Uhc Bepavtnient of public Unstruction, :tBombav>.
DANDIN'S KAVYADARSA
Sr^b^.ifel!^^'•i:ia^J;!i:lihl■i■■;.:<^-l■■^■:;^ii^^^H!-H"1•-•■■-:^■^•^ •'
PARICHCHHEDA IT
KDITfiD WITH A NKW
SANSKRIT COMMENTARY AND ENGLISH NOTES
1
m
m
•Mm
P
in"
S, K. BELVALKAlt, M. .v.,
i'ROFE?.^nR OF SANSKRIT,
^egH, Peon
UANGACHAliYA B. RADDI.
SriASTRI, VIDYABHUSHANA,
Karnatak College, Dharwar.
PART SECOND, SECOND HALF
Bombay San6f?rtt aitb iptal^rit Serlce no. LXXV.
1920
Price Onp Rupee and Four Annas
Kavyadarsa of Dandin
NOTES
PARICHCHHEDA II
1006916
PARICHCHHEDA II
Notes to II. 1— (i) Compare Note (i) to i. 10. Kavya, ac-
cording to Dandin, is — ^^o^cjf^^i q^[T^ ; that is to
say, he gives more prominence to the word-element in
poetry as compared with the sense-element. This does
not mean that the Gunas which are the sine qua non
of poetry, and the Alamkaras which serve as decora-
tion, must belong to the word-element, the ^^, ex-
clusively ; for, the f^^l^s, the subordinate elements of
the Body, have also their own decorations. Thus there
is no inconsistency in Dandin's having defined Kavya
as he has done and then having divided the Alamkaras
(and impliedly the Gunas also — cp. Note (i) to i . 41)
into those belonging to word and those belonging to
sense. Modern Alamkarikas such as Mammata, hav-
ing once subordinated both the word as well as the
sense to Rasa, are constrained to regard the Gunas as
well as the Alamkaras as belonging to Rasa, the angin.
For a criticism of this view see our Note (iii) to i. 41
and the Sanskrit Commentary to the present stanza.
(ii) The distinct function of the Gunas and the
Alamkaras is brought out by Dandin by calling the
former the life-breaths and the latter the ornaments of
poetry. The Gunas abide in poetry ^^Rfff^TT while the
Alamkaras ^ir-ifqi; there is between them a distinc-
tion in kind, — a distinction which later became one of
degree, as with ^[m (iii. 1. 1-2) or with JTcftfi^^^
(p. 17)— 5^- ^^ ?FT5^?^\^ ^V. I ^ 3 stiirq^^^^ ?f^
^Tt^nf^OT^c^ cf^^: I Compare however the following
from ST^^PR^tT^, p. 20—
s^^^K^^S: f% sort 2rf^ ;t f^^% I
f^^RF% ^ ^r'2rfw^: gjliR^^dl: II
Compare also (Agnipurana, 346. 1) —
^Jiw^^f^ct ^ftwf fTCT ^sm^ q^ II
Mammata*s a^55f^ ^: w\\^ implies the same thing.
ii.l— ] KavyUdaria [ 68
(iii) The progressive development in the theory, and
with it in the number, of the Alaihkaras forms an in-
teresting chapter in the history of Sanskrit Rhetoric.
The subject is too large, however, to be adequately
discussed in a note. Our Introduction has attempted
a rapid review of the main stages reached during the
process, to which the reader is therefore referred. It
would be noted in this place that Dandin must have
lived at a time when the development of the Alaihkaras
in the way of progressive division and subdivision was
in full swing ; and he seems to have been anxious
rather to give an epitomized statement of the principal
results arrived at than to add his own quota to the
process of amplification. In fact he has even had to
reject some of the Alaihkaras recognised by his pre-
decessors (cp. ii. 358-359 and notes thereon).
Notes to II . 2 — (i) The fundamenta divisionis of the Alaih-
karas have been variously stated in different texts.
The simplest division into ^i«^^ and 3T^^, even after
the addition of a third class of ^svppT^, proved quite in-
adequate. It is however given by the 3<fi^Ji<l'J|, and most
elaborately by Bhoja. It was soon found necessary to
introduce various subclassifications based on the psy-
chological principle involved in the process, or on
some such underlying peculiarity. Similarity, identity,
contrast ; causation, word-grouping, lokavyavahara ;
Rasa, Rhetoric, Technicality : these were some of the
principles of classification accepted. Compare, for
instance, the Alamkarasarvasva, and particularly the
following list based upon the Prataparudrlya (pp. 338-
339) [wherein the Alaihkaras not recognised by Dandin
are shown in square brackets ] —
based on ST^^sn^-
^^f^", [ 5r^, ] szjf^,— based on $I^W^-
=3^W, [3T^R^, g^?^#RTr, ^rncw,]— based on
^TNT^;
69 ] Notes f — ii.2
^^, aTfeT^%,— based on ^'^m^ ;
f^^TR^r, R^NlRh, [ %R, i%r, ^mf^, 3?;%^, o^\^\^^ ^^^,]
^^, [ ^tt^, ]— based on fq^;
sf?™^, [ mR<)^t, 3T?frrT%, f^^Jcq, ^5^3^, ]— based on
^5[m, [r^WtH, ] — basd on w^,o?^^\l ;
[ ^lo^ki^-, ar^JTR, ] ST^TPclT^^^rm,— based on ^^rr^r ;
[ «hK'J|^lc?il, tr^^ost, ^loJI^IM^, ^^R,]— based on >2^^["i^53T ;
[ 52rMt%, ^^[m, fft^Sff, ] — based on ^rq^q ; and
^Rr^tf%i, [ qf^, ]— based on R$m'J||^^.
It became soon obvious that any such classificatory
principle or principles, would gradually tend to become
inadequate, as there would always remain some Alairi-
karas recognised by rhetoricians and falling outside
their scope- Thus of the 35 or rather 34 Alarhkaras
recognised by Dandin the following 14 are not includ-
ed in the above list:— 3TT^, 5TT^, I5, ^^, ^, 3q^, ^-
^, v5;^f^^, 'rf'^tTFJ, Vm, f^^T, STSf^^TORTT, °^T^t^ld, and
5TT^: (not to mention ^c^). Some of these, e. g., ^^f^,
^^R[c^, 3^^^^, are sometimes classed as m^"^ ; while
3TI%q, q^lWhfi, 3T5r^5^m^, s^ri^^^fe and stt^.- will have to
be classed as ?TT^TT^^f)Rs, i.e., merely as effective modes
of expression, such as those enumerated by Bharata in
the beginning of the 16th chapter of the Natyasastra.
The tendency towards a 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 Alarhkarasastra, made any at-
tempt to trace the Alamkaras to their sfl^ — such as
Dandin contemplates — an altogether hopeless task.
(ii) But already in some quarters, as in the case of
the Gunas, — see note (ii) to i. 41 — a revolt against this
gratuitous multiplication of entities had begun to
assert itself. Thus Hemachandra rejects qfe^, ^T'^TR^,
and SR^Tift^ as distinct Alamkaras — and some of them,
it will be seen, are recognised even by Dandin and
Bhamaha. Udbhata's Kavyalamkarasarasamgraha is
ii. 2— ] KavyndaHa [ 70
likewise moderate in its enumeration of Alamkaras,
while even so late a text as the Alamkarasekhara of
Kesavamisra (which is believed to hav« utilised the
Sutras of Sauddhodani) lays down with emphasis
(p. 29)— tr^ g^iqfeKT^t^ ^ =^Tq\ I stating further (p. 38)
that he has justified the position he has taken in his
ei'^ichlW^^, a work which apparently has not come
down to us. Dandin, it will be noted, holds a middle
position between the two extremes of needless ampli-
fication and unwarrantable curtailment.
(iii) Who the ^^rt^s are that Dandin had in his
mind it is difficult to decide. As the treatment of the
Alarhkaras in Bharata, or in the Agnipurana for the
matter of that, is very meagre these cannot have been
intended by him ; and as to Bhamaha, since his list of
Alamkaras (cp. ii. 4, ii. 66, ii. 86, ii. 88, ii. 93, iii. 1-4),
made up of detached and successive lists as it is,
agrees in general statement and even in the order in
which the Alarhkaras are mentioned with that ot
Dandin, it is doubtful if Dandin would regard Bha*
maha — even though he be his predecessor — as one of
the »^it<i4s referred to in the present stanza. On this
point see further our Introduction. It seems that a
large mass of literature known to Dandin is now lost
to us. Cp. note (ii) to i. 2. The Commentary ^rTT^Trf^
enumerates, amongst Dandin*s predecessors, ^T^q,
^11^, and frPc[^^Tft, names otherwise almost unknown.
Notes to II;. 3 — (i) Dandin here admits that as regards
the Alamkaras there is no difference of practice bet-
ween the Vaidarbhas and the Gaud as (^arn^TR^JR^s^R^n^);
but this is rather unexpected. That craving for sim-
plicity and directness in the one and hyperabole and
ornateness in the other which led them to cultivate
distinctive ^PTsq^^s is bound to make itself felt even in
their choice of the Alamkaras and their frequency ;
although this fact, it is obvious, would not make any
difference in the definitions of the Alamkaras as such.
71 1 Notes [— il.5
Notes to II. 4 — (i) We are not quite certain as to the
genuineness of this list of Alamkaras (stanzas 4-7),
although all the Mss. give it. It is the practice of
some of the later Alamkarikas to preface their treat-
ment of the Alamkaras by a few mnemonic verses
of their own composition ; but some writers, e. g.
Mammata, have not obliged their would-be students
in this manner; and just as in the case of Mammata
a commentator has added a versified enumeration at
the beginning of the tenth Ullasa (although never as
a part of Mammata*s own work), so, it seems to us,
must have been the case with Dandin. It is only on
some such supposition that we can account for the
ungrammatical <)4*l'i^l (or the 'unmetrical ^M4>lfrfl);
and also for the further fact that in this enumeration
some figures (e. g. ^, BTJI^gcT^^) appear under strange,
and others (e. g. ^^ for f^^qlRh) under misleading,
names. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that
Acharya Dandin could not have avoided such sole-
cisms and ambiguities if he had meant it.
(ii) Vibhavana is often rendered as Presumption,
— but that is a name that we must reserve for ^TsfrrfrTt
which ^?t^ and others recognise as a distinct figure-of-
speech — or as Peculiar Causation. It is rather an
imagining or a guessing or a divining of a novel cause
to account for the effect that has already taken place.
Possibly ' Unmotivated Effect * will explain the idea
of the figure and would serve to distinguish it from
' Non-operative Cause ', by which term we could
render the figure f^tfftfrff as it is ordinarily defined.
Dandin's account of the figure is however a little bit
different. See below.
(ii) The latter half of this stanza is identical with
Bhamaha ii. 66, first half.
Notes to II . 5— (i) The second half of this staza is identi-
cal with Bhamaha iii. 1, first half. We have already
commented upon the name 'Lava*. Later Alam-
kftrikas make a distinction between the figure called
ii.5— 1 Kdvyadaria [ 72
W^ (which is the same as Daiidin*s fRT^) and the
figure ^TTTTfl^ which is a ^^T^ Alamkara Compare
Ruyyaka, pp. 163, 185 ; Visvanatha, pp. 568, 576 ; Vis-
vesvara in the Alarhkarakaustubha, pp. 372, 416.
Bhoja gives the two figures, but what he calles ^Rlf^
approaches the ^TTTrf^f^^ ( cp. note (ii) to i. 93-92), while
he does not at all recognise the ^^rg^ Alamkara called
^ijlf^^ in other texts. Bhoja, however, agrees with
Dandin in calling by the name -H^^lf^d the figure named
W{^ by JTHTS and others.
Notes to II. 6 — (i) We have already commented upon the
use of the abbreviated name f^tK for f^t^ftf^f. Visesha
as a figure distinct from R^tflf^h is recognised, amongst
others, by Rudrata, Ruyyaka, Mammata, Visvanatha,
and Jagannatha.
Notes to II . 7— (i) The figure 3TRft: recognised by Dandin is
recognised by no other Alamkarika except BhSmaha
and Vagbhata the author of the Kavyanusasana. It
should be noted, however, that the name occurs
amongst the 36 effective literary devices mentioned
by Bharata in the beginning of the 16th Chapter.
BhSvika usually translated by * Vision * will have to
be rendered, consistently with Dan^in's explanation
of the term, by some such expression as Sustained-
Intuition.
Notes to II . 8— (i) Besides the two names for this figure
given by Dandin the figure is also called ^spim (gf^.
^thr!^, p. 35) and ^^q (3Tf?r3<m 344. 3) ; while ^^ groups
this figure along with a number of others under the
head of m^q figures, i. e., those that have the por-
trayal of the thing-as-it-is as their object. Compare
(viii. 10-12)—
73] Notes [— ii.8
The first question that has to be determined in re-
gard to this figure is whether a mere photographic
faithfulness to the object under description is what is
demanded. Can we for instance regard the following
from VTRi (ii. 94)—
as a valid example of ^^TRtfxfi ? On this point opinion
seems to have been divided : at any rate, some of the
earlier writers did not think it necessary to speci-
fically formulate the requirements of this figure,
although it must have been all along assumed that
^f%>2r, strikingness, that sine qua non of all ^r^^fjRs,
would be demanded in the case of this er^^R also.
When the question was actually asked, there was no
doubt as to the answer to be given. Thus Ruyyaka
says (p. 177)—^ ^^g^^^fwM ^IT^JspR: I rTT% ^% ^
^JT5ZR^5^iT^:^r^l ?ff| cTc]^^JT52R%T5r5T ^ ^^^^^':^ I It
was the ^srfcRRT^fJTwt ^^s^JT^ that alone came legiti-
mately under the province of this Alamkara. Hence
the ^nffc^T^ says (x. 93)— ^q^rttfrfilgT^^^f^rF^^^ i
(ii) Bhoja finds it necessary to distinguish this
figure from the [Artha-]guna called ST^or^Rh, which he
understands in a sense different from that of Dandin
(compare our Sanskrit Commentary to i. 73, p. 83).
But his distinction —
is not always observed, and Mammata was perhaps
justified in regarding the aT^o^jRh^^oT defined as q^5^V[T^-
^"i>ir=r*i as comprehended under the figure ?=^^7Rt%.
10 KlTyidartaj
ti. 9— ] KavyMaria [ 74
Notes to II . 9-13 — (i) Besides the classification given by
Dandin, which has for its basis the fourfolds ^^ of
words recognised by the grammarians (cf. ^^^s^ft ^is^mt
5r#T: I ^ifeKI H'JI^Kl: ft^H^^ ^^"^^m^^ I Mahabhashya
L 19), Svabhavokti can also be differentiated into var-
ious sorts according to its <iU^!^i ^^^, and ^. The
STT^q- is the theme ; and this can be 3?^, 1%%, g^^rriKr,
and the like. Svarupa indicates the particular aspect
which is chosen for description, and this can be (a)
^fe'iJ^- ?^rtkT^^?^^f^l^: or ^wmy (b) 3TfT%?TfeT: ^jfRj^^-
f^' or ^I^^STR, (c) ^, and (d) s^rrqR. By ^ are meant
the particular conditions of ^, ^jr5, ^Tf%, etc. which
are adduced to lend probability to the theme under
description. For details see Bhoja iii. 6-8 and the
examples there given.
(ii) The tendency of most writers is to make short
shrift with this figure, which is rather a pity ; for,
apart from simile and other embellishments, there is
a considerable skill involved in the process of observa-
tion and the subsequent operation of chosing the details
and marshalling them out in an effective order. It is
the presence of this very skill in a pre-eminent degree
which makes those long descriptive passages in writers
like Scott such fascinating reading. Not that there
is no nature-description in Sanskrit poetry ; poets like
Kalidasa and Bhavabhuti— and the Epics above all —
contain many a descriptive passage that can stand
comparison with the best in other literatures ; but
quite as often the description has been vitiated by the
intrusion of the subjective factor and a penchant for
pretty turns and quaint conceits which lend an un-
pleasant artificiality to the whole. Primitive poetry
depends for its effect almost exclusively upon SvabhS-
vokti.
(iii) There are two figures more or less allied to
Svabhavokti that have to be distinguished from it.
The figure :3^T^ (below, ii. 300) aims also at a descrip-
tion, but its object is some exalted personage or extra*
ordinary eminence of some sort, whereas it is die*
75 ) Notes [—ii.U
thictly laid down (Bhoja, iii. 8)— gj^w^^^^^^^^pfil
^^^r: I Further, as understood by later writers, the
exalted theme in the case of the ^H^TtT must always be
brought in subordinately (^H^q^^cRT), although Dandin
does not lay down this condition. The other figure
allied to Svabhavokti is Bhavika (ii. 364), taking it in
the sense in which '^i^^^, ^:^, ^f^Z and others under-
stand it and not in the peculiar sense which Dandin
assigns to it. The difference between Svabhavokti
and Bhavika is one of time. The former deals with
the actual present : the latter is an attempt to reha-
bilitate the past or to visualise the future. ^ For fur-
ther remarks on the subject compare our Notes to
ii . 364ff .
Notes to II. 14— (i) A few leading definitions of UpamS
given by other writers are —
Bharata (Natyasastra xvi. 42) —
Agnipurana (344. 6) —
^mr =^:?^^5rfrfrT?2f^fTT^( ? ) %%ctj^ ii
Udbhata in the Kavyalamkarasamgraha (P. 16) —
Rudrata (Kavyalarhkara, viii. 4) —
Bhamaha (ii. 30)—
Vamana (Kavyalamkarasiitra, IV. ii. 1) —
ii. 14—] Kavyadaria { 76
Bhoja (Sarasvatikanthabharana, iv. 5)^ —
Ruyyaka (P. 25)—
Mammata (x. 1)—
Vagbhatalamkara (iv. 50) —
Vagbhata (Kavyanusasana, P. 33) —
Hemachandra (Kavyanusasana, P. 239) —
Vidyadhara (Ekavali, viii. 2)—
Vidyanatha (Prataparudrlya, P. 351) —
Vi^vanatha (Sahityadarpana, x. 14) —
Appayyadikshita (Chitramlmansa, P. 6) —
Jagannatha (Rasagangadhara, P. 157) —
Visvesvara ( Alamkarakaustubha, P. 4) —
(ii) It will be noticed that all these definitions of
the Alarhkarikas agree in the main. The ^r^T^stftf^ in
Dandin's definition, which has its analogue in the de-
finitions of the Natyasastra and the Agnipurana, im-
plies that the similarity is largely cbR*f?q^ and that it
may hold in respect of any conceivable aspect or
aspects of the two things to be compared. This neces-
77 ] Notes [— ii.l4
sarily requires that the objects be two in reality ; and
it is this implication that has been expressly brought
out by qualifications such as ft^ft Rfe^^FJJT^5rf^^l®^^: ,
gqt:, ^ or RTW*- I The word ^:^q^ is represented in
other definitions by %^Tft, =^c^, pH^ or §?^^. The
specific mention of the technical terms ^3^7TfR and ^q^
in the definitions and the substitution of the word
^fp;F% (^WT^T qi^ W^ ^WWt cT^Tt^^:) for the simpler
gn^q", as also some late qualifications like, ^^cin-^^^q"
(^HWf^RRt ^W^H, cT^ldoijlPdciKWR), ^dH^HMln^^c^^lJ^^: , etc.
serve to exclude from the sphere of ^^^\ such varieties
as 8T?5?t^#WT, 3T:^dlM^I, fft^'WT, #^T%RT, f^#WT, Sira^^^ftq^TT,
er^cTR'jftqJTT, 5rfcT^q?TT, and gmt^'WT which Dandin em-
braces under the general term w^ but which later
Alamkarikas raised to the dignity of independent
figures. Dandin*s conception of WW^^ and of ^I^^T
which is its basis, is thus very wide and general.
(iii) We have already given above (Note (i) to ii. 2)
Vidyanatha's list of figures based on similarily, and
the extracts in our Commentary (P. 129) sufficiently
illustrate this point. The fundamental importance of
the relation of semblance was indeed very early perceiv-
ed. The Agnipurana for instance divides ^T?^i^ (defin-
ed as ^^^mP^q;) into ^m\, W^», ^ftT%; and ST^Vd<^RT
and ^ similarly defines artq^i^as (viii. 1) —
and enumerates the following figures as based upon
that relation —
The justification for the enumeration of these (and
others) as distinct figures (and not mere varieties of
:3q3TT) should consist in the circumstance that the ^{T?^?r-
^i^^-^h^ft:"^ in these figures is subordinated to some other
'ife^r (of identity, doubt, error, contrast, etc.). Dandin
at least, as we will presently see, brought in this
ii. 14— I Kavyadaria [ 78
other %^?r as the basis for a distinctive figure none
too frequently ; and hence it is that Dandin has been
able to get on with fewer figures but with larger sub-
varieties under each figure than most writers.
(iv) Upama has played a very large role even outside
the Alamkarasastra. It is usual to derive the word
;3qTfr from ^^^^f^[, to measure, in the sense of what
approximates another in measure, dimension, quality,
etc. ; but in the ^igveda the word seems to have been
connected with the adjective gq?T in the sense of the
highest : cp.— ^ Wl %i^ 5^ (vii. 30. 3) ; or pre-
eminent: cp,--|g<fr'iTT5qqT5^4^RT?i(i, 113.15), The two
words, it is probable, are quite distinct ; but the influ-
ence of the one in determining the evolution of the
meaning of the other is undeniable. The Satapatha-
brahmana was already familiar with the later use of
of the word : cp. ^'gq^rrfef (xii. 5. 1. 5).
(v) The Niruktakara Yaska has an elaborate note
on the use of W{^\ in the Bigveda. After pointing out
(i. 4, iii. 15f.) that the RqirTs ^, ?f, f%ci;, and 5 as also
^T^TT, 5iTT, 3TT, ^ are under certain circumstances used
^m^ he says (iii. 13ff.)— 2f^?Trj;cTc^I^f?rf% JTN^: i ^r^ ^ I
<!^\M^\ ^ 3^ JT^T^T^ ^\ ^Rt^ ^[^mm ^fM^ 1 st^ttPt
^i^\:^^ ^^Mt^ I Then he gives the following varieties
of ^H"^ with their illustrations —
^'WT— W ^ W ^ ^n\ ^ iT^% ( V. 78-8 );
>^#Frr— g-it^^ i_ f*R^: ( Viii. 2-40 );
^q^TT— fl^oq^q: ^ ^03m?^ ( ii. 35-10 );
fe#Wr— ^♦fflr4J \\^^ 5lf%tjq^ ^ ^^(i. 45.3) ;
and W<Ttq?TT:=3T#Wr—%: ( ^^\ ), sf^: ( fc^TRTH^ ).
He has also elsewhere pointed out the influence of
simile in the building up of the language (sj^rq? ^% ^l^^i^-
^: I rl^ 2nf% ^^, iii. 18, g?^R%^l^^l^ch<u|i^, ix. 12);
in the formation of technical terms feOTftf^uft^lnf^^,
vii. 12, fq#^5q>?r="^c^N^^, vii. 13); and upon the growth
of Vedic mythology in general (sfTf ^ 3^%q^ Whn^qwWt
^^ ^5fTq% c#wr^ 5^^ ^^f^, ii. 16).
