर्यान्वयख्यापन निदर्शनम् । Bhoja (iii. 31)- दृष्टान्तः प्रोक्तसिध्दो यः सिदे) सानिदर्शनम् । पूर्वोत्तरसमत्वे तर वर्क च कथ्यते ।। Ruyyaka (p.76)- संभवतासंभवता पा वस्तुसंवन्धेन गम्यमानं प्रतिबिम्बकरणं निदर्शना । Mammata (r, p. 744f1.)- [निदर्शना] अभवन् वस्तुसंबन्ध उपमापरिकल्पकः । स्वस्वहस्वन्वयस्पोक्तिः किययेव च सापरा ॥ Vidyadhara (viii. 19) प्रतिमिम्बनस्य चरणं संभवता यत्र वस्तुयोगेन। गम्यमगंभवता वा निदर्शना मा द्विधाभिमना ।। Vidy&nitha (p. 433) अर्मभान्मयोगापमानोपमेययोः । प्रतिविम्यक्रिया गभ्या यत्र गा स्यानिदर्शना ॥ Visvanatha (r. 51) भनन्वस्तुमंबन्धोगभान्यापियनचिन् । यत्र विम्वानुपिम्पन्न पोधयेत् मा निदर्शना । Kuralayananda (st.5211.)- वाक्यार्ययोः मसायोरस्यारोपी निदर्शना । याद साम्यता मेयं पून्दोरकलाता। पदातिमा परन्यन्या निदर्शनाम् । सनत्रयुगुले धत्ते लीला नारायुजन्मनः ।। अपराबोधन ग्राहः श्यियासत्मदर्थयोः । नशेशजविरोधीति सी चन्द्रोदये तमः ।।

·205 ) Notes [-ii, 350 Jagangátha (p. 339)— उपात्तयोरर्थयोराभेद औपम्यपर्यवसायी निदर्शना । and Visvešvara (p. 262) उपमापर्यवसानो यत्रार्थोन्योन्यमन्वयानहः । गच्च क्रियया कारणकार्यान्वयधानिदर्शना सोक्ता ॥ (ii) It will be observed that Dandin, Bhamaha, Vamana, and others admit what is known as the angafacriar 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 senso of the figure. (ii) This योधननिदर्शना is the same as the संभवद्वस्तुनिदर्शना of Rugyaka, Viſvanátha, and most lat writers. As Appaya Dikshita observes in his Chandrika (p. 74)- स्वक्रियया परान् प्रति सदसदर्यबोधनं संभवदेव समतां गर्भीकरोति । To the same effect also Jagannātha (p. 345). The second, and with later writers, the more usual variety is argitara- दर्शना divided into वाक्यर्थनिदर्शना and पदार्थनिदर्शना, a good example of the former being Mudrārākshasa (vii. 6)- केनोत्तुइशिखाकलापकपिलो बद्धः पटान्ते शिखी पाशेः केन सदागतेरगतिता सद्यः समापादिता। केनानेकपदानवासितसटः सिंहोर्पितः पञ्जरे भीमः केन च नेकनक्रमकरो दोभ्यो प्रतीर्णोणवः ।। The qualification which requires a face fafara 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 fHT variety, we need not enter in details into the exact scope of the figure as also its distinction from 2277, which is another figure not recognised by our author. See on the point Alamkārasarvasva 'Ip. 71). (iv) Bhoja (p. 299 ff.) antroduces in Dandin's festar 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 hy the latter, ·1 350-1 Knivyūdarta [206 वक्र. Further we have cases when there is a completo Za statement given at first the दान्तिक statement being given almost as an after-thought, or the relation is the reverse of this, or the two statements are simultaneous According to Bhoja, Dandin's first Brumple ( 349) is पूर्वमृजु his second (in 350), सममृजु His comment on ii 354 18- अत्र राजविरुद्धानामिति लिष्टपदेन दर्शयतीति वर्तमानकालरक्षणात् सद्य इति तद्धितेन च समकालमेव दृष्टान्तदासतिफयो शब्दत नजूस्त्येवोक्तत्वादिदगृजु सम च निदर्शनम् । Notes to II 351-354-(1) A few other definitions of this figure are- Agaipurana (344 23)- सहोक्ति सहभावेन कथनं तुल्यधर्मिणाम् । Bhāmaba (211 38) and Udbhata (p 67) - तुल्यकाले क्रिये यत्र वस्तुद्वयसमाश्रये समाश्रिते v 11 पदेनकेन कथ्यते महोक्ति सा मता यथा [मताम् v 1] । Rudrata (vin 998)- सा हि सहोक्तिर्यस्या प्रसिद्धदृराधिपक्रियो योर्य । तस्य समानक्रिय इति कथ्येतान्य सम तेन ॥ यनेक्र्तृका स्यादनेककर्माश्रिता क्रिया तत्र । कभ्येतापरसहित कर्मक सेयमन्या स्यात् ।। Vamana (ıv 3 28)— वस्तुद्वयक्रिययोस्तुल्यकालयोरेकपदाभिधान सहोति । Bhoja (iv 57 ff) कर्नादीना रामावेश सहान्यैर्य क्रियादिषु । विविक्तश्चाविविक्तच राहोक्ति गा मगद्यते॥ यनानेकोपि कादि प्रविविक्त क्रियादिभि । विविक्तभाव लभते विविफा सापि कध्यते ।। Ruyyaka (p 81) उपमानोपमेययोरेकस्य प्राधान्यनिर्देशेपरस्य सहार्थसंबधे सहोक्ति । Mammata (r, p 817)- सा सहोक्ति सद्दार्थस्य बलादेक द्विवाचकम् । Vagbhata (iv 119)- सहोक्ति सा भवेद्यन कार्यकारणयो सह । ममुत्पत्ति कथाहेतोर्वक्तु तजन्मशचिताम् ।।

·2011 Notes [-1131 Vagbhata (p38)- सहभावकथन सहोक्ति । Kosavamisra (p 36)— समानकालोति सहोक्ति ।सा द्वयी-उदासीनयोस्त्वराप्रतिपत्तये कार्य- कारणयोरपि। Hemachandra (p 273)- सहार्थयलाधर्मस्यान्वय सहोफि । Vidyanatha (p 400)- सहार्थेनान्वयो यन भवेदतिशयोक्तित । कल्पितीपम्यपर्यन्ता सा सहोक्तिरितीष्यते ॥ Visvanatha ( 55) सहार्थस्य बलादेक यत्र स्थावाचक द्वयो । सा सहोतिर्मुलभूतातिशयोक्तियंदा भवेत् ।। and Jagannatha (p 357)— गुणप्रधानभाषावच्छिन्नसहार्थसबन्ध सहोक्ति । (11) The statement of simultaneity between the qualities or actions of two objects, which constitutes the essence of this figure, is not a matter of faot do Foription as in पुत्रेण सहागत पिता It is अतिशयोक्तिमूलक Ruyyaka lowever goes further and says (p 81)-तत्र नियमेना- तिशयोक्तिमूलत्वमस्या । सा अतिशयोक्ति ] च कार्यकारणप्रतिनियमविपर्ययरूपा अभेदाध्यवसायरूपा च । अभेदाध्यवसायश्च श्लेपभित्तिकोन्यथा वा। Ruyyaka thus recognises, amongst others, a variety of सहोक्ति based on कार्यकारणपोर्व पयविपर्यय, BVing as an example- भवदपराधे साधे सतापे वर्धतेतरामस्या । Jagannaths refuses howover to recognise this variety AB Alamkārakaustubha 12331) observes-कार्यकारणयो पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययान्मकातिशयोचिमूलभे- दस्त प्राचीनो को न युक्त । तनातिशयोक्तरेवालकारत्वसभवात् । राव कोपोरिनाशश्च जायते युगपप । इत्लतिशयोक्तयपेक्षया तव कोपोनिाशश्च सहेवनृप जायते। इति सहोतो पिच्छित्ति = चमत्कार विशेषाननुभवात् । The relation between the two objects brought together in a सहोक्ति should be merely गुणप्रधानभाव (ep Panini II in 19 मयुक्त प्रचाने) Dandin would endorse the view of Jagann the ·it. 354-] Kavyadarta 1200 though his conception of sfazieliti, as we bave seen (Notes, p. 146-47), Is somewhat different. Tbe हेत्वलंका illustrated by Dandin in