79 1 Notes I— ii. \i
(vi) Only two of these varieties recognised by Yaska
deserve a particular attention. What he calls "^'-dlM^
is the w^ of the Alarhkarikas, and Dandin*s definition
of that figure is suggestive in that connection : ^^^
fcftt^^ ^^^2?% I The degree of this f^Rh^R upon
which the later distinction between WV^ and arf^T^FftfrR
is made to depend is equally ignored by Yaska as well
as Dandin. Next, the f^^qWT of Yaska is what might
be called a well-known or qRi%^fr^f^^ analogy. Com-
pare in this connection the definition of ^^ quoted
above. This Ri4lm{i contained in it the germ of what
are known as i;;«qW^TfqxiT ?gRTs or popular ?2rRs which, as
we saw, were made the basis or ^ of a number of
Alamkaras. Interpreted more scientifically the f^^t^OT
eventually became a regular vm\^ called ^H^fcf which
is a process of analogical knowledge from the known
and the familiar to the unknown and the unfamiliar.
Bhoja who recognises a distinct figure of speech
corresponding to each of the several Pramanas of the
MimSnsakas (sr^^^JRMTR =^ tft^:, iii. 3 ) defines
the alarhkara called ^3qJTR as follows : —
^5R373ii^?R3^ ficfRT^ n
His example is —
Most people would probably fail to see any figure in
the example or at least any valid ground for regarding
it as a new figure.
(vii) Having defined ^sq^T Dandin next gives us a
number of sub-varieties of it — some 32 or 33 in number
' — which do not seem to have been based upon any
principle of division. And some of the sub-varieties
mentioned by him have so little distinctive about them
that ^rm^T^OT in his commentary on the in^i^T^ (Madras
Govt. ms. fol. 390) observes :— ftlf^ftrf^ ^f^5SP5T%f^ N^^RiciT
^K^^i TifbT^: I Bhamaha's criticism ( ii . 37 f. ) is in the
same vein, no matter whether it is directed against
Dandin or some other writer —
il. 14— ] KavyUdaria [ 80
It has to be noted however that the Agnipurana
gives a classification of the ^htttts analogous to that of
Dandin [ viz:— ^, ^, q^^^q^, RM<id, R^, 3TR2R, ^^^T,
( ^:5HT ? ), SRmr, ^7^, chf?qdl, ^?^, and sm^^t], besides giv-
ing another classification into 18 sub-varieties similar
to those of Mammata ( 344. 7-9 ) —
The varieties called %^ and 5i^T are even mentioned
and illustrated by Bharata himself ( xvi. 48 ff. ),
though neither Bharata nor the Agnipurana mentions
the arrf^^cqm^TJTT, the main butt of attack. The author
of the Alarhkara^ekhara gives the following ten sub-
varieties of Jsqpj (xi. 3) —
But no other writer whose work is extant divides ^gqifT
in the manner adopted by Dandin. Dandin's classi-
fication is primitive and, so far as any principle
underlies the division, it is just the sense intended by
the speaker ( ST^ft^ft^^T it^TFr: ).
(viii) We can here advantageously consider some
other classifications of ^^q;^[ that have been advanced.
There is one in particular which might be styled
grammatical classification (sqi^^'JlSRY^Tf^^^) which has
been adopted by ;3:^ ( p. 16 ), ^^ ( viii . 5 ff. ), w^z and
most other later writers. But it seems to be not
unknown to the author of the Agnipurana ( cp. 344.
8-9) who gives, as just mentioned, 18 varieties based
on this principle as against Mammata'8 25. These last
we will now exhibit in a tabular form—
81 ]
Notes
[ — ii. 14
M
•T3
I
•I— I
M
- T
•r-H
4r
OQ
E
CO
45
/ft?
•T3
CO
I
CO
•r-t
M
XT
a-
I
U
tr-
^
-I
clE
/tt?
.13
tn
P
M
(V
— T
0
11 ESvySdar^a]
ii.l4— I Kavyadaria [ 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 'jjnt and
4 under ^HT and in the next place there is introduced
a further principle of five-fold sub-classification : ^ %^-
Wl\^ %^ciiiKlc^5jj: I iTfi#f|: STTSxTfRf ^^J^ ^^ ^T^TT^^ !F^
^fOT ^ ^7^ ( ^^Wn^, p. 172 ff. ).
(ix) Another principle of division is suggested by
Bharata ( xvi . 43 ) —
For illustrations see ^r^^FR^^g^ p. 141 f. The varieties
known as Trr^flT and ^^%q^ are sub-varieties under
the second division of Bharata. Upama, like Rupaka,
can also be divided as follows :— J^qJTT f|%rr ft^3^T
1¥pu iT^j^%f^^ ^ I For details see Bhoja ( iv • 20 ff. )
(x) Our Sanskrit Commentary on p. 129 quotes a
passage from Chitramimansa illustrating how an
example like =q^ ^ W^* ^y ^ slight phrasing, can be
turned into a number of other Alaihkaras, As an
Alarhkara Upama is to be kept distinct from ^f^
where the ^J^^ (usually defined as ^if^^ ^f^ ^<^T^-
^jfer^) is f%^r^; and from ^^ wherein, in spite of the
occasional presence of words like ^, the matter of the
similarity is not ^^jsrra"^. but purely a creation of the
poet's imagination. Compare —
^T^t^ ^^^^[5^: ^MHN<*. n
(xi) The fourfold requirement of an ^qf{j, viz. ^3q^,
^3qqR, ^nqr^q^il, and ^T^^J^T^ is not always present to
Dandin's mind. As Visvesvara observes (p. 19) ^fos^
W^^m ^rf\^^\^^^^\z\\^^^J^[^m\o^^^: i He has in fact
as ] Notes [ — ii. 16
given many a variety where no ^T^^FT^ is given and
where the w^^ is only dlc"44M^-i?<?il^W^l 'U^ ; cp . ii . 25,
26, 27 etc. Dandin's whole conception of ^^\ and his
attempted classification of it is very crude and uncriti-
cal. 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 Agnipurana (344. 10) —
The point of distinction between the two seems to be
the fact that while in the first the ^HTTTr is summoned
up merely to bring out the nature of the ^HWfiTcI^,
in the second the W{^[^ as a whole is compared with
the ^q^ as a whole, the two being regarded as entirely
alike.
(ii) The intended ^htr'JT^jt can be expressed in
various ways : by a simple word as in ii . 15 ( ^TRTTiW^),
by %s epithets which are ^TS^qi^frRTl as in ii. 28
( see Com. ), or by f^ epithets which are ^T^^RIt^T^
as in ii. 29 (^icAcbiHH ). Again the ^TP^rr^'rf may be
made the theme of a solitary sentence as in ^<d<ri*<
3TJ#^|te 3<ldlMH. o'* of compound or coordinate sen-
tences as in ^rqr ^^^ 3TRTTg ^qr QFMT^^-HldlMH. or --hW^H
^^TT5ffl^3Tfe 3TJ#^ =^ 3TT^5(J^5Tf^ I In the latter case we
sometimes have what is called the ^^^Sff^^^TR (^^
'^^ iq=hi'^^l^i^Ml^M*<) as in -^bW^ri^idm ^fTff3qt:^T%^ =^rnfr^fi^
S^^MI^NM^) as in— 3TJ:^it^ ^FT^W ^^ m ^ where ^
and ^Ji^ are related to each other as f^ and srfrrf^
although the ^^s^qf of the one and the w^ of the other
being practically one have between them the ^^^srf^^
relation. Jagannatha would call this
Notes to II, 16 — (i) The first line gives two separte exam-
ples of ^^?crRT. If we were to read the line — ^[T^ ^
ti. 16— ] Kavyadaria [ 84
cT ^^ (Loc. case) ^ JT^4)<lft4 it would be the second
kind of cfic^^jjl^^i illustrated in ii. 45.
Notes to II. 17 — (i) This is recognised as distinct Alamkara
by ^5[3, W^^^i W^Z, f^^^^^, ^SFT^TT^T and most other modern
writers. The Sahityadarpana defines it as ( x . 87 ) —
Dandin's enumeration of it as a variety of ^anrriT has
been thus criticised by Jayaratha, in his Alamkara-
sarvasva-Vimarsini ( p. 165 ) — ^Mijlsl=hKc=f =^R^ ^[^m, I
§5fc2f^ TT^ ^: I This in effect means that the ^^ has
a^Rl^ which does not necessarily go to the formation
of the real essence of an ^^q^T. But as Dandin began
by making his definition of ^sq^r rather very wide, he
had no option but to regard the 5[cftq as a sub-variety
of ^jqrrr. It is so recognised by Bhoja (iv . 23) and by
the Agnipurana (344. 12) where it is called RqOdlWI.
(ii) This f^t^FTT is to be distinguished from f^F?^qJTT
( ii. 30 ) and 5lid^'4lM44l ( ii. 34 ) from the circumstance
that the degradation of the ilf^^lM+lM is only implied
in f^q2?^#TJTr but is explicitly brought out in the other
two varieties, stating points of inferiority in the sdMHM.
Notes to II. 18 — (i) A good example of this variety would be
It is recognised by the Agnipurana and thus defined
(34411 ) — ^^^^qrft^ 3i3rnqft%T ^jtM^i q<^q<)M^i m wm}
In the examples of this variety given above the common
quality is not stated ; but it has got to be the same,
being conveyed by the same word or by synonymous
expressions. Hence the example —
S5 ] Motes t— ii.l8
cannot constitute an 3?;qt^qJTTf as the ^mTR?JT^ in ^T%Tr
%«q^ is ^ft^T^Sc^ and that in ft^^ tifid'cR the ^t^k^.
(ii) This variety is raised to the dignity of a distinct
figure called ^^^tq^ by later Alarhkarikas. It has
been defined by ^:^ as ( p. 67 )—
Regarding the qualification 'T^i'd^^ii^'TTH, in the above
definition 5f^|fi?|^T^ observes— ?TT^ ^q^TRtq^^T^ ^c^^ f%5
^ |^% ' It is doubtful however whether Dandin is here
thinking of the rjcf[3f^r^5^Io?r^=5#^ as much as of the heigh-
tening of their mutual excellence — SF^Jt^c^fj^fefft.
This implies that both the ^jq^^r and the ^^hh must be
si^cT, as nobody would spend any effort in showing forth
to advantage the charm of what is not the theme on
hand. Compare the examples given by |JT=^^ and 3^7-
7T^%cf as quoted in our Sanskrit Commentary. Bhoja
( iv. 23 ) calls this ^^Rtqqr.
( iii ) In mJTtqTTT ( ii. 19 ) the ^|cft2r^fl[^T52r^^ is express-
ly made. Here it is implied only. The implication
is to be explained as follows — ^^ ^ 5^^^ 5% -^I's^^iwl
^t^lkd<<>iJ^-S4* '^>^ ( ST^K^l^, P . 176).
( iv ) Bhamaha recognises riM^^riftq^l as a distinct figure
and it is worth observing that Dandin does not feel
the necessity of criticising the recognition of the ^3q^-
^ftqfTT as a distinct figure as he has done for instance in
the case of W^^, ^If , >^M^I^q^, and ^^TR^ ( ii. 358-
359 ) all of which are figures admitted by Bhamaha.
Nor does Bhamaha for his part offer any justification
for regarding ^q4^4l"4^i as a distinct figure. As for as
this circumstance goes therefore we 'lannot establish
any conclusion either way regarding the chronological
relation between ^f^^and ^TR^.
Notes to II. 19-20— (i) In arf^rq^fttRTT the ?jcft3?^T?5^T53?T^ is
made highly probable but is not f^f^i^. In ffRPR^^TfT it is
openly asserted. In 3T?3ft;?qTtnTr, as we saw. it was left
to be inferred. Both these varieties are recognised by
the Agnipurana. The 3T^#^ defines R3I#WT as— q^
Notes to II. 21 — (i) In ^q#wi there is only a single common
quality sought to be expressed ; in the present variety a
large number of those are mentioned ; in 3Tr%^^tWT, the
next variety, their number is so overwhelming that
the poet contents himself by stating just the one
solitary aspect or quality which is not common. Again,
in ^T5^^!^WT more than one ^fP^TRW^^ is brought in ; in
^|W(ii.40) more than one ^sqiTR is adduced. The
result is that while in the former between the ^3^^ and
the ^3Wr^ a number of distinct common qualities are
sought to be conveyed, in the latter it is the intensity of
the one self-same quality that stands out prominently.
The variety is recognised by the Agnipurana.
Notes to II . 22— (i) See Note (i) to ii. 21. This variety
fails to produce the impression of an identity between
the ^sq^ and the ^WJ^ because the ^ is not entirely
fd^ftd, as happens in a ^^q^ ( see ii. 66, below ). At the
same time it must be remembered that the solitary ^
between the ^sq^q- and the ^jnnTR which is put forward
is not meant to suggest the superiority or the in-
feriority of the one over the other, as is the case, for
instance, in Pi«^M^I, srfrf^nsftqjrr, and the Alamkara called
52if^(ii.l80).
(ii) This variety is not recognised by the Agni-
purana, unless we choose to identify it with what the
Purana styles o^rf^^^Tq^ which is thus defined (345.
13)-
The Agnipurana, be it noted in passing, does not re-
cognise sqf^^ as a distinct figure-of-speech, whereas
87 ] Notes (— ii. 24
Dandin who does it can only be supposed to have dis-
tinguished between atfcT^pfrwT and o^Td^* in the manner
above indicated. A good example of this variety is
given by the 3T^^?R^^ ( p. 30 )—
Notes to II. 23 — Dandin seems to have been alone in re-
cognising ^^%^q?Tr as a sub-variety of Upama. We have
already indicated in a general way ( cp. Note (x) to
ii. 14 ) the distinction between ^f|T and ^^. Utpre-
ksha may be said to be more particularly concerned
with that human faculty which, Shakespeare tells us,
" bodies forth the forms of things unknown and gives to
airy nothing a local habitation and a name. " In a
regular Utpreksha it is the actual ^TTJ^ between the
^^H^ and the W{^[^ — or some aspect connected with it
— that is poetically conceived. In the variety before
us there is an ^t^'Jl ; but it has nothing to do with the
s^fTcq- between 5^ and ^^ which is the immediate sub-
ject of assertion. The ^^^ comes in only second-
arily : the poetic fact of the stanza could have been ex-
pressed without bringing in the 'bragging of the Moon' :
for instance— 3T^2TT: 5^!^: ^%^m^^I^ 3TFT 5 ^W{ W 3?^^ I
The introduction of the bragging Moon lends an added
surprise-element which is not disagreeable. Hence
this is not a regular ^^^ but merely an ^3c^%cftqTrr.
The Com. ^cTT^Trf^^l" however explains- — 2r^cj^^jff%^?3f-
^TRT^TcTRIT f%^^^TFf?^g^^ I ^im^ 5#^ =^ RT^ ^V\ ^|^-
Notes to II . 24 — (i) ;3f^, as the more difficult reading and
also the one intrinsically more poetic, seems to be
the genuine reading which got ousted by the more
familiar word H^.
(ii) This variety has been admitted by the Agni-
purana and is thus defined (344. 16) —
ii. 24—] Kavyndaria \ 88
To assert that the 5ifcnJtf^ ( = ^JTR ) resembles or can
resemble the 3T3#rFT^only under conditions impossible
of fulfilment is in effect to say that the ^jq^ is without
a peer. As the conditions are 3?:^ or %^qT^^ the
variety is called 3T^dl4^1', the 3T:^cRTr consisting not in
the component elements ( ^cHSI^fe^, R^Wcjil-t^Hd etc. )
taken by themselves, but in the peculiar combination of
them that is demanded : ^T^^^rtq^TRTt %5^ '<^rfW ^^'cRT-
^q^Ti: <s{:^: as Ca remarks. The Alarhkarasekhara
calls this same variety STHjilM^^i ( defined, p. 30, as — q^-
^'^^^1^^ ^Rnfirr^ ^|W|si^3lH ^r ), a name which Dandin
has reserved for another distinct variety { see ii. 38,
below. )
( ii ) Adbhutopama is to be distinguished from Abhu-
topama and from Asambhavitopama; and the distinc-
tion is rather subtle. In ST^Wr the presumptive ^^^[^
is not a R?m'J|Rl?l^4^5 wherein the ft^t^s cannot
coexist with the ^M, but rather a single simple ^
which is nowhere to be met with in nature, as for in-
stance the concentrated essence of the charms of all
lotuses ; cp, ^sqrrR^ ^^ ^^^MJ4M^ ^^HT5[^icTct^r^
dl4+ilftfcT (aj. qr., p. 36 ). In 3T^IKdlH^I it is not the ^
of a new ^qf^ which is ascribed to the sr^^cT^'^ and
which is inconsistent with it ( as happens in the 3?^^-
q^rr), but the sl^^d^rtT^ is itself said to have a quality which
it can never have. Or, looking at it from another
point of view, for effecting the comparison between the
W${^ and the ^iTR, in an ^Ti^qrrT a non-existent ^JTR
is postulated and in an 3T:^[^tq?TT an existing and well-
known ^^q^fR is associated with impossible fqttq'iTs brought
over from another ^qr^. The ultimate result is that
the ^q^ remains without peer. Such is not the case
in an ar^Hlf^dlM^I where the point of comparison is just
the fact of the incompatihility oi the ^s that the ^^T^^
( the ^q^JT ) is expected to possess ; and the comparison
does become possible in that respect.
(iii) The wr^rwi as recognised by w^ and the Agni-
purana ( which merely quotes "^^ ) comes most near to
3T?^^tq?n. Bharata thus illustrates it (xiv. 51) —
89 ] mtes { — ii. 25
Here ^g-+jaiRRi^w«l^s or moving mountains is an 3T^cT
phenomenon. What ^^ calls ^cMl^ifi'Wfn' is no other than
this 3{:^[^}tq3TT. Bhoja's illustration is the verse ^^ ^rf^
o3ft^ etc ; regarding which he remarks (p.352)— sr^qriT-
^^\ I Hemachandra (p. 247) unsuccessfully attempts to
make a sort of a distinction between ^??T^fTT and cfjf^-
^^^\ ; but the most clear presentation of that view
is to be seen in Rudrata viii. 13-16. Mammata regards
Dandin's ST^^tnwT as a subvariety of 3TirRT^r%.
Notes to II. 25 — (i) Mohopama springs from the close
similarity between the ^w\ and the ^qrrr^, so close that a
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 3Tf^^T#rJTT (where the
element of difference was consciously realised) but in
advance of ^^w, where the $t^is completely submerged,
though it is there at the back of one's consciousness so
that an actual blunder cannot arise.
(ii) In ^^Rtqrrr (ii . 26) the person is struck by the
close similarity but is still doubting. If he perceives
the ^^^[^ as ^^\^ the result would be f^^jtqJTT (ii. 27) ;
but if he perceives the ^^^\^ as ^q^q", the result would
be #rff'7*TT. Again, if after a temporary but actual error
the person corrects himself and perceives the thing as
it is, the result would be ^^p^^TRTWr (ii. 36). As between
fWT^RT and ^^T^RtqJTT it is to be noticed that while
in both the ultimate perception is a real perception, in
the former it is preceded by a moment of doubt or
hesitation, in the latter by one of actual blunder.
(iii) All the four varieties of w^ just considered
must be based upon ^r?^. If the doubting or the blun-
dering is the result of normal causes mentioned in —
12 Kavyadarsa ] '
ii, 25 — ] Kavyadarsa [ dO
the result cannot be an ^^mi- It goes without say-
ing also that the ^\^^ ought to be ^FJ^rfcnm^l^T.
(iv) The 4l^^^l of Dandin has given rise to two in-
dependent Alaihkaras of later writers : ^5[TPcRl^ and
^3^^. Ullekha might be said to be a ^TT^JTWr^ and is
thus defined by wm^ (p. 270)— ir^j^ ^^ f^ftrT^^TRI^-
'^ji'iJ{lrj,ft<^'=hi^'hK4 JT^ cT^^' ' The common property be-
tween the ^m^ii and the «3miM which has been the source
of the error is not stated in the example ; but it can be
stated also ; compare —
And this circumstance makes it possible for us to in-
clude under ^ttftq^TT the figures of speech called +/]f^d,
^mM, and ^^, for definitions of which and for their
mutual distinctions see particularly ^ffl^^^'JI x . 89-90.
Notes to II. 26-27— (i) This and the next variety of ^m
have given rise to an independent Alamkara called
g^RT, ^^ or mi^ with its sub-varieties of ^?[, f^^^f^,
and f^^^TPcT. Suddha is an ordinary ^t^T%WT a good
example of which is furnished by Rudrata ( viii. 60) —
while f^^^TRT is ft^WwT. Of ^^q^ the stock example
is —
Visvanatha's ft^sfT^j^jK (x. 39) illustrated in —
is slightly different from R^^f^qm or ft^qT<R?^. As
Visvanatha himself remarks — ^ ^^ f^^^TF^- ^T^: ' ^
(ii) From ii. 358 below it seems clear that some pre-
decessors of Bhamaha did regard ^^^ as an inde-
91 ] Note^i [ — ii. 30
pendent figure. Now Bhamaha thus defines and il-
lustrates the figure ( iii. 42-43) —
But we do not have merely in that fact any certain
indication that Dandin could have meant no other
writer but Bhamaha.
Notes t II. 28-29— -(i) These two varieties differ from
vqiJft^T ( ii . 15 ) only in the added circumstance that the
5?2T^ is here expressed by paronomastic words, the ^
being 3TT'J in the former and ^TT*^ in the latter ( f^
?^ 3t4#^ ^rJ^3T^ ^TS3[^fi^). The two varieties can
therefore both of them in a sense be called ^^im*ii, as
has been done by the author of the 3T^*K^r^< who gives
the joint example (p. 30) —
(ii) The variants ^^'f^7f^^ and ^r#WT for ^fJTT^rWT 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 ^-
^ and the ^qJTR are in this variety tied together ( like
miscellaneous cattle in a cowpen) to one and the same
rope in the form of similarly-sounding words, and
resemble each other only in that accidental circum-
stance.
Notes to II . 30-31 — (i) A normal ^3^R contains the common
quality in a more pronounced degree than a normal
^3WT; and this is the reason why in a f^f^fnWT (ii. 17)
the mere reversal of that relation inplied the lowering
of the :3^qTfR in respect of that common quality. The
ii. 30 — i Kavyadarsa [ 9^
fight for superiority between the ^q^TT^ and the ^sq^
about pre-eminence in this quality is represented
as still undecided in ^^T^frRT (ii. 33). In fti^^qHT the
claim of the ww^ is allowed in regard to the common
quality, but certain extraneous facts are adduced (e.g.
^|^^5j^, ^RRTlf^^, etc. ) which should lower it and
consequently the ^^ also in our estimation. In 5lf^-
^^qr^TJTT ( ii . 34 ) the ^q?TR is represented as fighting a for-
lorn fight for regaining its normal pre-eminence in res-
pect of the common quality. All these varieties there
fore can be regarded as ^qjTT varieties, because under-
lying them all is the presupposition that the 4^HH
and the >^Mi)q' have a certain specific quality in common ;
and the question at issue merely is, who has the
quality to a greater or less degree. The figure-of- speech
called oilkR* ( ii . 180 ) has also to be distinguished from
these ^^^\ varieties, in regard to which see our Notes
to ii. 180.
(ii) As observed before, w^ and the author of the
Agnipurana mention these two varieties of ^qqr, and
their recognition is criticised by Bhamaha (see Note
(vii) toii. 14, above). The illustrations for them
given by Bharata are (xvi. 49-50) —
From these it would seem that Vamana is probably
right when he says (iv. 2.7, ^m )— ^^ R^^rt ^fqnc^n^
=^^r: 5r?ffTT: \ What is intended by this three-fold divi-
sion is therefore ^JTRfTT^r^^r %^^^Jl as the ^nT%5
observes. Dandin however seems to have taken a
different view of the case. Whether he was the first
to do so is however difficult to decide. The f^J^tqJTT as
defined and illustrated in the Alamkarasekhara comes
near to the srfcl^^qJTT ( ii. 34 ) ; for there the definition
93 ] Notes [ — ii. 37
is— 3T#W^T^ ft^^^ 5ffcT%^: ^T f^q^T, and the illustra-
tion—
Notes to II. 32 — See note (vii) toii. 14 above. Because no
other Alamkara writer known to us ( except Vamana )
mentions 3TTM^^-JI<flM^l and because Bhamaha criticises
the recognition of this variety , it would be perhaps unfair
to conclude that Bhamaha must have meant Dandin
alone, seeing that a vast amount of literature known
to Bhamaha and even mentioned by him by name is no
longer available to us.
Notes to ir. 33-34— See Note (1) to ii, 30 above. The
variety called srfcT^TtqffT it must be admitted comes near-
est to the oi|[cK'^; we can possibly distinguish them from
each other by supposing that in srfd^MlMJ^T the point at
issue is the degree of ^JTPcT or 3Tr^[^?Fc^ ( the common
quality) of the ^JT^c^'^J^ffc^f^^S ^% and the 5^. 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 sq-ra^ some quality or qualities are stated wherein
the ^qjfR and the ^T(^ are declared to be equal to one
another ; but at the same time another distinct quality
possessed by the w^ and denied to the ^q^TRT is adduc-
ed which serves to establish the superiority of the
^jq^^ over the ^^^\^ considered as a whole.
Notes to II. 35-36 — The name =^^3qr has nothing very dis-
tinctive or appropriate about it. — For the distinction
between (h'JI^Im^I andcTf^T^^TR^WT see Note (i) to ii. 25.
Notes to II. 37— Dandin uses both qj^r ( i . 53,95 ) and ^B^T
in the sense of area, region, boundary-line, province,
equality, similarity, etc. The reading ^tf^ (which our
Sanskrit Commentary explains ) seems to be merely an
ii. 37— ] KWvyadarm f 94
easier substitute for ^fj^^TTJ^. The word ^fj^ is Vedic,
regarding which see Nirukta ii. 2.
(ii) As Dandin himself tells us (ii. 358), this variety
was regarded by others as constituting a distinct
alarhkara called 3?;^^. Bhamaha thus defines and
illustrates it (iii. 44-45) —
The stock example of this alarhkara is the one given
by Vamana (iv. 3. 14.) —
( iii ) As sf^i^lqiii results in ^pft^^T^s??^^^ so smn^rWt-
qiTT results in f|cft2W?2^2IT%^. In the ^^?4lM*iT example
in ii, 18 3TH?i is both ^^^[^ and ^jq^, but in different
sentences ; whereas in ST^P^K'JMM^l in one and the same
sentence the face becomes both ^^^[^ and ^q^. It
must be distinctly understood, however, that if yester-
day's face is compared with to-day's face of the same
lady that becomes an ordinary :3qjn pure and simple.
In other words, between ^ the ^^ and ^ the ^^H\A
in the example under discussion there must be only
^q^^^ and not ^^FPRS^w^^'^Tl^f^^. In the same way
the verse —
H'^i«=rid 5nT% 5^J-f|^JRTf^^Ti^fq i
does not contain an sr^i^rT^TjfitiqT, but is merely a c{^^r.
Nor again does the verse given by Dandin later
(ii.276)—
^^^ vi^ sMrr^^Twqrr^ 3^: ii
regarding which 3Tcq?:3T^t%T observes ( f%«» ?ft<» p- 42 ) —
^ ^^s^?i^f^ o^:s^^ — constitute an example of this
variety.
95 ] itotes [ — ii. 40
( iv ) In ^i^mrr^wtqirT although the face is declared to
be without a peer the form of the assertion is conceived
outwardly in the manner of an ^3^T. Where however
even this outward form is not preserved that is re-
cognised by ^JTvTT^ as a distinct figure called 3T^Tf[- As
he says (p. 210 f . )-~^3%qT^^HJn?5^r^5^PR: I 3T^T—
s^Br^qfq JTFii: qf^^iyf ftfi^ ^rI*. i
ST5r ^?4lM^MT^^ ^ Ki)^ ^ \^\^^^^^^^m I This however
is 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 (ii) to ii . 24 above. In regard
to the illustration given for STH^TT^^Tt^JTT it has been well
observed ( aneant the ruling that W{^\^ must be ^t^R5f%^
while ^?4Hi^^7^%r is not ^5ri%^ ) — 3T^ =sR5r^7^f^^rf^-
Notes to II . 40— ( i ) Compare Note ( i ) to ii . 21 above.
Bharata already tells us (xvi. 43) —
And his examples in order are — ge^ ct ^fflHT ^^^m^, "^^J^-
f ^ 5T^T^'^ ^^, #T^ff'iW^T?Tt g^raj: and ^r ^ ^rsTT: I
Here of course, in its most primitive form, the distinc-
tion is made to depend upon whether the ^l;^\^ or the
^^^ or both are in the singular or the plural gender.
Now JTT^5tq?TT (ii. 42) is v^f^ ^^: ^qqr, and in Dandin*s
statement the distinction between ^|W and Trr^t^JTT
is this. In ^|W a number of vi'-|4^Ms are adduced in
the hope that in their cumulative effect at least they
would approximately convey the extent of the common
quality possessed by the ^q^, which they are unable
to do singly. In Jn<^M*l( on the other hand any one of
the several 3q^*Ts is conceived as being adequate by
ii. -40— i Kavyadarsa [ 96
itself to bring out the common quality, and the wealth
of illustration serves merely to show off the poet*s
Notes to II. 41 — (i) The Alaihkarasekhara thus defines
and illustrates this variety (p. 31)— wt^^rgq^TRf^^RcRt-
Notes to II. 42— See Note (i) to ii. 40 above. The illustra-
tion in the text is based upon identical ^ETn^iR'Jnrf; but
this is not essential. With f*i7(^rpqTWT4 a good example
of Jrr^M^l is the familiar stanza —
TTT^ l^ ft^ ©%!%
The 3T^R#r^¥r gives also the following example —
Apparently it is a series based upon ftr^RTM^'^^ which
alone is recognised as 3TT^Tq?Tr by the author of the
Agnipurana. Compare (344. 14-15) —
(ii) Dandin does not recognise what is known as
^5I#Rr defined by the Agnipurana (344. 20) as —
SflrT^fTTt ^f^ ^T# ^4#( ? l^ )wr II
and thus illustrated by ^3 (vii. 28) —
^RJ^te ^^^1% ^T^^ 5ni[(^^^% II
For other varieties see ^TfWT'*^^ pp. 181 ff. and s{c5^<-
ft^^ pp. 146 ff.
97 ]
N'otes
[— ii.45
Notes to n . 43-45 — (i) By cfi^ Dapdin seems to have
meant a complete utterance of a thought setting forth
all its ^^ relations : in other words a picture wiih 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
3T^3|Wlv{ 31^^ri%^ is compared with another similar
^I^^TTOr- with the trifling subsidiary distinction of the
presence or absence of an additional independent ^^^
for each ^l{^^^— the result is a ^l^Hl^ifN^r. Hence it is
that after dividing ^jq^rrs as shown below —
Pl^q>*^cfi
iiM^M\
q^qifefT
W^
*ii^\i^m
m^m^m^
I
3?!%^ = ^
the author of the Alarhkarakaustubha cites stanza
ii. 45 as an example of ^ qtqfeir, the comparison be-
tween one pair of ^q?TR and ^^ leading on to and
depending upon the next pair.
(ii) In the two examples of ^r^pqT#-l?Tr given by
Dandin the ^flT^^ between the various pairs of ^^qiTRrs
and ^3q^s in each is clearly felt although not actually
expressed. But it is not absolutely necessary that
there should be this ^^^^n^^cfT everywhere. The 3T^cjjt^-
^^ cites the following where there is ^^ W^^m^^---
13 KBvyldar^a]
ii. 45 — 1 Kavyadaria [ 98
(iii) It is perhaps necessary to draw attention to the
fact that qisHlMHi is different from cricf^i^Jfqqi. We have
just seen what ^[^^sfferr is. The nature of qmtqrTT
becomes evident from the circumstance that it is dis-
tinguished from what is called ^?TTRfhT?T and sic^T^f^WT
(following Rudrata) or from ^j^J (following Hema-
chandra) ffr[ being 'Hfll^df^cTHlilNl^il^H f^lw- The stock
example of ^r^^^nrr given by Vamana is—
Notes to II. 46-47 — Although in this variety the j^kt is
always implied and never actually expressed, there
being no vdWNN**!'s>'^ present, Dandin is perhaps justi-
fied, in view of his own general conception of ^s^T, in
not regarding sdcR^^jWT as a distinct Alaihkara. It is
not recognised as such by ^frsr, vrnT^. and ^^. The
further subsidiary difference as to the manner of imply-
ing the ^TTq- (by ^^^jrfcT^^^^TT^ or by f^^ilfc^f^HHI^, regard-
ing which see Note (ii) to ii. 15 above) upon which the
distinction between sr^R^^URT and ?srt turns is also
not of consequence enough to give rise to a new
alaihkara, and Jagannatha practically concedes this
(pp. 337-8)— 3T^ ^loi'-hK^q- J^^^cJJWT^^^J^cl^ ^^ rmt wf ^
5rfrfT%l^: f%5 S^^n^F2rT?3^ %c[: ^^ ^ srfcfl^l^^* • \
m^ Jf^^TRTT tT^ ^IW^^^^FR^TRT ff^ g^T^ I Hence Dandin's
5(]%^^?CWr as an ^;iT variety may be said to stand in
the place of both 5n%^^?JjWT and ?sr?^ of later 3il<A+lR«hs.
(ii) The following quotation from 5rr«t*8 Alaihkara-
sarvasvavimarsini (p. 28) is illuminating as to the
distinction between q^SffcR^^TT^, where the things are
really one but two only in the phrasing, and I'^i^iildf^^-
^IR, where the two things are really distinct but have
to be temporarily identified — ^^ f| ^W^ f^ujict^ sd^-
99 ] Notes [ — ii.49
(iii) Some remarks of the ep^r^qifcSfft on this stanza
are also worth quoting— Sffciq^E^qiTT I slfrRT^: ^T?^^r^ ci^
^^nf| —
^m ^^w ( ii.l69 ) I 5T5f[f^-c}^ ^^■^^7^^ ^ ( v. l. ) ^c^wn
<=l^'d<W<^%% clc^*'-^R^Tr5j^%q:^?rrri; ff Tc^'^'JtV ^ I In other
(iv) In order to give adequate account of a number
of devices other than ^h^ttt and ^^ for expressing
similarity between two things Bhoja has invented a
new alamkara called ^j^ or ^\^w\ which he thus defines
and divides (iv. 34) —
?^l'dlRtr. smrfrff: STRT^^r^ ^ 11
This alamkara accordingly would do duty for jrfrR^^JWf
and ^iT^ of the alamkarikas. For the various sub-
divisions of S[i%cnF?}pfi^IT?f and the illustrations followed
by Bhoja's illuminating critical remarks see Sarasva-
tikanthabharana itself. Samya as an alamkara is
recognised by Rudrata also (viii. 105ff.).
Notes to II. 48-49— (i) How to distinguish this variety
from the figure^of-speech called ^o^Tiftf'tcTT which Dan-
din defines and illustrates in ii. 330-332 is a rather
subtle question. Both are attempts at ^4(|ch<'J| between
ii.49— ] Kavyndaria [ 100
two things one of which is distinctly superior (srf^
or ^<jf!^^), and the common property adduced is some
^53?T, 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 3?2Rlf^ and absent in the definition of the
sub-variety 5?3T^'ftqTn" is ^f^f^^^r^^; but it is not quite
satisfactory to make the distinction turn upon this
circumstance, for then ge^Rtf't^T would come nearer to
the varieties ^^^tq^jT and 5i^r#WT (ii. 30-31). We can
probably bring out the distinction by supposing that
in the ^3TJTT variety the ^ is consciously realised as
the gq^ or the 51^^ while in the figure ^^4lRldr
the ^sq^TT^-^q^ relation, even though actually present
(as in ii. 331), is deliberately set aside, the ^n^ being
only w^ or implied and not ^TS^NTtT as in the other
case ; and this agrees with the later definitions of
^c^q^il^ldT like that of wm (ft^cTT^rt ^i^^'- I f^[3RTRTT3L= ^^l-
Pl*HlH'=r 3T5n^^%jjHi^ qr). Udbhata is even more ex-
plicit (p. 60)—
(ii) If this statement of the difference between
^^^pft^ftqJTT and ^JpjWtrTT is correct it follows that Dan-
din's ^^4l''TFTriT approaches the figure-of-speech called
^m as it is defined by ?FTj3-^?^^fl%^ ^rf^ ilt>cili^t»'ilc^HlHr
for there the common property exists between things
consciously realised as ^3q^ and w^m^. Compare w^
(p. 71)— 5R5rrT5i^cI2ft4^ ^ewRlclT ^H^$i c(n^1 From
Dandin's view of the case however the distinction
between ^fq^ and ^^^Rt^TtqriT is clear. In ge^T^ft^n^qTrr
there is an attempted ^Rftqj^ between srf^ and ^
things ; this is absent in the ^m of fF^B. At the same
time the ^qqj requires the m^ to be expressed only
once for all ; in ^c-sj^^Hqflf it may be repeated. Dandin
is thus looking to the etymology of the name all along,
while there is a tendency in later writers to ignore
that altogether. It would be noted in passing that
the ^tw here spoken of is not the <^ as Dandin de-
101 ] Notes [— ii.50
fines it (ii. 97ff.) which is more a ^K<l<^+K than an
<>T^lci'=bl<. See Notes to the figure in question.
(iii) We have so far attempted to set forth the dis-
tinction that Dandin probably must have made be-
tween 3?5r^t%RTr and 5^3pftPtcTT ; but writers who do not
admit this ^^^\ variety have defined ^o^JRtRrlT in terms
that Dandin might have reserved for 5^?Rt%nTT. The
definition of Bhamaha is (iii. 26)—
That of Ruyyaka (p. 70)—
That of Vamana (iv. 3. 26)—
Bhoja, finally, while giving for ^^ftFrclT a definition
identical with that of Dandin, further adds (iv. 55) —
for which his illustration is —
STTfcI^^fTf^T^RT fqRJg^ ERR ^ I
(iv) The distinction between Sf^'^q^FiT (ii. 31) and
go^^jft'TiWr seems to be the circumstance that in the
former some extraneous facts not germain to the
intended m^ (e. g. ^T^ff^-icTc^) are adduced for heighten-
ing the value of the ^tttr while in ^^^Tt^frwr the
superiority is based upon the degree or intensity of
the self-same m^ as measured by marked difference
in results achieved, difficulties encountered, etc. In
other respects the two varieties seem allied. We do
not think that the fact of the ^7?^^ being ^fP^ in the
one (^ gc^) and ^^:^^ in the other would have been
adduced by Dandin as the additional distinctive
feature.
Notes to II. 50— (i) An ordinary ^qriT— srFHlij^ft^ I d l^ ^p^d^
can be put in the form of a |?J3?Tr in this manner:
ii. 50—] Kavyadaria [ 102
^Pi'dc^JTMIMc^H 3TOt^|^fr5^f%. In ^T^^^t^WT (ii. 21) we had
a similar presentation of the similarity ; only there a
number of ^s were adduced to bring out the ^TTR
between the same ^jq^^T and ^sq^R ; while in the ex-
ample before us a number of ^s are adduced to bring
out the ^TTJ^ between one and the same ^qfr^r and a
series of ^JTRs with which it is to be compared. — As
in ^|W (ii. 40) or Jn^tqirr (ii. 42) a series of successive
;=nw[Frs are here given but that^f^^q- upon which this
variety primarily turns is the presentation of the m^
in the form of a \%. It is perhaps not essential that
the l^s (and the ^qRs) in a I^IJRT be always more
than one.
Notes to II. 51-56 — (i) Like 3^s the ^s have been most
elaborately treated by Indian Alamkarikas. They have
been named and classified according as they belong to
syllables, words, sentences, sense, sentiments, and
alamkaras. A detailed treatment of these is given in
the Sahityadarpana vii, or Kavyaprakasa vii. Dandin
affords a treatment of them in this place and later in
iii. 125-185. In regard to the Upamadoshas our Sans-
krit Commentary supplies the needful supplementary
information from Vamana, Bhoja, and other writers.
(ii) The extra line in ii. 56 which we have enclosed
in square brackets, like a number of other lines and
verses, is clearly an interpolation ; but having been once
accepted in the editio princeps of Premachandra and
so passed on into works of reference it would have
been most inconvenient to omit them and so change
the subsequent verse-numbering. In one place (ii.
158-163) where a transposition of stanzas was felt by
us to be on critical grounds absolutely called for we
have for the same reason transposed the stanzas and
yet retained their original verse-numbering, believing
that nobody would grudge us giving credit for being
able to count the numbers from 158 to 163 correctly.
103 ] ^otes [— ii.66
Notes to II. 57-65— (i) Dandin's list of ^l^:^^^«h 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 bt^j^TR^jT^^^
supplies words like gp; =?k, ^c[^, 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 neces-
sary to go into all these later lists with a view
to determine the text of Dandin*s list, especially as it
would have been necessary not only to refer to the
printed editions but even the Ms. material of these
other alamkara works.
(iii) The colophon ^g'7TlT=^^ (and other similar colo-
phons to mark the conclusion of the treatment of an
alarhkara with a number of subdivisions) is generally
given in Mss. with omission of ^ and substitution of
synonyms like ^w etc. for =q^ and other small vari-
ants. We have ignored the variants and have generally
followed best Ms. authority in giving the colophons or
omitting them.
Notes to II . 66 — (i) The name of this figure is thus explain-
ed—3T^ 5 %Rft ( ;3qTrRf[19[^rf?^) fwt ( 5T^cT5^^J^) ^^"^'^ ^^^
^^ aT?^5TTf^^5^ ^^^^^^ 1 Rupaka has to be carefully dis-
tinguished from ^^^ (especially the varieties of it
called 5TT%5^#RT and 4l^M^l), from ^B^TT^frff (ii. 205), from
^M^I^rfxfT (ii. 214), from ^^ (ii. 221), and from sm|f^
(ii. 304) — amongst alamkaras recognised by Dandin ;
and from qf^WTTf, ^^^, wf^H^and^3^ — amongst alam-
karas not recognised by Dandin. The various defini-
tions of WW* given by alarhkarikas (we quote a few of
the more important of them below) are an attempt
merely to sharpen the outline of the figure with a view
to this differentiation. Thus Bharata (xvi. 57) defines
the figure as under —
Bhamaha (ii. 21) —
li , 66— ] ICavyadaria f 104
Udbhata (p. 9)—
^'il-^lrl 5nTI^ g3q% ^TO 3 ^ U
Rudrata (viii. 38, 40)— ^ ^ ^
Vamana (iv. 3. 6) —
Bhoja (iv. 24)—
Ruyyaka (p. 34) —
Vidyanatha (p. 371)
We have already quoted the definition of Jagannathu
in the Sanskrit Commentary.
(ii) The distinction of ^^;q^ from ^S^m Dandin has
given in his very definition of ^fq^ by the qualification
f^^ti^T^T. The distinction between ^jqJTR and ^q^ (for
the ^i«T between them always presupposes a ^) can
be made to disappear when, in spite of the differeuce,
one asserts their identity either because he errone-
ously believes in their identity (cp ^t^FWT and the re-
marks made in our Notes to ii. 25 regarding wf^RHL
and ^^); or because he wants purposely (poetically
speaking) to deceive some one (e. g. in 3Tq^T%, cp. our
Notes to ii. 95 also) ; or because he is himself in doubt
(e. g. ?3^TqtqTrr and the figures ^|| etc.) ; or because, in
a poetic fancy, he imagines them to be identical (as
happens in an 3^^). It may also happen when, for
purposes of poetic effect and with a view to bring out
the extreme similarity of the ^qJTR and the ^3^^, the
^^Hii is made not only to lend its ^ to the ^q^ but
actually to usurp its place so that only one word and
105] Notes [— ii. 66
one name — that of the ^hwft — is used instead of two.
As the 5rdiH<:.j{i2f (p. 371) trenchantly remarks—^fT^^
STTf c^T^;^ 3TM^^H I <l4 m^rf^'^TRJ^ I —to which we might
add— ^^TRt ?R%mR^T f^GRf^^ff^nift^^r'-^^T^HR: I arfcRT^fm
^qSflcllTh^i f^^ f^f^'JTr RTi^TcW'--3T^r^: I Regarding
our last statement it will be noted that Dandin*s con-
ception of 3Tici<il4)Rh is somewhat different from the one
given above after the manner of w^ ; but on this
point see our Notes to ii. 214.
(iii) As to the rest, it may be observed that while
W^> involves an sfrd^ or superimposition of the ^hhM
upon the ^%2r, that sfRtq has to be based upon simi-
larity and not upon chi4*K'Jl relation as in arrgt^?^; but
the ground of the ^TT^tT — the common property— can
never be expressed as such in the Rupaka (<iT[^%^T^-
^[^ as Rudrata says : see below, Note ix) and there is
also an absence, naturally, of the ^?^3RT=^5R^T^. A ^^
in its simplest form therefore comes nearer to the ^W-
^■|Rg"-c1l ^qrrr and if the example ^T|c5^t is taken as ^T|:
?5crT ^ it would be not a ^77^ at all. Where such a con-
fusion is likely to result there must always be some-
thing in the sentence which is either ^'-l^i^l^^ or S'WT-
^V3^, regarding which, besides the remarks in our
Commentary, compare the following from the 5{jioh>I'*rI
(pp. 927ff.)-^
14 KavySdarsa ]
ii. 66— ] Kavyadarsa [ 106
^^ft^M^Hi: ^TTW^?Frf^^ f^^qrrf^ ^P^sfj^ rl^^T ^3c^S3^
(iv) A ^flmtfxFi (see ii. 205, below) involves an asser-
tion about the ^r^^rl which suggests a corresponding
assertion about the ST^, one assertion being made
to do duty for both on the basis of an implied 3TRtq of
the 3T5i^ci upon the 51^3^ based upon ^?^. However,
in a ^TTTT^fxfJ the 5i^ is not actually expressed as in
a W^, and it is because the sq^^ predicated of the
3T5I^cT resembles the sjf^^ of the 5r^ which is intended
to be described that the sj^^^srcTTfrT results by way of an
implication. In Rupaka, on the other hand, the STSl^cf
in its entirety (^, s^^^R, and all) is identified with the
51^5^ but, at the same time, the basis of this identifica-
tion or superimposition is not actually expressed.
Cp. on the point ^if^Q4<M'J| (p. 534)— ^;q% 3<'^t»ciH,3TRfl^^^-
Ic^TTg: I For further remarks see our Notes to ii. 205.