ii.256 would be considered by Ruyyaka as welft; but tlio very fact that Dandin regards it as a separate alamkāra proves his nonacceptance of पार्वापर्यविपर्ययमूला सहोक्कि variety. In none of the examples given by Dandin for is there in evidence a कार्यकारण relation, the real cRISB in ii.352 and il. 353 being प्रियजनविरह and in ii. 354, probably. प्रियजनसंनिधान. Notes to II. 355-356—(1) The figure is deined by Dandio in ii. 351, latter half. Other defipitions for this figure . Bre- . Bhamaha (iii. 40)- विशिष्टस्य यदादानमन्यापोहेन वस्तुनः । अर्थान्तरन्यासवती परित्सिरसो यथा । Udbhata (p. 69) समन्यूनविशिष्टस्तु कस्यचित् परिर्वतनम् । अर्थानर्थस्वभावं यत् परिसूत्तिरभाणि सा॥ Rudrats (vii. 77)— युगपदानादाने अन्योन्य वस्तुनाः क्रियते यत् । क्वचिदुपचर्येते या प्रसिद्धितः रोति परिवृत्तिः ॥ Vimana (IV. iii. 16) समविसदृशाभ्यां परिवर्तन परिवत्तिः। Bhoja (lii. 29 f.) - व्यत्ययो वस्तुनो यस्तु यो वा विनिमयो मिथः । परिवृत्तिरिहोक्ता सा काव्यालंकारलक्षणे । सा त्रिधा व्यत्ययवती तथा बिनिमयात्मिका। तृतीया चोभयवती निर्दिष्टा काव्यसूरिमिः ।। Ruyyaka (p. 152)— समन्यूनाधिकानां समाधिकन्यूनेविनिमयः परिवृत्तिः। - and Jagannatha (p. 481)- परकीययत्किचिद्धस्त्वादानविशिष्टं दरम्मै स्वकीययलिंचिदस्तुरम, परिकृत्ति.

·209] . . Notes [-11.357 (ii) Two points deserve to be noted. The barter ought to be fa fa 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 पकलम् or किशोरभावं परिहाय रामा बभार कामानुगुणां प्रणालीम् where there is only a व्यत्यय or किंचित् त्यक्त्वा किंचिदादानमात्रम् cannot be a regular fan in the normal acceptance of the term विनिमय. Mammata and Jagannatha also are against admitting व्यत्यय, while वामन and एय्यक admit it. Bhoja attompts to hold the balance evenly by recognising व्यत्यय as & sub-variety of Paritritti. His example (p. 297) is- जो तीअ अहराउ रत्तिं उब्वासिओ पिअअमेण । सोचिज दीमइ भोसे सवत्तिणअणेमु संकन्तो । [यस्तस्या अधररागो रात्रावुद्वासितः प्रियतमेन। स एव दृश्यते प्रातः सपत्नीनयनेषु संकान्तः ।। (iii) In the above example several things balong to or reside in one and the same object. Conversely wo 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 qyte (an alamkāra not recognised by our author) which is thus defined by Jagannatha (p. 478)-- क्रमेणानेकाधिकरणकमेकमाधेयमेका पर्यायः । क्रमेणानेकाधेयकमेकमधिकरणमपरः। - Notes to II. 357-(i) Vagbhata the author of the काव्यानुशासन is the only writer.besides HF and fast to recognise areft: as a figure of speech. Vágbhats defines It as (p.46)-इष्टार्थस्याशंमनम् while the definition of Bhamaha (iii.54) is- आशीरपि च केाचिदलकारतया मता। गोहदस्याविरोधोक्तो प्रयोगोस्यान तद्यथा ।। Hernachandra (p. 294) declares himsolf against the recognition of this figure in the words-आशीस्तुप्रियोगिमात्र भावज्ञापनेन गुणीभूतव्ययस्य विषय | Sto his commentary on the passage 17LXiyadari.]