(v) The figure called qft^TiT, which not only our
author but even w^z does not recognise and regard-
ing which, even between those that recognise it — W[^i
f^^^^i %IT^, ^TTvTTq- and 3T':q?:3i^%^— there seems to be
a slight difference of opinion, is in our opinion a
matter of over-subtlety. In the line— 5ra%?T ^Ji^ ^^
i^^m if ?Ti^ is regarded as a ^mi the lotus or ar^sr
must transfer its ^ completely to the eye or ^. The
eye, in other words, must lose all its character as an
eye and take upon itself the character of the lotus.
Accordingly ^ji^ can bloom but cannot see. This is
not a ^i^cRj therefore. It cannot also be an J^qflr, for
^e^cT or 5Ri?ic^ cannot become a common property re-
siding more prominently on the ^qriR lotus and less
prominently on the ^iq^ eye. We must hence invent
a new figure in which the ^ between the ^W^ and
the ^^ is %Ct^, but the result is not that ^tpTH has
transferred its ^ to the ^^, but rather ^3^^^R has
itself assumed the ^ of the ;3q^3f so that the lotus can
107 ] Notes [ — ii. 66
see. This therefore is the figure called Tf^'JiHT. Com-
pare the Chitramimafisa (p. 59)— ^q% si^rlJ?5f^^T^^qm VRi^
'^R^r^ 3 ^^"^ Vi^^WWVk Wcf I In this connection it has
to be observed that ^^fRM^M-i (as quoted by the 3T^5^R-
^T^3^» P- 161) regards ^j\z^ in the line in question as an
^JTJTT based upon a common property like ^^T^'f^Tc^, 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 sub-
divisions. Rupaka as we saw is an ^TRitr of the ^3^R
upon the ^^i\^ based upon ^^J^^, and the question is, is
the ^TRtq primarily of the word upon the word, or of
the thing-denoted-by-the-word upon the thing-denoted-
by-the-word, or of both simultaneously. Says Prati-
harenduraja (p, iD—cT^^f^ ^^R^T: I %f%^5f ^T^i<lm^4*'^-
^5q?TR3^^3T^=^TmT^ 5^1^ i
^^m ^^ ^h ^-^<^^qdl% ^qJTR^T^^Rtq OTITm^R^RN^ I
(vii) As Dandin himself observes (ii. 96) Rupaka,
like Upama, is capable of infinite divisions made more
or less on the same basis. There is first of all the
merely grammatical aspect of it which gives the first
three varieties of Dandin : W^^ 3T^R^ and ^^fT^cfsq^,
as also the ^^iJ^q^R (ii. 82). Next, there is what
might be called the rhetorical aspect, which accounts
for the varieties called STT^^^R (ii. 91), ^nrmT^^r^^
(ii. 92), and cTf^qg^^^ (ii. 95), as well as for f^;§:5^^q^
(ii. 84), 1^^^ (ii. 86), ^sq^r^q^ (ii. 89), and oqi%^^j^7?^
(ii. 90), where it will be seen that Rupaka proper is
associated with some other additional rhetorical de-
vice. The usual divisions of w\^» given in the Texts
are the same as those exhibited in the tree given under
Note (i) to ii. 43-45 above. Dandin's ^^"^5^cjj is the
same as ^rrw^R^^flq^;^^':^ while his ^m^, sr^^n^^, and
ii. 66— ] Kavyadarsa [ 108
H'=hl^-^^M^s (with the further sub-divisions ofgrfTj^rgxH and
jm^) may roughly correspond to iTc|%[f^^^cR. What
is known as q^qfer^^q^ with its two sub-divisions of
3T%iEr^ and %q'5c5 are practically one with Dandin's
^M^h^Mch (ii. 93) and %s^^ (ii. 87), while the subdivi-
sions based on simple or serial arrangement Dandin
does not recognise at all.
(viii) The Alarhkarakaustubha observes (p. 228) that
some attempt to make out a variety of ^q^p called
^q:2jT^r^^ on the analogy of the ^r^r^nw described in
ii. 43ff.— qr^^TT^ mt ^T^Tsff^ci^T^q: ^Tq^T^f^??^ I ?T^ RIW-
This however is regarded by the majority of Alaih-
karikas as m^^^Sht. Compare the familiar example
of it—
After a long and technical discussion the 3T^=lrR€t?=5*?-
^T^ decides against the acceptance of ^t^=2Tt4^^, the
instances quoted for it being merely those of ^^^.
See further our Notes to ii. 348.
(ix) We have said above (Note iii) that in a Rupaka
the common property can never be expressed as a
common property. For a common thing has to be
shared by more than one while in a ^^^ the ^sqJTH and
^^ are conceived as but one thing. All the same
there is always a common property implied as the
very basis of the STRtq required for WW*, and if this ^
is expressed as belonging to dM^HM alone, or primarily to
the ^qrrR and secondarily in a sort of a reflex fashion
to ^q^^r, that does not violate the requirements of the
figure. Consider for example the illustration in ii. 87.
The compound word ^^^^frr^ is to be dissolved here in
a manner so as to give more prominence to ^^ (i. e.
^^fli^n^^ according to Panini II. i. 72) and therefore
the adjectives iN^'^m^rrrl and ^Tr^CJTT^^R^ must be
109 ] Notes [ — ii. 72
primarily predicable of w^ alone, which they are,
seeing that the senses of ^^*^ and *gfR: that suit q^
are only secondarily suggested and that too after an
effort. With this important condition governing the
expression of the common property, therefore, we can
obtain for w^ the various sub-varieties that turn upon
the manner of expressing the common property. Says
Jagannatha (p. 243)— ^rm^'^l'^im^^T'^'WRTT^ f^f^'^^^M*il
^R-gis^TTm-." w!^ 5{^p?frT^cRrT ^tTTtT: I For the corres-
ponding examples see ^^l^r*^ itself.
Notes to II. 67-68"— (i) The BT^-=bK^^l thus versifies Dan-
din's examples of J^^fT^^^W —
It will be noted that the illustration in ii. 67 is also a
^^-^jcJ^M-^i, but it is adduced merely to illustrate the
nature of the Me taphor-out-of- Compound.
Notes to II. 69-70--(i) The compound rfrwff^^^^ should
rather have been dissolved as— 5T|^fc5^ ^q51^5T|^t'^^c5J^I
clcT^ rTRTf f^;^^^'^ I This mode connects clPR primarily
with ^ the ^qjfR. Compare Note (ix) to ii. 66 above. —
Similarly the common property between =^^'JT and q^-
'^^ '-^r-C^-is to be so understood as being applicable
primarily to the lotus and secondarily to the foot. This
is what Dandin intends to imply by ^^^jf^^TT^fsp^fT^Tci;
in ii. 70.
Notes to II. 71-72— (i) In the example given it will be
noted of course that 5TF[T^=i[:, the adjective qualifying
^WJi', involves just an ordinary Upama. What object
the poet intended to superimpose upon 5^ does not
clearly appear. It cannot be cprj^ as we do not asso-
ciate ^m and tt^Cts with it.
ii. 73— ]
Kavyadaria
110
Notes to II. 73-74 — (i) The compound ^^HM|;^H. can be dis-
solved so as to result in ^s^^J as well as in ^^q^. If the
other adjectives ( ^'^^, ^^^[^cJJ^, 3TT^Tf|%^Ji^ ) as
well as the predicate ( TT^T^srt %['3Tl1% ) had been such
as to apply primarily to ^^ and only secondarily to
^^ that would have been ^^qcR^TT^sR. As it is, unless we
accept Premachandra*s proposed emendation into
44H+i^^^i^, it would be very hard to establish a W{^ here.
Appearances point towards W(f{J based upon an extrane-
ous ^irq" such as ^J^J^'^m (see our Note (v) to ii. 66);
and if an extraneous Wf^^ has to be after all brought
in why not imagine it to be, say, ^ or ff^cT, which
would go primarily with qf^ and so make ^^q^ a
^^q^ ( f^^^^ as it would be called ) in accordance with
Dandin's intentions ?
Notes to II. 75-76— (1) The divisions intended can be thus
exhibited —
having sntP? upon
5T5[3rf^+ ^rq^H^ alone srqq^s alone
all 3T^2fq[s = 3T^2r%^q^,
= ^T^^q^, ii. 70. ii. 74.
some 3T^-
3f^s alone
ii. 79.
all 3Tq^s
31^2rq^^^, ii. 72.
some STq^cfs alone
= TTcRri^^^q^, ii. 76.
grfi^cR ii. 77. srg^^qq; ii. 78.
(ii) The word 3T^ in ii. 76 cannot refer to ir^ri^^^T^
seeing that in the examples given all the STcp^qs or
constituent parts have the STldq; it can refer to con-
stituent parts, and the divisions into grff and argrfj
are divisions of ^^ involving ^^ on (some or all)
Ill ] l^otes [ — ii. 86
3T^3T^s. They cannot be divisions of W{^ according to
a fresh fundamentum divisionis seeing that we can
have incompatibility between ST^^s and srq^T^s, and
between the srq^rfq^^ and some of its ^rq^s, but never
between the sr^qfir^and all its ^m^^^ ; the s^^^T^?!. cannot
in fact be called <H-=f'Nf^^ at all in that case.
Notes to II. 79-80— (i) In the example given the %TmT
consists in the fact that while w^ and '^ are the
5T^3f^s of 5pr the ^^, %^% the w^\^ has only some 3T^q^s
corresponding to it that are actually stated (or are
suggested) but not all. For instance, 5riR5 suggests
the SfT'^f^ reddened at moon-rise, but as ^^ cannot
be associated with the moon the ^ should in this ex-
ample have been conceived of as the ^^Sf^^. In
spite of this circumstance the general impression is
that of the superimposition of the ^qR along with its
ST^^s upon the ^i^M along with its sr^^f^s, although
the correspondenc does not exist in all the details as
in a ^ch^^M^.
Notes to II. 81-82— (i) This ^l^qni^^ can be distinguish-
ed from y^^^'-l^-h by reason of the circumstance that
in the latter it is possible to have the 3TT^ on the
ST^f^ (e. g. =^ qf^c^) independently of the sr^q^Rfqs,
which merely serve to heighten the charm of the
ST^^fs^TKtq. In the present variety the STRtq of '^^^Tc^ upon
qr^ the 3T^i^ becomes meaningless taken by itself.
It can become plausible only if qr^ as well as the ^^i^
are taken as fq^tw%%5. The f^q'^lf^^^TT^ is a more
intimate relation than the sr^^Rlw^T^.
Notes to II. 83-84— (i) The ^^ would have been more
pointedly brought out if for the word ^| in the illustra-
tion had been substituted the synonym OTJj^tg.
Notes to II. 85-86 — (i) The distinction between ^^^^q^ and
|rjj7?Tr (ii-50) is of course sufficiently obvious.
ii. 87— ] Kavyadaria [ 112
Notes to II. 87 — (i) See note (ix) to ii. 66. The si»nza is omit-
ted by M. The usual explanatory stanza is lacking
in this case, regarding which the ^cTT^^TRSift observes —
^m^^^ [ fmwH ] ^r^^cTT ^ 53fpc?TT^J^ I This might seem
to raise a suspicion about the genuineness of ii. 87, but
it is given by the best Mss. Compare also ii. 313.
Notes to II. 88-90— (i) Our Sanskrit Commentary follows
^^^. But ^H^^ has not been able to explain the
varieties satisfactorily and had to give a new example
of his own to suit his own explanation of the definition
. in ii. 88. A better explanation perhaps would be to
take 3TniT=the secondary or arRtft^ (moon) and 5pq" = the
actual moon. As in both the varieties illustrated in
ii. 89 and ii. 90 the g^^'^rn": is compared (or contrasted)
with the actual moon it is evident that such a compari-
son can only take place if and after the»=^;^ is super-
imposed upon the face. The Wi^ must therefore already
exist» and all that is done in addition is to bring out
the similarity of the i^^-^^qr: ( and impliedly but not
expressedly of the ^ ) with the actual moon in an
^M^IH^^^ and the dissimilarity between them in a
o^-^kR^^M*. The ^i^mii^tTt apparently so interprets
these varieties ; for it says — TftoftsjW^: g^: 5I>qT^'- 1 g^-
•civ^^-i ^^r^^^ %fcr I And we can accordingly take
5n%^^i%=<iTTfR ^sdf^ rt^ ^?^ ^^' following again the
same commentary. For a similar use of ^TM and 5?52f
compare ii. 160.
(ii) In the second line of ii. 90 the reading of M is
decidedly superior, bift all other Mss. are against it.
(iii) Bhamaha alone amongst extant alamkarikas
accepts ^jqJTT^^^ as a distinct alamkara. He thus
defines and illustrates it (iii. 34-35) —
Hero Vishnu's foot is declared to be a novel mirror.
The conceipt is quite out of the common; and while
113 ] Notes [ — ii.92
the 3TT?R of ^^c^ upon qr^ does give rise to the
Rupaka, yet in po far as the ^^ is said to be a new
or strange ^"Ji, the full force of the ^^7^ does not show
itself, being thwarted by a possible ^^m standing out
in the back-ground. This is probably the purport of
Bhamaha's definition. Dandin*s definition of the
figure is so differently worded from that of Bhamaha
that it would be hazardous to imagine that there is
some kind of a connection between the two in spite of
the fact that Dandin and Bhamaha are the only two
writers extant who have anything to say of ^q^Tr^^^-
Bhamaha accepts it as an independent figure; Dandin
(cp. ii. 358) turns it into a sub-variety of Rupaka: but
there is nothing of the nature of a dispute or contro-
versy between the statements of the two concerning
this figure. It is likely therefore that the two writers
are following independent traditions in regard to their
explanation of this figure
(iv) The tenth canto of the Bhattikavya is composed
to illustrate figures of speech. Amongst them 3q?TT^^^
is illustrated by x. 60 —
Here the foaming river-mouths as they fell into the
ocean, are compared to the dropped upper-garment
( if^cT TS^RTTr^ ) from the mountain-breasts ( •'^^[f^'^^R )
of the earth at the sight of her lord Rama. The compar-
ison of the streams with the garment is based upon
the 3TRtq of ^;tc^ on the mountains; and so this is
^'-mi<?NH*H,— ^'-l+iwiid ^^q^pft^^: — as the commentator
^T^^wfe says. It would be difficult to apply Dandin's
definition to the present example.
Notes to II. 91-92— (i) The distinction between 3Tr^^^
and fi^^q-sh is sufficiently obvious. Premachandra
understands ii. 91 all wrong, and Bohtlingk follows
Premachandra. An srr^^^^ is an 3Tr%q following up-
15 Kavyadapsa]
ii. 9^— 1 tCavyadaria [ 114
on a W^ and serving to weaken the full effect of the
Q^KFT required for the ^^, while a ^rrn^TR^^'T^ is, so
to say, an 3TT%q of an srr^^^q^. Thus in ii. 91 the JTR^,
while calling the face the moon, suggests that in as
much as the face is 3T?qT^dll'Q< while the real moon is
^^, the •c|rj(,^i<|Lj made upon the 5^ is not com-
pletely justified. The ^HTF^TR^^ adds to all this 2^
further remark to the effect that possibly the face-moon
might be ^^^5 in reality (and so the STRT'T might be
fully justified): only his own ill luck comes in the
way of his realising the ^^^5c^ or the 3TT^K^-b<:«^ of the
face moon. Premachandra (perhaps under the influence
ol the ideas in the two earlier stanzas) thinks that in
ii. 91 the ?trR) wishes to say that the =^F^c^d^ is deroga-
tory to the 5^^^?? because the real moon is 3T:=2fTOTf^
while the face-moon is not so. Any ^Tf^^r 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 ^cTI^MIl'^Hl is quite
explicit— 3T^ 5^^ qf^T#T ^^m ^ i^'^ wmsi ^r^^n#T
^c^3?t: JT^cf^#T WVn\^ ^^>f;q^f^ ^ 1 It will be^observ-
ed however that ^ is not an 3T^3f^ of the sr^ as ^
was of the qf^ in ii. 69, the example for ^ch^^Mch. The
JT^^^Rtq is helped by, and is only rendered possible by
the <S'c=iiOh ; hence this variety comes nearer to the
Minima <^M* of later writers, which has been defined as
( ^^^, X. 29 )—^^ W^^Ktq: q^T^'WROTj^ I Whether,
however, Dandin intended to make every ^Mch^c^nch' a
Hi^^Raf^^H't) as thus explained we have no definite grounds
to assert. Seeing however that the qf^SR^rdq upon the
face and the ^cllc=ll<)M on the eye-brows are not based
upon any definite ^;[^ that would help the principal
3TRtq in the verse, it is possible that Dandin wants us
to understand ^qcb^W^ as ^%^ W(^^ i. e. ^^^w^sm^^^^q^
or q<MRd^M**i and that the subordinate 3TRtqs of the
Tf^R^ and ^s^m do notvitally affect the character of this
Rupaka variety.
115 ] Notes [— ii.95
Notes to II. 94-95— (i) Compare the nature of clTqT^^rRtqJTT
(ii. 36). There, subsequent to an erroneous judgment
(whether of the nature of ^^ or of ^TTlf^ the author
does not indicate : but both are possible) based upon
5^r?^ between the ^^^ and the ^TfR, the real nature
of the ^q^ was finally determined upon. In the pre-
sent Rupaka variety there is just an opposite process
of the mind from reality to error— only the error is
not 3TJTT^4 but is a conscious poetic device which can
deceive neither the speaker nor anybody else. In so
far however as there is an attempt to conceal facts the
name of the variety explains itself.
(ii) Dandin admits an independent figure of speech
called ^TqfRT (ii. 304-309). In ii. 309 he alludes to
what is called 3WN|T% by which he presumably means
a sub-variety of ^^^\ — but there is none with this
name amongst the given ww\ varieties — and in the
present stanzas he mentions a ^Tr^Nf^^^^. 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 ^qTTTT|^ Dan-
din means ^TT^n?g^[^77^-~^JTr^^5Tt^f^^[^[Tci; as Ca puts it.
Cp. ii. 96 also. Cb thinks that by ^3q?TNifr[ is meant
3rT|#RT or ^"^ftqJTT, adding 5iRrr|^ ^^ <U)di^mr?q^: ^
TT^ I Premachandra explains ;3q?TPT|^- by ^IT^^^TNyf^:
— ^rr?^3TTM^ '^4^4+.^ I ^^^ I ft^l^R^TN^^^^* — and thinks that ^-
^^rtwr (ii. 34) is what Dandin intends in ii. 309. Cs
also agrees in this. Now in view of the fact that in
outward form at least the ^^W} variety exemplified in
ii. 36 bears an unmistakable resemblance to any ordi-
nary case of 3Tq^, and in view further of the fact that
the ^f^T^RtqiTT may be a judgment subsequent to a
^ff^rq^cj^Mch (as also to a JTrftq^rr), it is not impossible
that in ii. 309 Dandin might be equally plausibly
thinking of ii. 36. And in any case we can regard the
^qTq|f^ as separate from ^Tr^T^^^^q^. If 3q7TTq|f^ =
ii. 36 we have already — Note (i) above — shown its dis-
tinction from crf'^lM^'4^M=^ ; while if >dM*^IM^l% = ii. 34, as
ii. 95 — ] Kamj(l(iaria ( 116
5rfcl^*'JliHWr and clf^Nf^^'^j^ are quite distinct on ^the very-
face of them no attempt need be made to distinguish
the one from the other.
(iii) But we must learn to clearly distinguish rff^-
Tf^^^ from the figure QT^jfrf as Dandin defines it. To
later writers the two are undistinguishable. Some
think that in the Rupaka variety one dharmin as a
whole is negated and another asserted in its place,
while in the alamkara called 3TTiT% there is the nega-
tion of a certain dharma of the dharmin and the
assertion of another instead. This, however, will not
hold in the case of ^^mM|T% (ii. 308). A better dif-
ferentia would be what is supplied by the adjective
5;^T%dii'jTid>^H. i° the definition, which suggests that
the negated (51^, ^3Wr) and the asserted (bt^I^, ^dMifM)
things ought to have a similarity between them. This
is not the case in the figure 3Tq^% where anything can
be negated and another asserted in its place : cp. 3{q^
Notes to II. 96 — (i) Regarding the sub-divisions of Rupaka
Bhamaha says (ii. 22)— ^TTl^q^fw?^[^J%Tf^^ =^ I ^
^H<*il5^*i \ Consequently when Dandin mentions in-
numerable varieties of Rupaka as being current he
, must have had others than Bhamaha in his mind.
Notes to II. 97— (i) In the various definitions of Dipaka
that are in the field two or three issues have been
raised. In the first place, is it necessary that ^ro be
based upon similarity ? Bharata, Dandin, Bhamaha,
Bhoja, the author of Vagbhatalamkara, and Visva*
natha are quite silent on the point. Rudrata regards
Dipaka as a matter-of-fact {^\^^) figure and not an
3Tiqj:zT figure. Udbhata explicitly demands ^TT^ (p. 14)—
while Vamana (iv. 3. 18— vdMi{lHl4+l^=il<+i)^*l f^), Ruy-
yaka (p. 71), Mammata (p. 775— ^ff5i%^ ^q^
117 1 Motes l—ii.97
^\^), and Jagannatha (p. 322— -si^JdHmi^^^ii^ri" i'^P^'-TR'Jr'-^mt-
?^ cfi';^?^), do the same thing; though Mammata, for
instance, admits a variety of ^tq^ (the so-called ^R^-
^q^) where the w^ 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 w^-, and so we need not make much of the condi-
tion about the ^v\t^ being ^^^, as Ruyyaka puts
it. The next issue raised is about the '^v^^ that are
said to possess the tti^ common ^4. Most writers
insist that the ^f^s be partly 5i|R^ and partly 3T5[^cT but
they must not be all either 5[^ alone or 3T5I^ alone.
This last, according to them is a case of ^wi^cTT (see
Note (i) to ii 48, above). Now Dandin is not parti-
cular on this point : his examples suggest that he
admits all STfcTs (e. g. ii. 100), all srsfff^Ts (e. g. ii. 101),
and some Sficfs and some 3T5lff^s (e.g. ii. 99). Regard-
ing the distinction between ^iq^ and ^^^ftf^t^T the
following extract from the sr^^R^st^^^ (p. 296-297)
may be said to be the last word on the controversy —
^ ^m^\ *R^5TOT (xvi. 55-56) ^to^^jtwt^rtci; cm ^o^tf^t-
(ii) A large number of varieties of Dipaka are con-
ceivable. Dandin first gives a four-fold distinction
based upon the same principle as in ii. 13 and then
gives three sub-varieties under each according to the
position of the common word. Regarding this last
principle of sub-division Jagannatha remarks (p. 327) —
11
97— ] Kavyadaria [ 118
•^M«-d^4M^^-lti^ I — Mamraata and others, as before ob-
served, admit a variety called ^<^N^ defined in the
3T^-4>K^i^^ (p. 291) as— 3?%^^ ^R5R^q%%J%2rr§ ^ft^ and
illustrated by f^^?[r^ (p. 520) as—
^%w^ ^^fqf^ ^mi ^^'
TrRi# ^TT^ mf^ ^^r% ^ n
In connection with this variety another similar gra-
tuitous principle of sub-division (not enunciated by
Dandin) turns upon the case of the common ^3T^, and
so we have Dipakas of ^, ^, ^fj^, ^Sf^^T, 3Tqr^R, ^f?^,
and 3Tf^r^^ — all severally illustrated in the st^^fhw^^T
pp. 292 ff. Regarding ^SR^JJ^TT^ Jayaratha remarks
(p. 73)-3T5r...f^rlj|iJ|| 5r^dMr4i--bl^^Jra#*T^T5^^Rc^TW ^T5^2TT^-
Similar remarks are also passed by Jagannatha
(pp. 324-325). The varieties illustrated by our author
in ii 109, ii. Ill, ii. 113 are an attempt to combine the
^^q^5tl%^ w-ith the^^^r of some other figure or mode
of expression ; while the ^TT^r variety and other chain-
varieties can always be superadded to almost every
figure-of-speech. This alamkara is liable to T%1^^^^-
^^^ (illustrated by Jagannatha, p. 328 f.) which
makes the syntactical relation rather difficult to
establish.
Notes to II. 98-102— (i) The first line of ii. 99 seems to
have been misunderstood by Bohtlingk. The elephants
are of course the king's war-elephants and not * die
welt tragenden Elephanten.'
Notes to II. 103-106— (i) The distinction between the
Dipaka variety illustrated in ii. 106 and the figure
called ^Tftfrff illustrated in ii. 352-354 consists in the
fact that while f^ has to be supplied severally in the
119 1 Notes (— ii.ll9
various statements in ii. 106, no such necessity exists
in the ^T%> illustrations. The omission of ^^^^
would have been an improvement
Notes to II. 107-115— (i) As Dandin says distinctly, the
instance in ii. 107 contains an s^rf^^M^-h. Since the
word ^^ is the common word it follows that in an
3Trf^^tw it is enough if it occurs somewhere in the
first sentence and not necessarily in the very begin-
ning of that sentence.
(ii) The variety illustrated in ii. Ill is distinct from
the so-called --hK^^^iM^ of the moderners. See above
Note (ii) to ii. 97. The emendation suggested by
Premachandra is good but not backed up by any
manuscripts.
(iii) The statement in ii. 115 testifies to the exist-
ence before Dandin's day of writers who gave a still
larger number of Dipaka varieties. Bhamaha (ii. 25)
gives just three.
Notes to II . 116 — (i) Dandin distinctly says that every
3?!^% is an amplified ^^np; the one can therefore
always be turned into the other. Consequently, re-
garding the necessity of a basic ^J^f, and the require-
ment that the things adduced be all 5i^s alone, or
3T5I^^s 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 3TT#T^N^. Bhoja (iv. 78)
regards it as a sub-variety of Dipaka.
Notes to II. 117— (i) The figure called tr^^^tq^ illustrated
in ii. Ill also employed synonyms ; but they were
connected with one word ; here the synonyms R^h^f^
etc. are connected with separate words.
Notes to II. 118-119— (i) The ?n^5[r^^jR called jr^ also has
words or syllabic groups repeated; but there the
ii. 119— ) Kavyadaria [ 120
repetitions cannot be dispensed with, while in an ariffrl
the sense of the passage does not suffer by doing away
with the repetitions. Id other words, 3Tr^% can be
turned into a ^r^ while 3^^ cannot be so trans-
formed.
Notes to II . 120 — (i). Different views about the nature of
Akshepa are current and naturally the definitions of
this figure differ from writer to writer. Dandin's de-
finition— 5r1cr^''-frfTR[%^: — is the simplest in the field and
of widest application. As Jegannatha (p. 424) remarks-
5^W^^ ^ ^R^'tfrf ^s3T^% R^: ^^^TT^m^^-hK: I Others
delimit the field of this alaiiikara to the negation of
the vdMijM alone As Vamana ( iv. 3.27 ) says— ^qqRT#?-
^r^: « ^^^T^r^lT^^ %?f^^TT%SfRfRr%"7: , as he explains the
Sutra in his Vritti. Vamana's example is —
This is the same as Jf^flnTT^r^ which Mammata (p. 894)
thus defines and explains —
3TT%q ^qr^r^ sfcftqgqH^cTT i
^^ ^ ^ ^J^^ fcR^^FRf^^pq^q; II
^cT ^q^Jr^^tTqTTR5iT%^^5^'3c^Tf^ ^Wfrn 5rrftqf3[l As we have
seen Mammata's second Pratipa is the same as Dandin's
%prf^q3Tr (ii. 17); while Dandin's i^ld^lNlM-nr (ii. 34) per-
haps comes nearer to the first kind. The srfrf^^l^-'hK
recognised by the f5f^53rr^^'lJr%r^^ (stanza 164) is of
course a different species altogether.
(ii) Others introduce other delimiting conditions.
They say for instance that while <s{\^^ is a 5rRfWtT%
it ought not to be a real downright 5ffcl%>ir. The thing
intended ought to be conveyed (in an even more
telling fashion) by the apparent denial of it. As
the Alamkarasarvasva (p. 114) clearly puts it—
121 ] Notes [ — ii. 120
The definitions of most later writers are framed so as
to include all these conditions. Thus— -
Mammata—
Visvanatha (x. 65) —
Bhamaha (ii. 68) and Udbhata (p. 29)—
5Tr%q ^(% t wk[: m(^ fmi ( ^^^ ) 2T«rr ( ^i ) li
It will be seen that Dandin's example of ^^ fits in
with all these requirements and it would be a regular
illustration for the figure as above defined.
(iii) With regard to the <ht^ described in Note (ii)
the negation of the ^5rT'-b"#Ji* 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— q^qifTM%r% ST^^rqq^cIsq-r^H^ ^^hNN^ 3T%1%§:^ =^--
as a commentator observes. It is divided into
. four sub-varieties. Compare Sahityadarpana (p. 547)—
q^^^fl^f^ if I ^c2TT%q^ =^^RT ^^: I For illustrations see
the work cited. Dandin is alone, amongst extant
writers, to give a classification of this figure based
upon 3n%c3|-^.
(iv) As the Akshepa described in Note (ii) was of
the nature of an apparent negation of what is intended
to be asserted, so on the same analogy we can have
another variety of the nature of an apparent asser-
tion of what is sought to be negated. Compare
Alamkarasarvasva (p. 120)— sf'^T ^S^g^'c^^r R^^^qq^:
q^q^fqt I It will be seen that most of Dandin's exam*
16 [Kavyadars^]
Ii.l20— ] KFivyUdaria [ 122
pies of Akshepa fall under this variety. The figure-
of-speech called ^ is, as Bhoja says, (iv, 64)— ?n%r| ..
%^\ Its nature is— %?TlH^RHi ll§[Rr ^^R^TT g^?n ^
[^IcfK'Jifi^ 1 Some of our author's examples (e. g. q^^fRl^^,
ii. 123) are primarily of the nature of Rodha as thus
understood.
(v) Howsoever understood Akshepa has to be distin-
guished from Virodha and from Apahnuti; and the dis-
tinction is not very difficult to make. In Virodha (see
ii. 333) there is expressed contradiction between the two
things with a view to bring out some peculiar f^tt^ of
the theme under discussion. In Akshepa with the
same intention there is a contradiction ; but it is
between the actual expression and the real intention
of the speaker which is not expressed. — In an Apa-
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 the case in an Akshepa as we have just seen. —
The distinction between some specific varieties of
Akshepa and other allied figures admitted by Dandin
will be dealt with in our Notes to the stanzas
concerned.
Notes to II. 121-126— (i) Vrittakshepa is the same as
Uktavishaya Akshepa of later writers. The four-fold
condition for this variety, in the words of the Alamkara-
sarvasva, is — tt^ ^ 3tt^ ^^' cR^T ft^'-T: ft^^^JFTT^qq^ITrR^^-
W^^^ Rm^r<iH\^A %r% =^5S2ri^^^ \ Here ar^f f%^Pf is the
theme intended to be described; that has been declar-
ed to be impossible; this declaration of course is not
seriously intended; and ultimately the marvellous
nature of the victory stands out most prominently
before the readers. Hence this is a regular example
fulfilling all conditions.
(ii) Vartamanakshepa is otherwise designated as
Rodha. Bhoja (p. 422) however calls it 5j^ f^W%^:
and observes— 9T5r f^r: f^ ^ f^ l^q^ f^<;^^;3^
123 ] jSfotes I— ii. 132
^'TTr^'R^Tri^ sr^iwirfq I^Wr^^t^tt ^i^ w^^ fm^ \^i
S^ f^^%q: I — As to Bhavishyat Akshepa it is to be
noted that it is not the same as the q^jjJTT'^f^qq" variety
of the other school ; for in that variety ^g^^iT^^ Rf^^^,
whereas here it is the thing that might happen in
future that is attempted to be averted by anticipation.
Notes to II . 127-130~-(i) Compare the illustration given
in ii, J 27 with the illustration of Virodha in ii. 337.
Most modern writers would regard both as cases of
Virodha. It will however be observed that while
the second line of ii. 127 is enough to make it an ex-
ample of Virodha, it is the first line with its denial of
'tenderness* that makes the verse an example of
Akshepa.
(ii) The principle underlying these two varieties is
the same as that in ii. 15-16.
Notes to II. 131-1 32—(i) The example is of the nature of
an attempt to deny an actually existing fault and the
consequent fear. The epithet ^^Ji^ is to be noted.
Now in a VibhSvana (ii. 199) there is a negation of the
cause but an assertion of the effect, leading to a
guessing of some subsidiary cause. Here there is a
negation of the [^^[^ or principal] cause ( ^T^ ), but
likewise a negation of the effect ( ^q;). In addition,
there is an assertion of subordinate causes of fear such
as ^'^'^ etc. together with a negation of their effect, viz.
fear. Thus fear is an effect of ^ ( sr^qFr^R'^ ) as well as
of =^^[JFT ( STsn^TR^RW ), and if the principal cau^e is said
to be lacking there is nothing unusual if the result does
not follow irrespective of whether the subordinate
causes are or are not present. Consequently Prema-
chandra's attempt to distinguish this figure from Vibha-
vana (which is reproduced in our Sanskrit Commentary)
is not very much called for. The main point of the
illustration is the cool and unblushing denial oi his
fault by the lover.
ii. 132— 3 Kavyadaria [ 124
(ii) We can more reasonably attempt to distinguish
this variety from Viseshokti (ii, 323), esp. the variety
known as|5fq|ti^i% (ii. 328). Mammata defines R^qtfrff
as— QT^i^S ^{^5 ^^R^:, and we have seen that in the
illustration under discussion at least the subordinate
^RWs are all there, but no effect ensues. But the gist
of the illustration is in the epithet sf^s^. That is
what makes this a 5r^%*<Tr^.
Notes to II. 133-134— (i) In ii. 131 the subordinate causes
were present but as the principal cause was negated
the effect was lacking. Here in ii. 133 the causes (all
of them) are present and yet the expected result does
not follow. This would accordingly be a case of
f^tl^Rfj as usually understood. Only, Dandin*s idea
of Viseshokti appears to have been a little different
from that of Mammata and others (see Notes to ii. 323).
According to our author a f^%qti%i is intended f%%qf^?rT§^.
The srf^^ of death, the expected result, does not imply
any special fq^q belonging either to the ^[^"^s or the
^r^^ that we can discover. Hence this is no fw^F%
in Dandin's acceptance of the term.
(ii) An Akshepa as understood by the writers quoted
in Note (ii) to ii. 120 is also for f^tiq'^im^ ; compare —
ffTT^'ri ^ 5Tr%qt I But that is not Dandin's view of the
matter, and while we are trying to read Dandin's
work we must lay aside all extraneous ideas.
Notes to II. 135-156— (1) In these verses Dandin shows
how one identical theme — the hinderance of the
lover's departure — can be poetically treated in various
ways so as to form examples of different kinds of
Akshepa. The verses are probably of Dandin's own
authorship, which shows that he was not without
some poetical powers; The verses have been much]
quoted in other writers j see the Appendix on
Parallelisms. The Alamkarakaustubha gives an ex-
ir.^ ] Notes [ —ii. im
ample of err^T which combines most of these prohibi-
tion-varieties and adds some more of its own (p. 309) —
Our readers are probably already familiar with thff
classical passage in this strain from the end of th»
Piirvardha of Bana's Kadambari.
(ii) Regarding the illustration of 5l^[%q (ii. 13?)
Bhoja observes (p. 427)— 3T^ ^^f^ ^T^r^JcT: &qt W^ [^^Jhl
(iii) Regarding the illustration of 3Tl^n^-^HI%^ (ii. 142^)
Bhoja observes (p. 421)— 3T5f tt^ ^f3[^ T^f^^l^^T^ W=i\^
Ri^^r%q: I The Alamkarasarvasva passes the following
comment on the same stanza (p. 120)— 3?^ q^jflf^ri; ^I?^^
(iv) Regarding the illustration of 3Tc^%q (ii. 147)
Bhoja observes (p. 424)— 3T?f ^r^Tfj^opc^i j% ^i^ ^q^r^^^^-
%qt ^r ^qm 1
(v) The two stanzas about ^J%^ (ii. 155, 156) are
probably interpolations. Our oldest Mss. J and N
omit them, and the fact that the Madras edition takes
them before the two stanzas dealing with ^qT%q points
to the same conclusion. The interpolated stanzas
were naturally placed at the end of a series dealing
with the same theme. We had to retain them in the
text so as not to disturb the numbering of the editio
princeps.
ii. I5t — j Kavyadaria [ 126
Notes to II. 157-158 and 161-162— (i) Even our oldest
Mss J and N give in the first pada of ii. 158 the hyper-
metrical reading — s^T^^^^T^: I The reading given by
us is a conjectural emendation suggested by the
variant given by V. Our Ms. N puts stanzas ii 159, 160
after stanza ii. 162 and this fact we believe is not a
pure accident. Probably this was Dandin*s sequence.
In any case this sequence can afford an explanation
of the change of the original correct reading to the
present hypermetrical reading which is clearly in-
fluenced by 3TW^3^T%q: of ii. 162, which words were
probably, in the original exemplar, written imme-
diately underneath the words ^i^^bi^^ittt^'^: or in
such a position as to make the wandering of the eye
from the one to the other quite easy. — Since all our
Mss. give the hypermetrical reading, it further fol-
lows that our present copies are traceable to one
original copy, and that the variae lectiones are accord-
ingly 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 psycholo-
gical or other attendant of the prohibition, in the
varieties which follow Dandin as usual is attempting
to combine the sri^^ftfe^r with thel^^r of some other
figure. The examples are self-explaining.
(ii) In view of the use of the words ^^ and ^rm in
this stanza as applied to the actual and the figurative
moon the explanation of the same words we gave in
our Notes t® ii. 88 gains additional plausibility.
Notes to II. 163-164— (i) Compare ii. 26 and 27. It will
be noticed that in ^^i^tqrrr the ^^ was <i{S{^ and the ^
the 5if^; such a distinction is not intended between
^^^^ and i^^^^cR. Further in the ^mr^ of ii. 163
there is only a removal of the doubt, not an assertion
as in ii. 27, second line.
127 ] Nolei'. [ --ii. 169
Notos to II. 165-166— For Dandin's conception of ^fsqf;^-
K'^\^ see Note to ii. 169 below.
Notes to n. 167-168-~(i) In ii. 131 the ^r^ itself was
negated ; here something else is negated on the
strength of aspr^or^^ adduced. Generally a %\^^ is
5fiT^^ or productive cause and a^ a fir^ or probatory
cause. See ii, 235.
Notes to II. 169— (i) As in the case of Akshepa, Dandin's
definition of Arthantaranyasa is also rather crude and
wanting in the later pruning and refining with a view to
make it more precise and to delimit its field from that
of other alamkaras or sub-varieties of them. To begin
with, Dandin speaks of ^ 5T^^ sp^M ^^J J^^TW- and
^^ has been here taken to mean a theme or a com-
plete statement, so that an ordinary ^ of an sr^ffM is
naturally excluded. Compare Vamana, Vritti on
iv. 3. 21— ^^JT^I^ q^r^;RT 1^3?^ JTTq^^R?5TT^: I The
figures-of-speech known as ^i{^^[^ or ^To^rf^ (neither of
which however our author admits) are in consequence
differentiated from this figure. Between %w^^^ and
BT^Jnir the element of mutual distinction is the fact
that in the former it is the ^fJR^fil^ (e. g. ^ of yjfp)
while in the latter it is the |IN^5 (e. g. ^ of ^) that
is set forth, and there is further the circumstance that
in the figure-of-speech known as st^^tr there is ad-
duced the complete paraphernalia of a logical infer-
ence including the s^rrfH. Both the figures neverthe-
less agree in this that both ^ the ^^^^^ and ^tt the
^m--h?4 are individual objects and not statements
or q^^s.
(ii) Objections can be taken however to the above
statement of the case on the ground that in an ^T^JTR
the 'MJ^ffl^ is often a condensed and even complex
statement, and in the ^rsqfcSl^ Mammata and others
recognise a variety where the ^R^^3 is a ^\^^\k.
Jlence a better differentia between 3t^h and ^rs?ff^y|^
iU 169— ] Kavijadaria [ 128
on the one hand and 3r^frcT<?2|T?T on the other is furnish-
ed by the condition that while the relation between
say ^ and %^ in first two figures is not of the nature
of genus-to-species or species-to-genus, it is invariably
that in the case of the ^ffa^q^ and the ^^^^F^^^ occur-
ring in the latter alamkara. As Dandin does not lay
down this condition and does not also recognise the
figures eT^^TTJT and ^T^^f , the problem does not arise in
his case at all. Dandin*s Ic^T^^^^ however (ii. 235) does
duty for both ST^iTR and WiJ^^f^w and in our Nofces to
that figure we shall attempt to distinguish it from the
figure now under discussion.
(iii) We will next draw attention to the word sr^^c^T
in the definition of this figure. This means that in an
3T^RcR?^T^ it is always the Jl^cl or the 'A\m(^H> that is
sought to be corroborated by the 3T5I^cT, both 51^^ and
3T5l^ being actually expressed, and that further the
. statement of the S{^^ should come first in order.
Where the order of statements is reversed Bhoja re-
cognises a distinct sub-variety. Compare (p. 429) —
^^ %^T ?[rT?T«lf^^?2TT^: I Similarly when an attempt is
made to suggest (and corroborate) the unexpressed
51^^ by the expressed 3T5r^^ or the unexpressed 5T5T^rT
by the expressed 5i^^ there results the figure of
speech called 55T?Tr#% ( ii. 205 ) that has to be dis-
tinguished from ar^frrR^T^, where both S[^^ and STR^i^
are expressed. With reference to this distinction it
may be noted in passing that Dandin's ^r^]f%i em-
braces both ^4Tr#f% proper (5fT^^m%frT5rrqj^^:T%q:) and the
^a^^SRM of Mammata and others ( 5TSir-:Rf^q%?f Sd^^cM-
qTT^q:), and that his account of 3T5i^5?T5nfr^T (ii. 340) is
slightly different from the one usually current [ see
Notes to that figure].
(iv) If we compare Dandin*s definition of 5T^<^Vcl<^rH
with his definition of 5fe^c|337T ( ii. 46 ) we become
conscious of a distinctive characteristic of this figure
I
129 ] Notes [ — ii. 169
which must be carefully grasped. In an 8T^d<^r^
there is always ^fT^^^^^ relation between the two
^^s, one being adduced in corroboration of the other.
Jagannatha gives a clear exposition of * corroboration *
( p. 471 )— ^JT^ ^ ^m^ %^^ ^ ^rf^ m}^^ 5[%^t^:
^^c^fl%% ?i?5i^^: i In 5Tfd^t^^4Hi ( and in Dandin's view
this embraces the so-called ?^RT — compare Notes to
ii. 46 ) the two q^s are merely related by an element
of similarity, upon which in fact the figure depends :
cp. TT^^^r^rftfcl^^^ftf^ in the definition. The m^ 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 Rrf!fTl>^^ ( p. 35)— ?f ^ cf^ [ ?SRT^ ]
(v) The analogical semblance required for sifcR^^^i
[ and ^?^ ] is more likely to be found between two
general statements or between two particular state-
ments, while corroboration is usually made of a
particular by a general or of a general by a particular
statement. Most later writers accordingly introduce
Dhe above circumstance into the very definition of
sr4P?rR^m which has been accordingly defined by
Ruyyaka ( viii. 79 )—
•'■TW'^frj'-fi^^ mw^ ^TT^TRT ciR?r^^ i
by Mammata (p. 8D4) —
and by Jagannatha ( p. 471 ) —
^I^MH rIpsR^ f^tl^'JT ^WR^n^T ^ ^\ ^JT^ cT^^T??^-
Our autkor however does not regard this as essential
and accordingly in ii. 175 he makes one particular
corroborate another particular (see Notes to the
stanza ). Bhamaha ( ii. 71 ), Bhoja ( iv. 67 ), Vamana
( iv. 3. 21 ), and others give also non-commital defini-
(' [ KSvySdarsa |
ii. 169— ] Kavyadarsa [ 130
tions similar to that of Dandin. We give the first —
and the last —
(vi) Finally, sjJtlf'rT^^^W has to be distinguished from
T%^?r (ii. 348). According to the ST^s^nw^^ (p. 265)
the two themes or statements brought together in a
R^i§?rT have an identical or very nearly identical pur-
port ( T%l%i: clc^?^ '7?^), while in an sr^TT^^^^m there is
between the two a ^^T^^^fe — relation based upon
^TRT^^rf^'^^T. Compare (ibid.)— trq =^ 'ifff1<^l=Hr4^TfeT^'Jl-
(vii) As to the divisions of 3TMF'd<"-4W Dandin's
classification stands alone by itself. Other principles
of division adopted are according to Bhoja ( iv. 68 ) —
Udbhata (p. 32 ) gives a further classification %T5^c^-
^5Trfq m I Alamkarasarvasva ( p. 109 ), Sahityadarpana
( X. 62 ) and other works mention a third important
sub-variety x—^ =q ?BR^ ^l^ =^ W{^ I The majority
of writers however refuse to recognise this sub -varie-
ty. Visvanatha tries his best to establish its exis-
tence, while the last and one of the very best incisive
comment on the same is by Jagannatha (p. 474). We
retrain from going here into the controversy.
, (viii) A further varying upon the nature of this
figure is responsible for the figures of speech known
as f^5K^^, 3-^73F3n^, 5[<^^T5F3TI^, and 5[dl*^W. An illus-
tration of Wtmi is— ^ ^ T%^ ^W^^ t| ^r: m^m ^ »
regarding which the Alarhkarakaustubha observes
iv. 320 )— 5T5r f^^t^rew^^RT ^RT?#R?mfq 5^1: ^rwP^wflsf^TR
f^.^t^q^^ ^ m^^loi'-bKkd^H,! Rydrata (viii. 85-86)
thus explains and illustrates Ubhayanyasa —
131] Notes [— ii.ltS
Bhoja, finally, thus illustrates and explains si^w^F^F^
and 5irfr^fj?imT ( p. 430 )—
^?=?n^r *{#T I
Vikasvara is admitted by the Kuvalayanandakara
(verse 123); Ubhayanyasa as an independent Alam-
kara by Rudrata and Vagbhata ( p. 44 ), and as a sub-
variety of STq-^;^;?^!^ by Bhoja, who is alone in
recognising the last two aiamkaras as additional sub-
varieties of the same figure.
Notes toll. 170-173— (i) Dandin's distinction between
%4o2IlN and f^qp-? is not strictly logical. It turns
upon the mere extent of the denotation. But the
proposition — All obey Fate, and the proposition — All
e:reat men relieve suffering, are equally universal
propositions as Logic understands them, and can
both be adduced with equal cogency in support of the
particular propositions subsumed under them.