·ii. 357-) Raryadarfa [ 210 (ii) At the same time it is necessary to point out that the 36 ombellishments of spooch involving specific emotional modes which are enumeratod by Bharata at the beginning of the 16th Chapter of the Natyaśāstra, and which occur albo in Jayadeva's Chandriloka, Mapūkha ll, include (along with such things as Tupaca, ar 167, B114-G, grad, 91499. oto.) 8773ft: or bene. diction. Now it must be admitted that, in a giron situation, benodiction can become a very effective mode of expressing oco's thoughts; and a dramaturgist bas overy right to collect all such effective modes of expression together. But why Depdin should have selected only one of them for inclusion amongst the regular 3TO FIS cannot be determined. We may how. over point out in passing that some others out of the 3G have been universally regarded as forming the basis of some of the regular figures. (ii) It is worth noting--as pointing to an independonce of tradition and porbaps an absenco of interdependence between Dandin and Bhimaha—that Dandin takes strh: as a regular benodiction. Bhämaha gives two illustrations for the figure. In the first (see our Com. il. 357-"!) two friends, who have been estraoged from one another by malicious and mendacious gobetweens, perceive their error, and one of them calls upon the other to join hands again. On this Hema. chandra remarks-radiat: HECHT 19faqet ateist aaiya sa Arafataruhi ............ 1 377 TITIGMATISET 11-yenant 7 7417HITETHET TETT:t in the second 6x8mple also (see our Com. ii. 3571-1). Hemachan. dra points out that the hostile cities have already been vanquished. Henca, TTTTTTTTTTİ FITASIHATSA· 109r 1 The illustration given by Dandin is of course af 3113ft: 1 And the same is the case with Vashlots Notes to II, 358-359ab.-(i) Before winding up his treatment of the regular alankäras and passing on to a consideration of the mixed alamkāras (ii. 360), Dandin ·2111 Notes til 358 vindicates the completeness of his list, by remarking that 27799, de 396164T, and seara, which are normally given by Alemkärikas as independent figures, have been the first three-included by him as sub varieties of regular figures, while the last, though not actually so included, con essily be subsumed under a regular figure Compare also 11 309 See note (11) to 11 37; Note (1) to a 26 (where in the last line on p 90 read 'Dandın' for 'Bhämaha'), and Note (111) to 11 88 (iu) The alamkaras 2 and aute, though not soparately given by Dandın, are treated as independont alamkaras by almost all other waters, including Bhamaha The figures उपमारपफ and उत्प्रेक्षावयव are however given by Bhamaha alone amongst extant writers, and Dandin's specifio rejection of them raises the question as to Dandin's chronological position with referonce to Bhamaba In our notes to if 88-90 we have adduced reasons to show that Dandin's posteriority to Bhamaha need not be regarded as an inevitable conclusion so far as the treatment of 394754 by these two writers is concerned As to उत्प्रेक्षावयव, in as much as Dandın 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 sete 18-to judge from the illustration of it given by Bhamaba (see our Com f1 359:-) is a combination of उत्प्रेक्षावैचित्र्य with श्लेषपैचित्र्य and रूपकवचित्र्य, and as Dandın's sub varieties often exhibit such combined fast, Dandin is justified from his own point of view in regarding arepro as Herrat Abhinavagupta in his r99 (p 41) discusses Bhamaba a llustration for SCT 37 and regards it as a regular variety of (11) That a very large number of alamkaras recognised by modern writers are absent in Dandin's book 18 no impeachment of it Science must grow ·॥ 