Notes to II. 174-175--(i) The eight sub-varieties given
by Dandin go by pairs and hence our Sanskrit Com-
mentary, following the commentary called ^^T^^K-i^fr,
renders %^^ by orf^^f^JI: ^^ *h® illustration the
srfqRNr is brought out from the circumstance that
mv[^ and ^T%o^ go harmoniously together, while the
TW'4 is shown in as much as iiTf^??? ( or ^q ) and 3{[^^
do not sort together. This is perhaps possible; al-
though iu this interpretation varieties 3 and 4 havu
ii, 175— j itavyadaria [ 135i
little to distingui^ them from the next pair. As it is
however not absolutely necessary that all the varieties
go by pair, it would perhaps involve less forced
interpretation if %^ is given the usual interpretation
of the use of words in two senses. The word ^\^^ —
upon which the entire point of the corroboration turns
— is so used in ii. 174. Other sub-varieties, it is true,
may alsp use paronomastic words; but in ^^"^rf^^
variety it is the most important word that is so used
Compare Cb— ^u^^h<^^q- ^vfrfq^rqf ^^: I ^5 sp^I^^:
(ii) In ii. 175 the ^W«4^ is made up of a proposition
which embraces a f^^ and it is corroborated by an-
other proposition which also embraces a similar f%^.
The two propositions, as we understand matters, are
both particular. It would accordingly be an instance
of ?gl^ in other writers ; but Dandin would classify it as
3TMi'd<i^l^ because the idea of corroboration is evidently
the leading idea of the ;3tRt4. If the idea of ^r^T were
the mpre prominent one it would be, according to
Dandin, a case of sifcf^^qr. We consequently prefer
taking the word f^^ in the sense of ' a good brah-
man \
Notes to II. 176-17-:— (i) The distinctive principle under-
lying the last four varieties is very elusive. In ii. 176
the ^^5h^3 [ and not the ^4^BqR3 also as in ii 175 )
involves some one doing something impioper or
against one's nature ; in ii. 177 both the ^5^^ and the
^W^i propositions involve the doing of an appropriate
action ; in ii. 178 the action in the w^^ proposition is
accordant for one agent but discordant for another
agent ; and in ii. 179 the action is* discordant for one
agent and therefore accordant for another agent, Cb
and Cs understand %2fq=5H?q¥iT^Fn%: or sr^sn^q^Fi;^ and
explain ^-^l: ^nt^T^T [^m] ^^]^<^^J^^ ^^^^ ^i^^^H, I ^mh
W^^ \^^^m I The point is however debatable.
133] Motes (— ii.180
Notes to II. 180— (i) Vyatireka consists of two parts—
^y^^f^,^^ and ^(^sT^ — both of which are essential to
the nature of the figure. The Upama-variety called
5T?rRT#T'WT ( ii. 22 ) aimed at bringing out the w^ alone
( %^^^ m^T Jfpqr) ; the varieties called ft?^JTT and
IRT^N^TT, although mentioning with disapprobation or
approbation certain points of inferiority or superiority
in the Upamana, did nevertheless content themselves
with asserting, the W'-^^i with more or less emphasis
( cp. ^qi'fHlM ^c^^and ^ 3^t ) ; and the variety named
JwftgtqjfT, ii. 17, ( = 51^ of later writers) mentioned
W"^ but did not mention the "^j which was left
merely to be inferred from the circumstance of the
^^^ and the ^jtr having changed their normal
relation. It must also be noted that the w^^ ajid
the *^ must each concern itself with a distinct
3^1. As Jagannatha observes ( p. 347 )— STcffqifr ^J'W^-
?TT^^3q7TR^rnq':RrfiqT^ ^\ 7\ 53jf^<^^^qq^ I The same writer
later likerwise remarks ( p. 350 )— ^ ^^-^WiK^ 1^^-
'JT?^ 3'JTT'^RlJFTf^-4T=5irTiq^r#'Ji ^^iTVfft^ ^^ifcn% ^ =^tic^rr-
(ii) The variety called srirTV^JtqJTT ( ii. 34 ) comes nearer
to this figure. As Dandin gives it as an Upama variety
some kind of ^Vf^ between the moon and the face must
evidently have been intended. The point of the w^
is not here actually expressed. If we imagine that it
is the ^Prf the example becomes a regular ^^te with
the implied ^]l■'^ as regards %\^ and the expressed
^^ in consequence of %^ and ^^?TT — compare ii. 1^7
below. If however we regard the point of W''^^^ aa<f
^"-^ to be the same — say ^^T^[^F^ — and interpret the
example to mean that the moon, because of its two
defects, cannot be a match to the face as regards charm-
{[^ 180—] Kavyadaria [ 134
ingness— and this is how Dandin wants us to under-
stand the passage— we can distinguish siRl^'^rq^fT from
o^f^^, because in the former there is not guri^^torq^
:s^: as Jagannatha would say. Compare to the same
effect the definition of Rudrata ( vii. 86 )—
As the Agnipurana does not recognise Vyatireka as a
distinct figure, what it defines as Vyatirekopama
( 344. 13-14 )—
^t^^^^ ^rn^fq 'k^^ t%^cf i^ i
must be taken to include both o^f^^^^and 5rT%T'-TTWr.
(iii) As to the varieties of this figure, since one
aspect of it is ^qm,— as Jagannatha observes— ^q;qT5r^^T:
^^ ^V^ ^^T%l But it is usual to recognise only three
of them according as the ^T^^ is ^s^qifT ( i. e. both
^T^t^TTgqr^T^ ^W^H^ and ^c^IT^T^qr^^ 5TT^ ) or sirftcT. Next
as to ^i^5JTfifi— ;3qflR^3TTq^%flTffl[^q^ %cg*r2rJ7fq
A^J: ^ =^?^: I This gives by combination 12 varieties,
and the introduction of ^ in the statement of ^^
at once doubles their number. A further principle of
sub-division is the relation between the two things
brought together for comparison and contrast, which
might be either class-concepts or individuals (^^fcT-
oTff^'^ or ^^o2r%oqfrft^ ) ; and the last differentia is the
motive for ^^ which may be simple or rendered complex
by involving a further process of similarity within the
difference, as in ii. 193, 194. All these principles are
admitted by Dandin, though not actually illustrated.
(iv) In all latter-day discussions about Vyatireka
there is a theme that comes in invariably for treatment
the genesis of which is to be found in the following
statement of Rudrata ( vii. 89-90 ) —
^T 3^ ^^ ^T ^^Jrf^q^^ =^ ^q ;3q^ I
^^^ ^ ^fWT ^ 5?j%>^T2fq?3T^3 II
efpJi: ^ft-jfrfq ^^Y ^ ^ f^*4^ ^rc^q^ i
rq<JT 51^ 1?^R qr^flf^qR} qr^ 3 II
135 1 Notes [— ii. 184
Ruyyaka (p. 80 ) explains the point of the example of
this ^;=[MT^?r^Tf^^'Jlc'^ ^fr^ by saying—=^:?^'^^2rr
=^ MH-\k^A ^^9'JIc^ I ^'leS^n'^ ^^r^^WRTc^ I As against
this Mammata asserts ( p. 784 ) — sr^ ^'r^^l^TT^^rffwf f|
f^^cTJ][ 1 Jayaratha the author of ST^R^T^^%Tf^ and
Visvanatha the author of ^ffF^^'W side with the older
school while Jagannatha follows Mammata. The
following full extract from the ^^^r^T (pp. 352-353)
will make the position on either side quite clear —
^-Ti^f^ras^ I f^Tn^q-'T q; I m^ ft^f ^ ^^ \ f ^ st^t^i?' i ^ ^q-
^^2ftq^?r f^^t 5(i% ?FNf WfTT=?T =^^%2Tr ^^^^r^iRr^rq^ ?^T5^?f
[Jagannatha replies] ^iH^R-^q-^ri; I srr^^ f| S^TTf ^fRo^T
Notes to II. 181-184— (i) As we have seen ( Note (iii) to
it. 180 ) it has been customary to have, along with tt^
and ^^3T Vyatireka, <i{^W^ Vyatireka with the three
sub-varieties depending upon the manner of express-
ing W^^, each with further two-fold differentiation
depending upon the presence or absence of ^^. The
three %^ varieties from out of these six are declared
to be impossible. Says Uddyota on Kavyaprakasa-
pradipa ( p. 793 )--3tI(^ i^"^^^^ \ ^^mhi^^ ^Xm ^f^^fm
f%?c^f^ I To which may be added the conclusion of
Jagannatha— ^^4 =q ^^wfrR*^ ^r% 5[T=^igf%fT^5cTr^r^'JTT-
ii. 185—] Kavyadaria [ 136
Notes to n. 185-188— (i) These three varieties are an
attempt, after Dandin's manner, to combine the ^^sjf
of this figure with that of some other figure or figures.
Notes to II. 189— (i) As before observed ( Note (iii) to ii.
180 ), ^h'^qi^R^Fff^? includes what is called ^iis^<-fi^:ri^ as
well as 3TT55^*<^4 Regarding this distinction Mammata
notes (pp, 664 ff.)— ^m^rl^^^TS^r: WKV- ^"^^qfTRcTTR^f^m
^^J'-^M^M^'^'JTP^^ cT'^rfif 5^^f%;JTf|RT ^^ q^to; ^^ 5(1%-
qi^^cWcT cTc^:^ ^Rft ^^^\ i ^m ^ ^^^^ (qr° V. i. 116)
qr^ 3n?ff i ^T5^ ^^i i^ ft^r %%: (qr^ V. i. 115) ^^
^^m ^* %^ n In SRfrzRT^RTRq^T the ^flRH^^^ is al-
together absent.
Notes to II. 190-192— (i) Compare ii. 190 with ii. 22. In
the latter ^^ f^^ ^fF^TT emphatically declares the
^rnsR^. In the former only the ^ is stated and the
W^ is left to be inferred. It should also be noted
that ii. 22 mentions a circumstance that can be regard-
ed as ^frRtFRill^ while the ^c5^^f| 6l ii. 190 — by an easy
change into 5T^^^f| and even without it— can con-
stitute an ^sqiTRPT'^F^^.
(ii) On ii. 191, which Bhoja quotes, he observes
(p. 237)-3TpT ^RTT^i^t^qt: sr^RRR^^^^Rt: ^Jq^r^iT^^T^ft ^^^>
Notes to II. 193-196— (i) The essence of a ^^sq^f^ con-
sists in the fact that in it what is offered as a ^^ ox
distinguishing characteristic between the ;3q^^ and
the ^^ has in it an element of ^\^\^. The ^^^^ how-
ever is sufficiently subdued to allow the ^^ to gain
hold upon our mind at least in the first instance.
Bhoja observes on this stanza as follows ( p, 305)—
137 1 Note» I— ii. 196
(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 difference of reading in ii. 195. The read-
ing adopted by us is supported by strong manuscript
authority while P's substitution of ^?^t^^: forf^^^vr^t:
is hardly motivated, although he remarks — 3T?r 'J^W^
%TcF^rRT% ^^pqF^ =q??t^T^ '^rst ^ ^7%^: I It is even
doubtful if P. had any Mss. to back him.
(iii) The commentaries A and B printed in the
Madras edition are at one in regarding ii. 194 as
containing two illustrations of ^?^?fcR^, one in each
ardha, the first being 5lrtt^JrR( = ^'4T%i; ^'rjtr)ht^^ and
the second 5(^rrT(=5ri%^)^''-:n^, both however being dis-
tinct from ii. 193, which is a case of ^n^fTTfl^j:^. The
full statement of the figure according to this view is —
sr^ft^WTfRTTJ^— 5^ft^?2T [v. 1. ^^]
Our criticism of this view is — (i) it is not quite clear
why two examples are needed : Dandin hardly ever
introduces an extra sub-variety in this way. (ii) The
words sr^cl and sidl^l^^R are given a rather unusual
sense, (iii) The %^^f>^n^^ has to be extraneously
brought in. It is not likely that where the main
point of the illustration is the ^^^^r of the "^^ Dandin
would leave that to be entirely supplied, (tv) It is
not explained why the ^^^,s of the first example are
made the^^TR and ^q^q- in the second. It cannot be
a mere accident. Lastly, (v) Why should 5JT% be 51%^
and ^}^f^ [or ^^] be srsrf^^ ? And in any case why
does ii. J 95 first explain the example in the ^JT^ and
then that in the '^^1 rather than vice versa?
18 [ KSvyadar^a ]
ii.l96— ] Kavyadaria [138
(iv) A better way of understanding the passage
would probably be to regard ii. 194 as forming one exam-
ple of ^T^s^s^rfcT^f^r with 5idt^J7R(=?O^T^m)^nJ^. Thus—
^l^I^^m^rr'^— Ufe which is apprehended first ( sfrftri )
^c[^^rT?^ — fl^fW^, ^3c5^f5^^; this is apprehended
as an afler-thought.
The only difficulty in the way of this interpretation is
the two dual locatives (or genitives) connected by =^ in
ii. 195. The locatives can be translated by — ** between
the moon and the hansa, in regard to sky and water, a
diflFerence etc." ; and ^ could be regarded as explative.
Bhoja, it must be added, favours the earlier interpre-
tation. His remarks on this stanza are (p. 305) —
Notes to II. 197-198— (i) Bhoja remarks on this illustra-
tion as follows (p. 303)— ST^r ^[^ff5R^^ ^ttrt: cl5^>n^T ^^
(ii) This stanza is made to support the weight of a
chronological argument for the priority of Bana's
Kadambari over the Kavyadarsa of Dandin — a weight
which it is too weak to sustain ; for, even though the
conclusion be sound it should not be supported by an
unsound argument. Peterson (Dasakumara, First Edi-
tion, Preface) and Pandit Maheschandra Nyayaratna
before him (A. S. B., Proceedings 1887, p. 193) regard
Kavyadarsa ii. 197 as a reminiscence of Bana in his
Kadambari, (B. S. S. p. 102, 1. 16)--%qf^ =^ ft^'fcT ^ sr^-
^t?j'Rc5TT^r#'%^i^^tq5rvrTq^RRRr'T^ ^ ^^si^^q; \ Nothing
need hinder us, as far as the two passages alone are
concerned, from regarding the Kadambari idea as an
elaboration of that in the Kavyadarsa. More probably
the two are quite independent of each other.
139 ] Notes [— ii.l99
Notes to II. 199— (i) Compare Notes (i) and (ii) to ii. 131-
132. In further distinction of ^pr^qraTT from f^^TT^ffT it
may be stated that while the former stops at a merd
denial of the causa the main point of the latter turns
rather upon the ftwr^ or imagining of the new cause
(or ^^nf^^Fc^) to explain the effect. The name of this
figure can be explained as %rT°^ ^-hK'Jll'dilR ^^^m^ (the
way that Dandin suggests) or RRi^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ (the
way that Bhamaha (ii. 77), Udbhata (P. 38), and Ruy-
yaka (P. 124) prefer), both explanations of course
amounting to the same thing. But it is interesting
to note, as an indication of a difference in tradition,
that Dandin and 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 Bhamaha, Udbhata, Vamana
Mammata and others use the word %3n instead of ^jr'JI
or ^.5, which is chosen by Dandin, Bhoja, Ruyyaka,
Rudrata, Visvanatha, Jagannatha, and others. Prati-
harenduraja explains the use of the word f^^n" as
follows (p. 38)—^ ^^fn%?:i[rq% ^'^ \^^.\^^H^ I fe^rr^^r
cf^4:?r: ?ST#q%: 5rT^?t%%5T #ui qfe^qTIT^FR^T^ ^t '^R^SiipRt
f^^^rt ^ T%n^l^41'c^^'bK: I Ruyyaka's comment on this
terminology is worth quoting (p. 125) — ^ =^ ^^ M^^'^'-
(ii) The production of an effect without a cause is
a violation of the natural law of causation — is a ^-
s^T%^. As Jagannatha observes (p. 435)— R<)^^<j4| f|
sfNcclId i Vibhavana, however, is to be distinguished
from the figure- of-speech called Virodha (iL333 ff.)
where the things brought in opposition to each other
are equipotent and are not related to each other by
any causal relation. As the Alarhkarasarvasva says
(p. 124)— ^FT^'^r^TT^^ =^q-^PcT?^r^ ^es^^rr '^\^m ^^^jtr^ ^^^
ii. 199— 1 kavyadaria [ 140
the same effect writes the author of the Sahitya-
darpana (p. 551) — ^f^vrr^Rt '*ityii*iw :3q1>l^^"3TTfRc^cj; ^jjt^^
^2?c^Wl% ^: ' We can in brief say that Virodha is a
general name for figures-of-speech based on contradic-
tion, and that f^r^^TT as well as f^wrl% are parti-
cular cases of Virodha that have been recognised as
independent figures.
(iii) The contradiction involved in a Vibhavana is of
course an apparent contradiction which admits of an
easy solution by ^jR^iRRf^-^TT^ or ^qr^rf^^R^f^W^. The
solution, however, ought to be quite easy : ^^V$^ ^cS^
?rf^, as Bhamaha (ii.77) and Udbhata after him (p.38)
observe; and yet at the same time there must be some
kind of an actual problem to be solved. Thus in the
illustration in ii. 200 ^n«rc^ has two senses : qRJTTTrir, the
primary sense, and ^Rc^r^s^sfR^tc'^Tlf^q:, the secondary
sense. Now g^nTRT is not the cause of the ^^ifiwr and
so there is no contradiction in the statement that the
«bK*^s are QT^^^. Such is the solution or W{\f^.
The difficulty arose from the identification of the
secondary sense of ^^^r with the primary sense.
Adapting the explanation of Jagannatha (p.432) to the
case in point we can say— sr^r ^^ --hMV^l^rrf^^-^ct ^ ft
3o^«2r^^fR^quTri%^^ ^f& %^^«r^ 3^TTdi<=bK«Jwiq qR ^c^jRJt^r-
3i%T^^ci^M<^qrr%^2nf%f^35(Tnicpcf2TT wm I ^«n =^ 3TH^ri^fqo^#fjt-
^^ t3[^ ^^ w^-^<m ^^^m^ ?m 1 ^^\ =^ r^ ^^ tj^ f^^wi^ 1
141 ] Notes I — ii. IM
(iv) Vibhavana can be variously sub-divided. The
commonest division is two-fold: ^^ThPlfttil and ST^ThfH-
frrrlT; but we can have more. For instance the 5i%§^
might be itself bodily negated (^^^cT:) or there may be
a statement of its powerlessness to discharge its
function though actually present (ssfFlRTvrR: as in
ii. 338), or its deficiency in regard to its qualities and
attributes (s^^^i^mi^: as in ii. 324) or as regards its
associated adjunct ( ^Tf^BRT^^: ). For illustrations and
details see Alamkarakaustubha, pp. 311-12, where
some of the examples given are, according to Dandin,
examples of Virodha and not of Vibhavana. The
Kuvalayanandakara gives six kinds of Vibhavana, as
under (stanzas 76ff.) —
^^M ^ ^^?j:'^c2r%^^'w: II
^f ^T5T^Tf^T^^g5T% fff^--?^^^ II
^7^Sf%^'JiT^rT;^^1f ^^ ^.iiq^PcT ^\H, II
In criticism of this six-fold division Jagannatha says
(p 434)— dfiTKi^^ 5f=^>T 5fq^KPcRmmT^t^c^[<T ^^ 5[^Rr ^c^rgq-
q^TO ' Rudrata (ix. 16-21) in a like manner, after
laying down that TT^TR^ is a figure of speech based
upon 3iT^^2f, attempts a three-fold division of it, which
is also not distinctive enough. More worthy of con-
sideration is the classification of Bhoja who, after
giving the two-fold distinction of ^r^F^^yfT^^ and
^r^%Bc^[^^^l after the manner of Dandin, gives a
three-fold sub-classification as follows (iii. lOff.) —
ii. 199 — J Kavyadaria [ 142
Vibhavana is closely allied to Viseshokti and more
comment on this figure will be found in our Notes
to ii. 323.
Notes to II . 200-202— (i) Bhoja regards these as examples
of ^r %?R^ as above defined. His explanation of
ii. 200 is-srli^ ^r^j^rf^^gf^^ sft^^: '^^T?qiR<$'=h: 5rf%^-
%n^5FTT I and of ii. 201 in similar terms — 3l^% ^mfyh-
5f|^ 3T%^Tc^%5Tfelc^f<^^^ l^sq^qc^ ^TVrTft?Fc4 =^lftiric=f|[%
Notes to II. 203-204— (i) In ii. 203 there is no ft^TT^ of
anything. There is no ^r^PcR: and the ^^Rrrf^"^)^ is
^l^Ttf. We can possibly say that the srRT:^!^ that is
denied is itself ^vriozr ; but it is a question if Dandin so
understands the matter.
Notes to II. 205-207— (i) The following are some of the
more important definitions of Samasokti —
Agnipurana (345. 17) —
Bhamaha (ii. 79)—
Udbhata (page 39)—
Vamana (iv. 3. 3) —
143 ] Notes [ — ii. 207
Ruyyaka (page 84) —
Bhoja (iv. ^6, 49)—
Mammata (page 741) —
Visvanatha (x. 56) —
s^T^fR^JTRtq: 51^^^ ^^: II
And finally, Jagannatha (page 367)—
'<:r^^53T5f^RT^ ^T^ m ?RT^itf%: I
(ii) It will be observed that while Dandin gives for
this figure a most elementary definition, the advance
in the various other definitions consists in introducing
further conditions and qualifications in the definition
with a view to delimit its sphere and to distinguish it
from other allied figures such as JfRR^qrn", ^^wrffqilT,
3NM<^Rf, 3<?^^t^t^, and STSt^^cfM^k-il. The first point to
be noted is that, as far as Dandin's definition goes, it
includes cases where the <m^^ conveys the SR^cT or the
51^^ the STR^^ ; but all the writers whose definitions
are quoted above — except the first two — include only
the former case under ^qr^xR, designating the latter
as 3TSi^c^5r^^. Dandin recognises the figure STil^^dM^WT,
but as he understands ^m as i^ and not mere ^PH,
his definition is not BTfcTs^rH See our note to ii. 340.'—
In the second place, while Dandin only requires that
the two ^s be ^, some of the later writers want
that they should be alike as regards their j^'^^ufs and
that further these f^tt^'^is be paronomastic or fw.
Ruyyaka's remarks in this connection are quite ex-
plicit (p. 84)— f^ 5f^cTT5f^3?TTf^t ^f%5^-??c# ^f%^J^I^m 1^-
ii. 207— I Kavyadaria [ 144
^cfSTT^: I m^^Wn:3TTfe JTcft^TfTT^JTII^d ST^l^TR^^^J^ 5r^q% I
(iii) In slfrR^qiJT, ^^^RtTTtq^Tr, l^^l^cir, and ar^^T^r^H^,
for one reason or another, both the 5i^cf and the 3T5i^^
are ^^t^m ; in ^fTPflRfj only one of them is present, the
second being ^^ by one of the three modes described
at the end of the above quotation. We have just
referred to Dandin's conception of 3T5[^^SRf^r. Dandin
does not recognise the figure called ^, regarding
which the sr^TTq^^T says (p. 410)— ^RT^hRT R^^TO^^^T^tt^-
^'4KMHIc|l'««S'4rf|^q[: I Lastly the commentators spend
much ingenuity in distinguishing H^^^df^cfi'ci Wf^ from
^^^frfi, regarding which the following brief statement
of conclusion should suffice (Jayaratha, p. 85) — ir^
W^ 3 ^^^JTr^^q^Tq^Tc^Rl^nTT^^T^^FJc^H ^^^^t^: I This
statement of the case has however been much criti-
cised. We would refer the curious to Sahityadarpana
(p. 530), Kuvalayananda (stanza 60, Vriti), Rasagan-
gadhara (pp. 373 if.), Alamkarkaustubha (pp. 254 ff.)
and Sahityasara, (pp. 446 fiF.).