359-1 Kūryudarta [212 Notas to II 3596 to 360–() It will be remembered that in 17 ससृष्टि was designated सकीर्ण Later writers make a distinction between these terms, renering af for co ordinating or 7 mixture and for prepondera ing mixture or mixture with the a relation Although Dandın is aware of this two fold method of mixture he has not deemed it necessary to appropriate s distinct name for cach Bhamaba, Rudraţa Vamana Bhoja, Hemachandra, and the two Vagbbatas have likewise contented themselves with just one name Bhamaha Vamana and Bhoja choosing her the others having fixed upon सकर The later alamkārtkas including स्ट्या मम्मट विश्वनाथ and others clearly dis tinguibb between Hall and T some adding also & third category of सदेह or अनिश्चय (11) The more important statements of these Alamkarikas are here assembled for easy reference Bhamaha (ui 48)--- वरा विभूपा समलिहलंकारयोगत । रचिता रत्नमारेव सा नेवमुदिता यथा । Vamana (IV m30f)- अलकारस्याल्यारयोनित्व ससृष्टि । रद्भेदावुपमारूपको प्रक्षावयवा । Rudrata (x 25)- योगवशादेतेपो तिलतण्डलबच दुग्धजलबध । व्यक्ताव्यक्ताशवात् सर उत्पद्यते धा । Bhoya (av 88ff)- रासृष्टिरिति विज्ञेया नानालकारसकर । सा तु व्यक्ता तथाव्यक्ता व्यक्ताव्यक्तति च धा ।। तिलतण्डुलवद्यक्ता छायादर्शवदेव च । अव्यक्ता क्षीरज यत् पाशुपानीयवच सा॥ व्यकाध्यक्ता च ससृष्टिनरसिंहवदिष्यते। चित्रवर्णवदन्यस्मिन् नानालकारसकरे ।। Hemachandra (p 289)- स्वातन्त्र्याङ्ग वाशयकपरेपामेन स्थिति सकर । परस्परनिरपेक्षत्व स्वात यम् । उपचारपमङ्गत्वम् । एकस्य ग्रहे यस्य न्यागे माधकबाधक प्रमाणाभावादनिर्णय मशय । एकस्मिन् पदे छन्दालकारयो ममावेश एकपद्यम् ।

·11. 361.) Kuvyādarta [ 214 Notes to II. 361-362-(i) In the first half of ii 361 there is an 3441 statement which can stand by itself. The 39 is thus the principal figure. The salg'itfeat considers the figure in the first half to be उत्प्रेक्षा; but आक्षिपति can be an 3441art, though not actually enumerated by Dandin. In the gecond half we have an FTGIE basod upon q. The particular statement about the invasion of the beauty of the face by lotuses is corroborated by the general fact that, given to and aus, any body can invade. The awkwardness of the genoral statomont containing a pronoun (991) roforring to a noun in the particular statement can be got over by making एपाम् - एपा लोकानाम्. Nor is the difficulty so very Berious at all. We need not accordingly make the figure a la instead of an amacTZT, as suggested by some commentators. (ii) Dandin has not apparently given an illustration for at a Ferar. The stanza ii. 362 (cp. ii 226ab) eupplies tho dofioit. But it is omitted in most Mss. and Cb quotes the stonza with the remark - NYT अप्युदाहरणमन्यन द्रष्टव्यम् । It may be added in passing that Bhoja gives as his example for this kind of fall(which he calls तिलतण्डुलसमृष्टि) the extra stanza पिनष्टीव तरट्रायः etc. mentioned in the variants to ii, 226 above. Even the argyforit does not notice ii. 362; and surely it would have been possible for Dandin, without repeating himself, to give another instance for 44 Tield if he had thought it necessary. We should in this connection recall the fact that Dandin has not given illustrations for all the 64 or the varieties. Compare our Commentary to ii 104 ff. Notes to 11. 363.-(i) Of the three figures-of-speech con. tained in fi 361 the relation between and after is perhaps much more immediate than that between अर्थान्तरन्यास and उपमाः but it would be incorrect to sug. gest that the former is अङ्गाद्रिभाव and the latter समकक्षता, All the same, the forms, as Dandin himself says il 313, the ingredient of quite a large number of figures, with ·It can 215 ) Notes [ - 363 which it generally has an argiga relation Compare our Nota to i 313 and the illustrations in ii 28 a 87 11 159 11 185 etc In fact there is no figure of speech the charm of which cannot be heightened by introduc ing an element of into it somewhere Of course the charm resulting from paronomasia is artificial and 80 cannot be said to reflect accurately the charm of the original objeot in Na ture which the poem seeks to describe in the most effective and agreeable fashion Parono a818 18 like the frame of the picture set off the beauty of the portrait but the beauty of the portrait must be there Svabhavokti is the beauty of the portraits Vakroktz is the contribution of the frame maker (11) It 18 thus evident that Vakrokti is Dandin s general name for any rhetorcal device used to garnish or embellish some normal matter of fact description or даггattoo As the श्रुतानुपालिनी remarks-स्वभावोक्तिर्नाम यथा वस्थितपदार्थरूपकथनम् वक्रोक्तिर्नाम यथावस्थितम यथीकृत्य । अत्र उपमादय सकीण पर्यन्ता वक्रोक्तिधु पतिता स्वभावोक्ति पुनराद्यालकार इति। We should in this connection recall Dandins earlier assertion (11 13) about half-siga alipo quae 104674 Mahimabhatta in his Vyaktiviveka (Triv Sans Series ed p 28) 18 more precise on the point Quoting the view presumably, of Kuntaka the author of Tiferita (a work which has been brought to light only a few months ago D & solitary and fragmentary ms from the south) he says-शास्त्रप्रसिद्धशब्दार्थोपनिबधनव्यति रेकि यद्वैचित्र्य तन्मानलक्षण वक्रत्व नाम काव्यस्य जीवितमिति सहृदयमानिन केचिदाचक्षते । The वैचित्र्य of a Sastra proceeds from its description of facts as facts In a poem the ag is in the words of Jayaratha (p 8) & laufhafaa 2198 or as another puts it a acapara Compare also- प्रसिद्ध मार्गमुत्सृज्य सर वैचित्र्यसिद्धये। अन्यथैवोच्यते सोधं सा वक्रोक्तिरुदाहृता ॥ (1) Bhamaha s conception of ff can be gathered from the following passages in his worl-(1 36)- काभिधेयशब्दोक्तिरिया वाचामलकृति -where वोक्ति Is given as a part of his definition of alamkara (cp Abhinava.

·1. 363-] Kavyudaria [216 gupta's comment-शब्दस्य हि वक्रता अमिधेयस्य च वक्ता लोकोत्तीर्णेन रूपेणावस्थानमित्ययमेवासावलंकारस्यालंकारान्तरभाव); (i. 30)-युक्त पक्र- स्वभावोक्त्या सर्वमेवैतदिष्यते-where he tells us, like Dandin, that कोक्ति and स्वभावोक्ति constitute the contents of all pootio writing; (ii. 34, 35)—where he intends to say that the बंदी style, in spite of its प्रसाद, ऋजुता, or फोमलत्व, will be no better than a sweet choppy music, if dovoid of great and multi and that, per contra, Gaudiya poe. try with its many alamkāras, provided it is not vulgar or confusing and has some sense to convey, is also not unacceptable; and lastly the oft-quoted verse (11. 