(iv) For sub-divisions of Samasokti see Notes to
ii. 208 below. Samasokti is liable to a ^ called
3T5qi^q, which Mammata (p. 958) thus explains —
3i^T5JrRq%fqr %d
^A^^ T%^rfq f^srm??! il
145 ] l^ofes [ — ii. 214
Notes to II. 208-213— (i) A detailed classification of this
figure is as follows (cp. Alamkarasarvasva pp. 88f.) —
S4*T^^4HT^I^
Mq'JI^R^^
^^l^fRc"^'
...„„. I L ^..„..
And this has been combined {loc, cit.) with another
four-fold classification— ?74^ =^r^ s^f^TT^fTR^T ^ '^Ji^m, »
(ii) Bhoja gives an independent eight-fold classifica-
tion as under (iv. 47) —
as also the varieties called s^^^rfrfi, 5Tii?^%, and ^vf^Tf%^,
the ^^f%f ( ~ 3?v:^RTl%^RrT ^:5[T^Tq%:) being further dis-
tinguished into ^^ and f^^jr.
(iii) Bhoja quotes stanza ii. 208 ( = Bhoja iv. 48) read-
ing ^-qr^^ for T%TTfv[»(. Mammata would regard ii. 209
as an 3T^?ftl% ofthefirst variety.
Notes to II. 214— (i) The treatment of 3rf^3Ttf%i by Alarh-
karikas falls under two main categories. Some writers
look to the etymology of the word and describe thb
figure in a general manner as a heightened or hyper-
bolic mode of expression. The main definitions in
accordance with this view are the following-^
Agnipurana (344. 25) —
Ip [Kavyadarsa]
ii; 214— ] Kavyadaria [ 1461
Bhamaha (ii. 81) and Udbhata (p. 40)—
f^fi?T# ^ srg (^ ^' Udbhata) ^^f^i^ift^^l
^v^^^^f^^l^lRh ^TTR^R^Rl 2T«TT (^' Udbhata) II
Hemachandra (p. 264) —
Vagbhata (p. 37)—
Vamana (iv. 3. 10)—
and Bhoja who, besides quoting Kavyadarsa ii. 214
and ii. 220, gives the following extra characterisation
of the figure (iv. 82, 83)—
(ii) It is during the process of division and sub-
division of the possible hyperbolic statements of a
thing — the most complete is by 3T^?:?T^t%cT, (Kuvalaya-
nandavritti on stanza 36) into [ ^^rfcRT^frff , ] ^^^rfct-
^jftixK, ^'^fcf^f^f, 3T^?^<{i^[Th, 3T^j;Tr^^f%, "^^mi^-
s^i^Rh, and QT^^jTrfTfcRT^fi^ — that the later idea of the
five-fold 3rfd^l4lfxh as understood by Mammata comes
to the fore. Some of these later division-definitions
are —
Mammata (p. 762) —
f^t^rrfcR[3ftf%i: ^r (i
Visvanatha (x. 47) —
Ruyyaka (p. 65) is most explict in the matter —
3T«2Tq^ 5R ^vi^— ^q^ %^r m^\ "^ I f^q^m ft
14^ ) Notes [ — ii. 214
Rudrata perhaps marks the middle stage in this pro-
cess of evolution in as much as he regards en^^^T not
as an independent figure-of-speech but as a rhetorical
devise of the same kind as comparison or contrast and
giving rise to a number of figures (12 in all) which he
thus enumerates (ix. 1-2) —
f^N*|l^^lfdNi|cT52rT^idi^d4t ^r: U
Just the opposite of this is the view of Hemachandra
who says (p. 267)--tTq[^^ ^ ^ f^ 3TT%^Rtf%^ STPiT^TT^-
(iii) Atisayokti understood in this extended sense
is called. q^stfrff by Bhamaha in the oft-quoted stanza
(ii. 85)—
^m\ ^pf^T ^: #^55BRt^^T f^ II
Vakrokti is formally defined by Vamana (iv. 3.8) as
trr^^^n^e^T, the point being— ^r^f ^^^^T^s^^ ^^f ^^5^%^5T
(iv) 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 )— ^nqfTRtq^^fFT ft^ft^fr^I^H^^Tf^RRtf^: I
^^^T^T ^gq^TT^t^JT^-^^dlMT^: I This school therefore ap-
proaches the most ancient school represented, amongst
others, by Dandin.
ii. 214— ] Kavyadariu [ 148
(v) Bhoja's statement (iv. 82) quoted above probably
differentiates ^iRRRtM from ^TPcl (i. 85) ; see also our
Sanskrit Commentary p. 236 11. 6-12.
Notes to II. 215-2i('— (i) Verse 215 is given by Bhoja (p. 462)
as an example of^FT^i'^zT with the remark-s?^ ^^^^sjj^
^r 'eJ^'^ #r4 ^Fc^rf^^ JmrrRr^^^^: l Hemachandra (p. 265)
cites this as an example of ^^ 5T^m: — ^ST^rrnwrtt^BT^t
cJ^f^^fmiq ^2ftc^HNlg?4)r+/tf%^T^ 3T^^ ^xR: I Mammata
would regard the example as containing an indepen-
dent figure called jfiRSrT or Nf|^ ; but Bhoja observes —
3T5Tr^fqf|c[T^5^t R%^: I ^^% I fqf|^ =^^cTWTtc^'JIT%TTR^-
(ii) The foot-note on p. 237 contains a misprint
For ^jq^^rqrt read ^cfi^J^irrt for gcrf;g:jftant ; and for ^^l
in the last line read ^TTf^^n.
Notes to II. 217-218— (i) Bhoja (p. 462) gives this as an
example of ^T^c^Rl^Tsr with the remark — sf^ ff-^T^ W^j-
Notes to II. 218— (i) Bhoja (p. 462) gives this as an ex-
ample of 3'JTrf^^ JTff^TfcRR: and remarks— 3T^i ^f^otl*-
^ J^f^lfel^r fnqrfrRm^: l Mammata and others re-
cognise this as an independent figure- of-speech called
Notes to 11, ^20--(i) Bhoja gives other sub-varieties oi
this figure such as si*?r^%^?r, ^5^^%^??, and <^r;2rTT%T2f
or r$qT%^2T.
(ii) Bhamaha also delivers himself in a similar
strain (ii. 84) —
149 ] Notes [ — ii. 221
We have already mentioned Rudrata's attempt to
regard ^\^^ as a fundamentum divisionis for classi-
fying figures.
Notes to II. 221-225~(i) We give below some of the more
important definitions of Utpreksha —
Agnipurana (344.24) —
Udbhata (p. 43)—
Bbamaha (ii. 91) —
Vamana (iv. 39) —
Ruyyaka (p. 55) —
Rudrata (viii. 33, 36)—
Vagbhata (p. 34)—
Vagbhata (iv. 90)—
Bhoja (iv. 50)—
TleRKiohandra (p. 247) —
ii. 221— ) Kavyadaria [ 150
Vidyanatha (p. 383) and Chitramimahsa (p. 73) —
Vidyadhara (viii. 12;—
Mammata (p. 707)—
Visvanatha (x. 40) —
Jagannatha (p. 285) —
5^^ri
And Visvesvara (p. 180) —
(ii) All these definitions from the simplest to the most
elaborate agree as to the essentials. The points to be
noted are 1. that it should be a ^W^?T = ST^^ft^^'JT =
3F2r«rM^R = 3t;^T ^5^q^ =^^^Hl4d4'JI = ai'H^lflM'JI, i. e.,
v^Hd^lld'b^^^. 2. That it should be deliberate or 3nf R
and not due to actual error. 3. That it should be
between things having similarity, and so based on
similarity. 4. That it should be striking or pictures-
que. 5. And that it should concern itself with the
^ or ^'Ji and f^qr or sqyqR of the thing under discussion.
Regarding this last requirement Pratlharenduraja
observes (p. 44)~^62pq[^: fe;tt ^' I ^'^^^^WT^ ft^TT I ^
q^T4^ '^hm^ 1 ^^ =^lf^q,fii4^l^^dl^l^ra: I ^^ m %5r ^:
(iii) Numerous subdivisions of this figure are given
by Alamkarikas : compare Alamkarasarvasva (p. 57),
151
Notes
[ — ii. 225
Rasagahgadhara (pp. 286-87), and especially Pratapa-
rudriya (p. 386). We can exhibit them in a tabular
form thus —
m^^j
5Irfr2mT?[T
^nf^f^^RTi ?pTf^iq^ f%2fTr%3r[ ^o^rf^r
Further subdivisions of each of these varieties are as
under —
I
I
I
1^
g-Jif^rftrfr
%qTftftrfT
I I I i I I I I
;3qTT#ftTiT 3T3qmft° 3«>r«» 3T*»f^° 3«>f^«» ^r^^o ^of?r° storo
The four main divisions of ^^qr are in this way divi-
sible into 8 sub-varieties, thus giving rise to a total
of 32 varieties under ^]^^. Each of these varieties
can be further sub-divided into three sorts thus —
J^
1
^$r^
^^'fic^^'l
Thus we have —
cfl-^l ^IklRm^l
of 24
varieties ;
cil^'NI ^i«J|R^^i
of 24
varieties ;
qi-^-^r i^^Ti^i'iii
of 24
varieties ;
41-.^]] ic^'i^i\]
of 8
varieties ( ^^^ ^ft:
i|rl7^|^M| ^ilf^Rl^rtjl Ol 12
varieties ( Rffl[f!^2<r5[qT-
^M d^M ^*H'=fi'd);
ii. 225— 1 KavyadaHa [ 152
^■^mi^'^^m} of 12 varieties;
5rat^riTT5TrT%2T[f^q^ of 12 varieties;
R^ft^RRT ^<^9^^\ of 4 varieties;
Total 120 varieties.
Illustrations for all these varieties, especially the
sicft^Rl^ varieties, are not always quotable. Jagan-
natha*s criticism of these manifold varieties is also
worth quoting. He says (p. 295)— ?f ^TR^TT^ f| ^r
(iv) For the distinction between ^^^ and ^^^wr
compare our Note to ii. 23. Bhoja, however, considers
(iv. 51) ;3^^tq?TT as ^Mi^HWc^^ and says that it is not
distinct from ^^\ proper. His example is —
This however is distinct from the ^jq^rr variety recog-
nised by Dandin.
(v) As to ^^qf^ being ^^51 compare our Notes
to if. 359.
Notes to II. 226-234— (i) This famous discussion of the
f^M^I^ stanza which has been taken over from our
author by most subsequent writers such as Ruyyaka,
Mammata, Visvanatha, Jagannatha, etc , raises certain
side issues which we shall first dispose of. Dandin
refers to this stanza as having been already, before
his days, the subject of discussion: it cannot therefore
be of Dandin*s own composition, and he cannot be
reasonably supposed to have been the author of the
work from which the stanza Is taken. The next
question is to determine the source of the quotation.
Until the discovery of Bhasa's [Daridra-]Oharudatta
all were content to assign the Mrichchhakatika i. 34
as the source for Dandin ; but there are reasons to
suppose that the Mrichchhakatika is itself an elabora-
tion of the Charud^itta (compare a paper on the subject
153 ) Notes [— ii. 228
read by me before the First Oriental Conference held
at Poona, 1919), and this leaves it an open question
as to whether Dandin was indebted to Sudraka or to
Bhasa. Exact grounds are lacking for determining the
question one way or the other ; but so much we have
gained by the discovery of Bhasa*s plays : we need not
any more link the date of Dandin to that of Sudraka.
(or of Bhasa). If Sudraka is to be assigned, say to cir.
600 A. D., and if reasons exist to assign Dandin to an
earlier date, we can do so by making him refer to Bhasa
who gives our stanza in Charudatta 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 bufc not actually proved or even
made probable) and if Dandin comes earlier, we can
still preserve our countenance and make Dandin borrow
from Sudraka. Dandin here quotes the first half 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 Chitramlmansa (p. 77). The full
stanza is repeated also as [ii. 362] which we regard
as an interpolation (see Note to the stanza).
(ii) The word |q is used in ^^m as well as ^^^i.
Compare Note (x) to ii. 14. In the latter half of ii. 227
Dandin is actually quoting the words of Patanjali.
See our Sanskrit Commentary.
(iii) The "^^ in ii. 228-229 can be thus exhibited:
The stanza f^^q^fR rRtwrf^ contains an ^jq^Ri with —
Here of course one word is made to perform two func-
tions, which is obviously a mistake.
(iv) In the above <^e5 the verb f^fcf was i-nterpre-
ted as ^qf^o^T'TR following the usual practice of the
Vaiyakaranas or Grammarians. According to them
I 80 Kavyadar^a ]
ii. 228 — ] Kavyadarin I 154
fc5Ja7fct = 3Tg^^-3T5^^-^53TrqR. Now we have seen
that we cannot make the ^^N\K the ^qJTR. Can we
make the simile turn upon the subordinate elements
of the 52TNR, the ^t and the ^ ? This is the point con-
sidered in ii. 230. The answer is in the negative; for
if the o^rrTRS^R interpretation of fe*Hin is to be
retained, the w^ factors are lost in the principal and
can have no independent locus standi. This is quite
obvious.
(v) The ^^ in ii. 231 suggests that, following the
Naiyayikas, we should so interpret the verb f^H^ as
to give a non-subordinate position to the ^ of the
^%2TT. In this view f^jqf^ = 3T5^[ ^ ]-4fTl4)^^H*-
^ -IH I «i'^cAt>Ri^ I <-^. So the proposed ^q?TT statement is —
;3q?TR— Rji-wRl^cii or ^qc^
Now the question is, who is the ^q^ ? If the idea is
3T^r ^f^ci;3^^: [f^'fr!] fl5Ri% cT^ ^^: arwrfff f^jp^, we obvi-
ously can connect sr^f^ with the ^^^^ alone and not
with the ^^\^ also, whereas, as a matter of fact, arflf^
seems to be intended in the stanza as going with both.
Hence Dandin says — 3T^pftr% ^ ^^^ (or adopting the
variant which also has good ms. authority — ^^^: ^W^f^
^ ^^^:). Further, the point of similarity between the
proposed ^qqr?! and ^q^ (or, adopting the variant, the
point in which ^^^ the ^^^r is compared with the &q^
the ^qJTR) has got to be extraneously supplied: it is not
actually given in the stanza.
(vi) Can we not, as a possible alternative, connect
^mf^ with both the ^sq^TM and the ^^^^ proposed in (v)
above, and in this manner? — ^r^r qjT%i; 3^: ^Tfift f^^f^
(or fe^) ^^] ^^: 3T^Tft f^q% I This would obviate the
first difficulty of sTg^r^ftf^ ^ ^^^H,] but the second diffi-
culty still remains. We can, it is true, conceivably
imagine w^s^ or some such characteristic of the ^q^r
as the supposed common dharma, but it is f^ and
155 1 J^otes t— ii.234
more or less unsatisfactory. The common property in
an ^q^r, as Dandin says (ii. 232), ought to be evident,
which is not the case here.
(vii) The proper way to understand the verse is not
to regard it as containing an ^jq^TT but rather an ^^.
The poet intends to ascribe to ^w^ the character of a
^q^~the ^%TJT or o^\^^ is ^^fcRR^BR^R^^^^^JTf^^ft-
^'JTc=llRPif4^rlH ^MHlW-fcT^rr ^^TT^rq;^ as it has been well
observed. The word ^ accordingly can be a ^\^^ of
^^ also.
(viii) We have said that the line fei-m^ etc. con-
tains an ^^. There are however two possible ways
of understanding the ^^- We could say that here
rW:?Rt^-3TFsj5^-5^FR (which is the BT^qmf^^T^f^^) ^W^JPjf^-
H!^4'd^ '+ ^^^^^ I 's^+ii^'fl %^^ ftft'^JT (which is also ^r^qm )
?W:^>^-BTW^'^-^qHdl<^lc^H ^vfTs^T^ I Or we could say
that here— 3Tl^if|4)^^H*5?TTq^3^^fc[JTTR: (the ^qfrlf^)
s^rq^ f^fft%ff (this being ^r^qm) STWffrTqv^S^RWRT^^^S^-
J??^cn^Tc'^^ ^W52}% I The first is the%n^^ view adop-
ted by Dandin, Mammata, Visvanatha, Appayya-
Dlkshita and others; the second, the'^^^fspB view coun-
tenanced by Alamkarasarvasva, Rasagangadhara and
other modern texts. The difference does not however
seem to be very vital. Compare Alamkarakaustubha
pp. 194-195.
(ix) Some Mss. give here (after ii. 226, first half) an
extra verse which can be thus rendered —
"The Ocean, by its billowy summits, is as-if
grounding sandal-ointment-in-the-form-of-foam ;
taking that by his hands <rays> the moon is
besmearing as-it-were the Ladies-in-the-form-of-
Quarters."
(x) It is usual to render ^^ by Poetic-fancy.
Fancy, however, is a lighter product of our plastic or
creative faculty, which generally concerns itself with
associations or combinations of ideas which are re-
mote, recondite, arbitrary, and unexpected; while Ut-
ii. 234— j Kavyadaria [ l66
preksha knows of no such limitations. At the same
time, while a simile is a more or less sustained effort
of the imagination to hold two things together in one
consciousness with a view to establish a complete
picture, an Utpreksha is a passing suggestion of the
intended similarity, which may occasionally be very
picturesque and which, while it lasts, gives a point of
view from which the poet wishes us to understand the
fact, the quality, or the action described. Hence we
would render the word by Poetic-Conception.
Notes to II. 235— (i) The three figures ^5, ^^, and ^,
and in this order, are enumerated by Bhamaha (ii. 86)
who however says—l^^ ^^ ^^ ^IT^sfJR^T ^^: I, the
view of Dandin being just the contrary. The question
about the chronological relation between the two
writers cannot be settled either way on the strength of
this circumstance alone. Compare, however. Notes
to 244 below. Other writers who recognise all these
three figures by these names are 5^^ (iii. 12, iii. 21,
iv. 56), ^2 (vii. 82, vii. 98, vii. 100), ^^ (p. 43), and
f^55qT?l?5^ (stanzas 166, 150, 137). Others recognise one
or two of them only, subsuming the remaining under
some other figure or figures. Dandin illustrates Hetu
in ii. 236-259, defines and illustrates Siikshma in
ii. 260-264, and treats of Lesa in ii. 265-272.
(ii) Hetu is a poetic cause, and Indian Alarhkari-
kas recognise a number of figures of speech based upon
causal relation. These are (cp. Note (i) to ii. 2 also)—
^^ift^^R^^ (ii. 169), f^wn (ii. 199), ^m'^^ (ii. 298), f^-
qtf^ (ii. 323), f^^ (ii. 348),— amongst the alamkaras
recognised by Dandin-— as also the alamkaras known
as ^TS2Tf^,^3TgnR, ^^^r^, ^1^, ^^^, f%f%=f, ^^^r, ^wt^,
s^n^TRT, 9flraTm, etc., not to mention alamkaras like ?S1^,
5l^^<l?rn, or 3?3Rt]%TT (where similarity serves to illus-
trate as well as to corroborate), or some sub-varieties
like 5RT^'JiT%q or Mammata's last variety of erfrRTq^ftj
(where causal relation comes in only secondarily).
157 ) Notes I — ii. 235
Ignoring the last two groups of alarhkaras, and con-
sidering first the alariikaras not found in the Kavya-
darsa, it is to be noted that ^rmf^ = ^RT%T, Dandin pre-
serving the first word for the 3^ and the second for
the alamkara. Writers like Bhoja (iii. 34, iv. 44),
Ruyyaka (p. 163, p. 189), and Visvanatha (x. 86, x. 96),
it is true, recognise both ^tttI^ and w^{^ as two dis-
tinct alarhkaras, but the ^nrrflcf of the last two writers
is a ^T^^JR, while we have already commented upon
Bhoja*s Samadhi as an alamkara (see Note (ii) to ii. 99).
About '^^^r we shall have something ,to say in the
Notes to ii. 298, while ^rr^P^st is only the |^ with
^g^sj^wlfr^^ super-added. The figure 3f|5 as recognised
by Bhoja (iii. 18), Rudrata (ix. 54), and ^^r (p. 44)
comes very near to our author's R^tflRh (ii. 323). The
figure ^lo^i^s;- (defined by Mammata as ^^t^^q^q% )
is practically the same as Dandin's^, while ar^TFf is
the same f^ set forth with the usual 53^1% and other
paraphernalia of a logical inference. For the rest
compare Notes (i) to (vi) to ii. 169. The other figures
need not be here considered in details. See however
Notes on ^5^ varieties.
(iii) Dandin has given illustrations for 16 varieties
of 15 of which 14 are illustrations of qfJT^^^ and only 2
(viz. ii. 244, ii. 245) are of the HFl^fJI^. We have already
(p. 127 above) explained Jhe distinction between ^R^
and ^rq^ I5, from which it will be clear that the ^R^l^
(e. g. ^) normally precedes the ^^ (^), while the iirq^s
is the logical mark or f^ (e. g. '€^) which in its most
valid from is actually the ^ of the |[M^ (viz. (^).
But a poetic ^FI^ need not always have that rigorous
validity in its s^rrfH which logic requires. For instance
in ii. 245 the 5jfT%— sf^ l^'TT^HT^^T^^TP^^rRWM^ ^^ ^
^jmrg^c^— may conceivably be vitiated in a particular
person who is restless, but not by love. It is only if
the ITT'T^ is the ^ of the fiM that the sqri^ is invariably
valid.
ii. 235— ] KMvyadaria { 158
(iv) An ar^W'^KH, as we have seen above (p. 128),
involves a ^n^sFTn^ relation between two things or ^s.
Now although it is true that the most valid form of
proof is the one that depends at each stage upon
demonstrable causal relation between one thing and
another, we are not always so rigorously exacting
in ordinary life and much less so in poetry. Even
analogy is often given and accepted as valid proof.
Generally, however, the ^^ and the ^rn^ are related as
particular to universal, or vice versa. The particular
is the result of the universal by deduction, while the
universal is the result of the particular by induction.
In 3T5ini^<?^l^, accordingly, the causal relation between
the two statements (even where it is demonstrable) is
ignored and attention is fixed upon the ^R^^WJT'h) rela-
tion between them. In a ^, even in the HN^ variety,
the causal relation is naturally what comes to the
fore ; and as the two q^s in question are normally two
particular objects (e. g. (j;^ and ^m in ii. 245) and not
two statements as in an ar^frrR??!!^, the distinction
between that figure and OT^5 is generally not very
difficult to make.
(v) Some important definitions of Ig are given
below: —
Agnipurana (344.29-32)—
Bhoja (iii. 12)—
VSgbhata (iv. 105)—
J
159 ] Notes [ — ii. 235
Rudrata (vii. 82)—
Vagbhata (p. 43)—
Visvanatha (x. 64) —
Kuvalayananda (stanzas 166-167) —
(vi) Of these definitions while the first two and the
first given by the Kuvalayanandakara agree with that
of Dandin, in the others is distinctly noticeable an
attempt to give a special ^f^^^r to the figure besides
the mere fact of one thing being the ^ of another.