85)— सेपा सदैव (V.1 सर्वन) बमोतिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते। यत्नोस्या कविना कार्यः कोलंकारोनया विना । which, coming as it does in connection with his treatment of अतिशयोक्ति, leads to the equation अतिशयोक्तिम वक्रोक्ति which Mammata (x. 906) and Hemachandra (p 267) distinctly lay down-सर्वन विपयेतिशयोतिरेव प्राणत्वेनावतिष्ठते । तां विना प्रायेणालंकारत्वायोगात् । Other teatimony to this extended application of the term is Alomkårasarvasva (p 8)- वकोक्तिजीवितकारः पुनर्वदग्ध्यभट्वीभणितिस्वभावा बहुविधा वक्रोक्तिमेव प्राधान्यात् काव्यजीवितमुक्तवान् । व्यापारस्य प्राधान्यं च कान्यस्य प्रतिपेदे । अभिधान- प्रकारविशेषा एव चालकाराः। .........। उपवारवकतादिभिः समस्तो ध्वनिप्रपञ्चः स्वीकृतः । केवलमुक्तिवैचित्र्यजीवितं काव्यं न व्यद्यार्थजीवितमिति तदीयं दर्शन व्यवस्थितम् ! And again (p 177)-वक्रोक्तिशब्दझालंकारसामाग्यवचनो- पीहालकारविशेषे संशितः। To the same effect also अभिनवगुप्त in his ध्वन्यालोक्लोचन (p 208)-यातिशयोक्तिलक्षिता सैव सर्वा वमोरित अलंकारप्रकारः सर्व।............... लोकोत्तरेण चैवातिशय तेनातिशयोक्ति सर्वालंकारसामान्यम् ! Compare also Kavyadarsa il. 220. (iv) As against this earlier conception of वक्रोक्ति (or अतिशयोक्ति) given by Bhamaha, Dandin, Kuntaka and others, we have the sub quent restriction of it to a specific figure-of-speech defined by Ruyyaka (p 175) as-अन्यथोक्तस्य वाक्यस्य काकुशेषाभ्यामन्यया योजनम् । and illus. trated by अहो केनेशी बुद्धिष्णा तव निर्मिता। निगुणा श्रूयते बुद्धिर्न तु दारमयी कचित् ।। Another allustration given by Kuvalayipanda (st 158) 18-मुध मान दिने [मा नन्दिन] प्राप्त नेद नन्दी हान्ति । Rudrata (12.14-17), Mammsta fix, p.593), Hemachandra (p.234), ·If we 217 ) Notes 1343 Vidyanātha (p. 410), and most leter writers have the same limited conception of a which some go to tho length of regarding as a TE only Rudrata (x 9) gives besides a variety of called 999 (v) As coming bela een these two conceptions of ter though not therefore necessarily forming the transition between them, is Vamana's conception of The as (IV m8)-FRIFT Fift ! A 791 the Kamadhenu explains, is possible in five ways- अभिधेयेन सवग्यात् e 8 द्विरेफ-भमर भृत 7775411 e g fat (a case of a FIT), गमवायत cg गङ्गाया घोप rizice g gamite, and, firaria e 8 tela a agak24 Vakrokti is thus, according to Vamana, a metaphorical mode of poetic expression, while Dandın regarded it as any striking mode of poetic expression now recall that to Vamana all figures of speech are उपमाप्रपञ्च only, while they are वोतिप्रपञ्च or अतिशयात्तप्रपत्र to the earlier school, it will be perhaps evident that between Vamana s conception of art and that of Dandın, Bhamsha, and others there is not that wide gulf that is sometimes made out (v.) At the same time, comparing Kavyadarsa 11 93-94 with Vāmana's example for arift, viz- उन्मिमील कमल सरसीना केरव च निमिमील मुहूर्तात् (अन नेत्रधर्माबु मीलनfaara HERZEIGTIET 7926) it is evident, as Jacobi has said (Z DMG, vol Ixiy, p 130 ff), that Vamana bas turned what was a गुण (समाधि in Dandin, प्रसाद in Bharata xvi 95) into an ETI Samadhi 18 declared, like air and lart, as the all in-all (11 100) 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 Vaman the Joungby ine verween Guras ana'am karas was very vague indeed (cp II 3 172-YETHA क्रो धर्मा गुणा तदनिशयहेतवस्त्वस्कारा) As far as the facts of the case go we have no definite ground to regard Vamana's treatment of it as either a forerunner or 28 [Kavgadarśa) ·1 231 li 363-) Kāryādarsu a subsequent development of Dandin's and Bhåmaha's conception of the same Even if Udbhata, Bhamaba': commentator, is to be regarded as a risal contempo tars of Vataana, še: Vamana may have persistod at following his own indendent STRIKER The chrono. logical relation between Dandin and Vamana cannot be made to turn upon theiradcount of arts. (ii) The ultimate conception of arifes as a seniden cannot be genetically connected with eltilerDandin'e or Vāmapa's conception of the same The art of speaking at cross purposes wis regarded as an accomplishment of a cultured beauty (Earys), and it is conceivable that it was raised to the dignity of a regular alamkars irrespeative of what the Texts had already to say about the ather anfor 2 Notes to 11 364_366_ki) Combare Noto (iii) to'ii 13 #bore. The 'normal conception bf Bhadika'found'in Rugyaka (p 178), Mammata (1, p 822), 'and Visvánātha (47193-94), and most later writers is contained in thd foi lowing definition of it in the Kavyaprakása: 57 Agra Aiga larg. Some 'writers add to this the further edhartion that the object (9779) should be ea, and should be expressed in vivid and nonconfusing terms (amma) An examplo of a past incident revivified is Mrichchhakatika (ili 6)-5 सं तस्य सरसंगम मृदुगिर चितन्त्रीस्वन वर्णानामपि मूईनान्तरंग 'तारं विरामे मृदुम् ।। हेलसंयमित पुनश्च सरिरा रागविश्वारित यत्सत्यं विरतेपि गीतसमये गच्छामि यनिय ।। For a future incident pntiçiriatorily, glimpsed' Ruy. yaka (p 182) gives the instancecien, kamieniapas अचामरोप्यप मतेत वीच्यते विरागराव्यजनेन याप्ययम् । fill In accordance with tbis later conception of the figute ifa game is crplained as~*8 Fatiei or (T-914, p. 178)--a m 571919 minit af farten Flat भावो भरना arपुन मुन्धेत सन्देिशम् गनासोति। This etyrology 1 4 3 ·. enume 29] Notes [-1 366 probably goos bach to Kavgadarsa 11 364ed, shere however 19 apparently is used in a rather peculiar sensa We would there translate it by Sustained Intuition especially as Dandin malesit a प्रन्याविषयगुण Bhamaha also calls it (1 52) प्रवन्धविश्यगुण laying down for at the four fold requirement, viz- चित्रोदात्ता नार्थत्व कथाया स्वभिनीयता । शदानाकुलता चेति तस्य हेतु प्रचक्षते ॥ But Dandin's requirements for the figure as rated in i 365-366 seem to be peculiar to him, as also this whole conceplion of the same, wherein he is probably following & tradition distinct from that of Bhamaha Blioja s conception of Bhavika (whicb ho Identifies with 36, 1v 85-86) 18 so very far removed fron the two conceptions discussed hitherto that it nced not be here taken into consideration at all (11) Tbo Bhavika of later writers is distinguishable froin the गुण called प्रसाद, the रग named अद्भुत and अलमारs like स्वभ वोक्ति or भ्रान्तिमान् or अतिशयोत Compare साहित्यदपण (r p 574f)-न चाय प्रसादारयो गुण भूभाबिनो प्रत्यक्षायमाणत्वे तम्या हेतुत्वात् । न चा तो रस विस्मय प्रत्यस्य हेतुन्यात् । न चातिशयोक्तिरलकार अभ्यवसायाभावात् । न च भ्रान्तिमान् भूतभाविनोभूतभावितयैव प्रक शनात् । न च स्वभावाक्ति तस्या लौकिक्वस्तुगतसूक्ष्मधर्मस्वभावम्येव यथावद्वर्णन रूपम अस्य तु वस्तुन प्रत्यक्षायमाणवस्पो विच्छित्तिविशेषोस्तीति । Hernachan. dra however refuses to admit this figure He says (p 293) भाविक तु भूतभाविपदार्थप्रत्यक्षागारात्मम्मभिनेयप्रवध एव भवति । यद्यपि मुत्तकादो दृश्यते तथापि न तत् स्वदते । (10) Confining our attention to Dandıp s own conception of it. It will be observed that Dandins treatment of it is quite in place, com ng as it does after his treatment of an, whereas, it is not quite clear why Bhamaha should have called his भाविक a प्रधाचार्षपयगुण Blavn's is the quanty Lelonging to a poem taken as a whole, and it suggests the formula tion of questions like, Is there a meaning to the whole? Is it consistently carried out? Is there a harmony and proportion of parts ? Is it a clear and self sufficient there? These are questions of higher