Bhamaha, it will be remembered, had already raised
his voice against the recognition of ^5 as a distinct
figure in as much as there was no qf^hR^f^R in it at
all ; and this criticism has so much weighed upon
later Alamkarikas that even so astute a writer as
Jagannatha questions the validity of ^^2ff^ (which
with these later writers does duty for^) as a distinct
figure-of-speech. The view is thus set forth and criti-
cised by Visvesvara (p. 340 f«)— ^T^ [ ^^^1^1^ ]— ^^qf^
dTj^^^l ^f%^P^ ^%lRpTrHl^^''H^2TT =^^^K^H*MT^ I I
(vii) The sixteen varieties of Hetu illustrated by
Dandin are exhibited in the following Tabular state-
ment* Bhoja has elaborated Dandin's own scheme
adding minor sub-varieties. —
ii. 235— ]
Kavyadaria
[ 160
to
'GO
J
Ifil 1 Noten [ — ii.240
Notes to II. 235-237— (i) Bhoja thus explains the illus-
tration—^ ^^^trSt ;T^2??fT^^: 5f!^?TT^;T%2mWT^T<l 51^^ ^\^
Notes to II. 238-239— (i) Bhoja thus explains the illus-
tration— 3T^%IFr q^H '?f^--bSinm^|V:|Hf^J^Mi ^^^^TT^-
^S^^TTTn^ ^r^.5^^: I
(ii) In ii. 239** the reading ^TT^^F, as being the lectio
difficilior and as yielding a very good sense has to be
naturally preferred to the other variants available.
Notes to II . 240— (i) The threefold division of ^ here
given by Dandin is also to be found in the Vakya-
padiya ol Bhartrihari (iii. 45-88, ^t^PFR), some perti-
nent stanzas from the section being —
^3[RfT^ 3|ci; JTTH ^?^ ^ii^t^=e?!H. '
(ii) Professor K. B. Pathak (Ind.Ant. XLI, Oct. 1912,
p. 237) has argued that this three-fold division of ?r4—
2l [KSvySdar^a]
ii.240— ] Kavyndaria [162
unknown both to Panini and Patanjali — was evolved
out of Panini*s sutra I. iv. 49 by the genius of Bhartri-
hari himself, Dandin having borrowed it from Bhartri-
hari. No definite proof, however, has been adduced to
prove that the three-fold division of ^ was first made
by Bhartrihari himself. The fragmentary Berlin Ms.
of Bhartrihari's commentary on Patanjali's Mahabha-
shya — the only Ms. of the work hitherto discovered —
unfortunately does not go beyond I. i. 55, and we have
no other clear evidence one way or the other. Seeing,
however, that Bhartrihari himself, as Kielhorn points
out (M. Bh., vol. ii. Preface p. 20), had an * extensive
commentorial literature* before him, it is unsafe to
assert in the absence of compelling evidence that a
particular doctrine originated with Bhartrihari, and to
base upon that assertion other chronological super-
structure. So far as the evidence goes therefore it is
not proved that Dandin lived after 650 A. D., the tra-
ditional date of Bhartrihari's death.
(iii) A f^c^qj^ is ^ in the sentence *Jc?t: ^z %^f^ \
Here the causal activity consists in the manufacture
of the 5^3, and its exact nature is determined by the
object to be produced. A f%^4^ is ^i^ in the sentence
l^^^*. 5^ ^*H<il%. Here again the exact nature of
the causal operation depends upon the sort of Wt!R or
^f^R effected. As distinct from these is the sry^^nrf,
viz. JTHT in the sentence J^^{ jm ^TTRI or ^#7 ^\A q^^lfe.
Here the ^^^ or ^^ involves the same kind of activity
whether its object is 5fR or something else. Hence
Dandin says that in f^c4 and f^|[ ^,s the |^ is
^RT^^;' while in 5IM it is generally (SRI:^^^ g^i'^-
5:^^ =^ 5IT% ^^m^ lic^% ITMa— says Ca) ^iim^
only. As a further consequence it follows that in the
first two instances other ^r^^rs (expressed by other q^R^
cases) are required ; but they are unnecessary for the
last. It will be incidently noted that ^^ involves the
TIH or the issuing out of the =^^f^?T to its objects, in
accordance with the %^wn\ ^V^^^S^^ theory of sens^-
perception.
163 ] Notes [ — ii. 241
Notes to II. 241-245— (i) In ii. 242 the forests have been
transformed into poison. A f^^iR: involves a change of
form and quality, the inner substance remaining the
. same.
(ii) Bhoja has given ii. 243 as an illustration of
what he calls 3T^^T^: f^^Rn^st ^- I For explanation
see Sarasvatikanthabharana, p. 274 f.
(iii) Dandin has given for 5IM?b4 an illustration that
depends upon our understanding the doctrine of ^f^qr^lt
5ir-2r«j)rfeTr. A straight-forward illustration would have
used an ordinary verb of motion. This he has done in
ii. 244 ; only, mere statements like *' birds are repair-
ing unto their nests*' have no poetry if interpreted
wholly and solely as containing the statement of a
STM^' Bhamaha criticises such bald or unpoetic
statements in the following words (ii. 87)—
(iv) Here an interesting chronological question has
been raised. Is Dandin by his words— ^cft^N ^^
(ii. 244^^) — expressing his dissent from Bhamaha's unjust
condemnation of the ^rsq"; or is Bhamaha criticising
Dandin by refusing to allow as poetry what Dandin
gives as good poetry. At first blush both views seem
to be equally correct ; but it seems to us that if one of
the two writers is quoting the other at all, it is
Bhamaha who is criticising Dandin, though it is
possible that the verse was one of the floating tradi-
tional lines—like many another in Patanjali's Mahabha-
shya— which had been made the object of exposition
by several Alarhkarikas before them. Dandin, we
thinki gives it as his opinion that the line is unpoetic,
and so is not an illustration of ^^3 with 5[M5r4.
But it can be a good HN^I^ for indicating the time.
Mammata thus brings out the suggestion about the
q[JT^5T^^T (P. 290)— TT^^^t ^^\ ^^ STc^T^^^^q^^ %^
ii. 245— ] Kavyadaria [ 164
^cflfd f^^^'4J<=lflPl ^^RTT^T^ STTTT^t^TTf^ ^iRflf^^l f^<H<=fT^o4w^-
(v) Dandin uses the words ^cfr^jrfq ^v^ to explain
why he has not jbaken a regular verb implying motion
as his illustration for siM^^- A mere motion as that
of birds to their nests has no'^f%^ if understood as an
illustration of a c^Kch^^ with iiM^b^ But, says he, the
instance can be a good illustration for a 5llM*S^. After
this Dandin proceeds to give a regular example of a
in^^ in ii. 245. Similarly Bhamaha can be under-
stood as criticising the line in question even as the
illustration of a ffN^g. It then becomes mere ^,
mere report of the weather, and hence void of any
alamkara. The chronological relation between Dan-
din and Bhamaha cannot in any case be made to rest
upon the doubtful testimony of this passage alone.
Notes to II. 246-252— (i) Bhoja quotes from Dandin stanzas
ii. 247, 248, 249, 250 and 251. His comments on these are:
ii. 247— 3T5r fq^TR^^rmr^: srnr^q^ ^^f^^rf^p^^q^i ii. 248— 3T5f
^Jm^^ftT^rr^TR^T^: 50=%^^^ S02fT^?frr^«^^PRqc^j?[ (with the
variant ^ for ^^ ). ii. 2^9— m ^^\^ sr^ft ^ W^c^H^-
dlci'^i^iiw if?T:^^OTcqi3[ I ii. 250-3T5fRT^r%%flcT^r^?3^Tmmt
f^^i^ f^^^'^: (with the variants ^5 for ^ and rt^-
^4T f^^3T: for ^^ ^^im^: ). ii. 251— sr^r ^^ ^qi^: sftn-
For a more accurate explanation of the last illustra-
tion see our Sanskrit commentary ii. 251'. The com-
mentary also gives the othtr three illustrations not
given by Dandin.
Notes to II. 253-254-(i) A T%||5 is a violation of the
law of Nature. Hence Dandin suggests that the viola-
tion should not be prominently expressed but should
be conveyed in a secondary or subdued tone. Otherwise
it would be a different figure.of-speech.
i65 i Notes I — ii. 257
Notes to II. 255— (i) The example given involves only
^^^t»^^<il ; Bhoja gives also an example of ^rcS^^jcTT in
the verse ar^^^l^^r etc. quoted by us in our Sanskrit
commentary to ii. 255.
(ii) Several writers who do not recognise Hetu as a
distinct alamkara designate the ^'4e5^^i%^Jc^ between
^>RW and ^ as a distinct figure-of-speech known as
3T^icf. Mammata thus defines it (p. 869) —
explaining the point thus in his Vritti--|^ q^^ ^i^
^fTMfcT^^ff JiRT^^cT^TT g^q^^rr^jq- gr rr^i: ^^rqtcq^R^q^^fcT-
Notes to II. 256— (i) A more familiar example of this
variety is —
regarding which Bhoja observes — 3T5T ^rj^TTrvf^^jT^flo^f-
(ii) The figure can be confused with ^%(ii. 352-354).
The distinction between the two is explained in our
Sanskrit Commentary, p. 324, lines 8-10. Compare,
for the distinction between this figure and the Dipaka
variety illustrated in ii. 106 our Note to this last
stanza.
(iii) Several later writers have subsumed this ^
variety under 3Tf^^tf%», and particular ly that variety
of it known as ^T^Rq^: qr^q^ftq^'Jr^TTT. r%^^ f|%r:
^^ 5fTq^ ^^^71%^ %%— as a commentator explains.
Thus this variety of 3TRR[qtRR would include also the
next or the ^jT^frrJcT^ variety of f^fg.
Notes to II. 257 — (i) Bhoja thus explains the illustration —
^ ^ jpw?^ I^rm^^ SETjcfr^^t •+i'4Wd<^^ ^^^ f^^t 1
ii. 258— ] Kavyadarka [ 166
Notes to II. 258-259— (i) The figure called f^f^5{ as recog-
nised by Wi^ (who defines it, P. 133, as— ^qf^^t^^sf^-
sq^ SRcff: ), by f^m\'^, and by most later writers differs
from these two varieties, if at all, only in the circum-
stance that the ^R^ is in that figure supposed to be
making a voluntary effort to produce an unsuitable
effect. When such an effect is produced unexpectedly
and disconcerts the agent we have the figures-of-speech
called f^^^ in its several varieties, thus defined by
Mammata (p. 875)—
3^f^[i^'«rt ^^ *K'JM !F^ '
or, the figure of speech known as o^jt^TRT, if the agent of
the unexpected or disconcerting result is different
from the original agent. Op. Mammata (p. 911) —
(ii) Bhoja quotes Kavyadarsa ii. 83 as an illustration
for the argrs variety of f^^fl^. Dandin apparently re-
gards the f^ alamkara in the stanza as subordinate to
the ^^q^. Probably there is a mixture (^^) of both
these-figures in that stanza. The 3^^ alamkara defined
by Bhoja as (iii. 18) —
can also be— q^irwvi^— subsumed under Dandin's i^t^^.
Notes to II. 260-264— (i) Ruyyaka, Rudrata, Mammata,
J Vagbhata, Visvanatha and most subsequent writers
recognise Sukshma as a distinct alamkara. It is not
easy to understand why BhSmaha found the alamkara
. void of cjihlRn or ^f^^. Sukshma involves a process of
inference, but it is not to be confused with firqqst^ since
the irn^ is here subtle and discovered only by shrewd
obeervation of gestures or postures.
167 1 Notes I — ii. 267
(ii) A figure-of-speech called fqf|^ and defined in the
f^cii|M'<^ (151) as— fqT%T T^^l^rTflT^: ^TTfcf^rll^ I is very
diflScult to distinguish from ^^. The ^f^T^FR thus
formulates the distinction (ibid, p. 191)--?j2^T^?fn^ ^T-
^T^P%S^ ^Tc5nf>T^ffn% W ^^-^- ' Normally, however, ftf|rr
is understood differently. Vagbhata (p. 43) defines it
as—TT^nqr^ 2T^5'ij^^t^iH-=b T%fRci ^<i ftftclfl^ I Rudrata on
the other hand defines it as (ix. 50) —
^^i %''-^^T'R%qfq cTci; fqif rTT]^ n
Notes to II. 265-267— (i) In ^2^ there is the discovery of
the hidden thing, but not disclosure. In ^ (No. 1)
there is (a) a concealing, (b) a discovery leading to
imminent disclosure, and (c) an attempt to prevent
the disclosure under some other pretext. This figure
is known in other writers as oSfr^fxR defined by Rudrata
(p. 174) as-;3f^[?[^5ft3j^j^ and by Visvanatha (x. 92)
as— o2jT^lfxf»Tfrq^ s^T^r|f^?{^[q ^^^: \ Vamana's defini-
tion (iv. 3. 25) — o^rr^i^ ^^(^[^'4 o?TT^f%: is tantamount
to the same thing.
(ii) This figure has to be distinguished from 3^7^%
(ii. 304). As will be clear from Dandin*s definition of
the latter figure (cp. also Note (iii) to ii. 95) he does
not regard m^ as the invariable basis of an ajq^ ;
and so the usual distinction between these two figures
cannot be stated as it is generally stated by commen-
tators—^nT?I^^Nf^rqfr%: I 3T^ (i. e. fs^n^w or ^) 5 ;fi
^TrRi%%r% ^: I We can perhaps formulate the distincti-
on between them by saying that in an aTTffcf neither
the thing negated nor the thing asserted is anything
like subtle or mysterious. In ^ the subtlety of the
thing constitutes the very essence of the figure.
(iii) Vamana's example for the figure is —
^^^^(v. 1. ^^Tf )Tft^ ^cTim^ ^ftf^ )
^JT^^nq^^^ ^^qici 5^ ^^ ( V. 1. TR ) II
II 267— I Kavyadaria I 165
This is from Bhasa*s Svapnavasavadatta (iv. 7). Our
example (ii. 267) uses the same sqM but under entire-
ly different circumstances.
Notes to II. 268-272 -(i) Writers who define ^ in the
alternative way mentioned are —
, Bhoja (iv. 56)—
Rudrata (vii. 100)—
Kuvalayananda (137)—
Vagbhata (p. 43)—
and Jagannatha (p. 512) —
But none of these writers are earlier than Dandin, and
it is difficult to ascertain what writers Dandin desig-
nates by TT%. Bhamaha cannot be one of them, as he
rejects ^ in both the alternative forms.
(ii) Bhoja already has raised the question of the
distinction of this figure from siiivsi^fci (ii. 343). We
have already quoted the view of Appayya Dikshita on
the point in our Sanskrit Commentary (p. 269*' —
p. 2^0"). Dandin who recognises both ^ (No. 2) and
«^(^^kt as distinct figures makes the distinction turn
naturally upon the word %^cT: in ii. 268^. The Alaih-
karakaustubha (p. 407 f.) would subsume ^^ (No. 2"
under s^rr^^, an alamkara not recognised by Dandin.
(iii) The r^t or ^f^ may at times involve a simi-
larity between things ; and Bhoja ^iqcordingly gives
169 1 Motes [— ii. 274
examples involving what he calls a ^flT^frR and also
not involving it (see p. 409). For further remarks see
Notes to ii. 343.
Notes to II. 273-274— (i) Except Bharata, Agnipurana,
Hemachandra, and Alamkarasekhara this figure-of-
speech is recognised by all extant writers. Some dis-
tinctive definitions may here be collected —
Bhamaha (ii 89) and Udbhata (p. 42)—
Rndrata (vii. 34)—
Vamana (iv. 3. 17) —
Bhoja (iv. 79)—
and Mammata (p. 803) —
(ii) It will be noticed that while Vamana requires
that the things mentioned in succession should have
between them a relation of similarity, Bhamaha con-
trarywise holds that the things should not be so re-
lated. Jagannatha, as also Hemachandra before him,
argues (p. 478) that ^'A\wm should not be recognised as
a distinct figure. His words are — ^T^^^^^^jR^^^t^
m^ I BT^rq^jq^q^q^RT^R tt^ ^tstw^^iTH, ' Vamana's require-
ment of similarity would probably supply the element
of 1f%^3T needed for the figure. It is however a fact
that quite apart from the similarity there is a charm
even in the orderly succession of things, and hence the
alariikara deserves to be recognised as an independent
alarhkara.
22 ( Kavyadar^a
ii. 275— ] Kavyadarin [ 170
Notes to II. 275— (i) Dandin now defines together a group
of three Alamkaras known as ^^r^Rs. Bhamaha
(iii. 1^7) and Udbhata (p. 49, generally following Bha-
maha in his treatment) are alone amongst ancient
writers to recognise these three alamkaras in the
sense in which Dandin understands them. Ruyyaka
(P. 185), Visvanatha (x. 95^96) and one or two later
writers accept these alamkaras and even add to
their number the alamkaras designated as Sama-
hita, Bhavodaya, Bhavasamdhi, and Bhavasabalata
(see Kuvalayanandachandrika on stanzas 169f.), but
they have radically altered the nature of these figures
in as much as they require that in these figures the
X^y ^\^, etc. ought to be introduced in subordination to
another ^^l4 and not prominently and for their own
sake. This view was first propounded by the author
of the ^R^filft^Ts (cp. ii. 5, p. 71)—
Anandavardhana*s Aloka on this karika runs as
follows :■—^^ <m^M>\wj[[^^^ mq^^ifq qfeni ^t^
^'^ ^f^ JTTJT^Bt^: 'T^: \ Dandin, Bhamaha, or some pre-
decessor of them is perhaps intended to be alluded to
in the karika in question : Abbinavagupta in his
^^^T^^T=^fr to the passage actually mentions Bha-
maha. Our Sanskrit Commentary on ii. 275 lines 123ff.
quotes Premachandra*s attempt to defend the position
. taken by Dandin and Bhamaha as against the new
school.
(ii) We have explained in a general way in our
Note (i) to i. 18 the nature of Rasa, but it is neces-
sary to afford a detailed exposition 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 excellences
and defects belonging to words and to sensC; and these
are treated at great length in the works of the earlier
Alaihkarikas, They were considered as character-
171 ] Notes 1 — ii. 275
istics inherent in the ** body " of poetry. Dandin calls
them JiT'JTs or life-breaths (i. 42). And as a body can
have extraneous ornaments to set forth its natural
charm so poetry also had its "ornaments" or alarh-
karas, these being specific turns of expression or
thought which could not be covered by the usual ^s
(and ^Rs). For a time advance in the science of
Poetics consisted mainly in an elaboration of the giJis
and 3T^^Rs, their number and mutual distinction. The
next step of importance taken was the formulation of
the doctrine of fy%s or styles. It was probably dis-
covered that certain schools, courts, or literary cote-
ries developed only specific gunas and alamkaras to
the exclusion of others; and as these originally were
confined to definite territorial divisions the styles
cultivated by them got the nicknames of 1^^, ^ft^t,
qr^Tcfr, etc. This may have led to emulation which in
time degenerated into jealousy and animosity ; and
the ultimate compromise effected only ended in the
doctrine that all the ^Rfs had each an element of good
and of evil in it.
(iii) All this time however no attempt was made to
explain why certain gqs or 3T^Rs afford pleasure
more than others. A mere external labelling and
classification was naturally felt to be inadequate in a
science of ^^ilsthetics. Help was sought at first from
the sister science of Dramaturgy. Tbe Natyasastra
had led down the Sutra—^^qr^^qHsjnT^Tf^^TTT^f^^qT^:
( Adhyaya vi, p. G2, where this ancient theory is quoted
and explained). The generating and intensifying
factors (STT^STFT and 3^te ft^Rs) are ^TrTT, ^Tf^rTW, etc.
and ^?cf, ^^Jtc^l, ^^f^^T, etc. And they produce in ^rt^
■^^^ etc. in the first place one or more of the 8 ^fr^
3T3^T^s, which are somewhat involuntary and physio-
logical in origin, and along with them a number of
psychological moods or feelings through which the
hero passes. These latter are some of them dominent
feelings or ^^qrR'^Rs of which there are nine enume-
rated; and some, concurrent feelings or o^ft^if^^s of
li. 2'5'5— ] Kavyadaria I 17t
which no less than 33 are enumerated. The ^r^^^r^g^
^^if^^IRs and sqf^RTft^rRs together make up the 49 (50)
kinds of ^msy and these ^f^s, belonging to JJT\, 5^*^,
etc. (or to the actors representing them), called into
existence by definite "factors/* produce in the audi-
ence by sympathy the nine ^s or sentiments. This is
the theory of the Natyasastra which can be graphi-
cally thus presented : —
^ .;> ^ , r Sgrfrq^ 3T3^Rs T produce 8(9)
^rrcR \ (in Actor) I ' \i ^ I/- * j- \
^ J L 33 sq^m^rf^S J ( in Audience )
The eight 3T3^7Rs are enumerated in our Sanskrit
Com. ii. 275^^-^«, the wmr^s in ii. 275'^-'^ and s^f^-
=irTf^s in ii. 275®^""^^. The eight (or nine) i^^s corres-
pond to the nine ^i^vrr^s—
l^ to >2^^ ^^ to ^l? ^3«:^T to ^]W^
^T^ to |TWT ^3c^ to Ct^ ft^^ to ^^
^^ to ^m ^^ to 'mm^ [ f?i% to ^T?ef ]
(iv) Dandin is aware of the existence of the ^^
theory (cp. i. 51, ii. 280, iii. 170, and especially the
last passage) but he did not know how to organically
incorporate it with his theory of Poetics. Accordingly
he merely gives a recognition to the i^ theory by
introducing a new variety of 3T^^jks for cases where
the^^s for their own sake were pre-eminently develop-
ed in a poem which was otherwise devoid of the usual
^s or 3T#4JR:s. The l^ comes in for recognition also
in connection with Dandin's treatment of if(^4 (i. 51).
This was merely borrowing a feather from the sister
science. Rasa is of the nature of an inner consciousness
(hence called =6r^iTT), and it is evident that it can be felt
even in poems not containing the ^^rj; alamkara.
Some Alamkarikas, as we saw, tried to get out of the
problem by recognising l^m^ alamkara only in those
cases where the m is felt as being subordinated to the
^fl^?n^ proper.
(v) The real solution of the matter came from the
grammarians. If poetry consists of words having
specific sense (or words and sense), it is necessary to
173 ] Notes [ — ii. 27S
determine at first the varieties of sense or er^. There
is the expressed sense or the ^T^^??!^ and the figurative
or indicative sense or ^^r4. In the stock instance
Tifj means literally and primarily the stream, which
is the qr^T^. But in statements like TWT^t 5TRT: the
word must mean not the stream but the bank. This
is the secondary significance of the word or its ^^?|.
Now why should a person be prompted to say TWT^ ^^'*
instead of TWT^3 5IRT: ? Clearly there must be a sjqt^SR
(ignoring for the moment the few cases where ^
overpowers it), and this was discovered to be the in-
tention to bring out the ifef, ^\^^l^, and other qualities
inherent in the jtr by reason of its proximity to the
stream. The 5Rt^i?f of a ^^T is therefore the ^^^^
sense. In cases like the above where the qr^ and the
c5^ senses can be clearly distinguished from the s^Tf^
sense there is no difficulty of any kind. But there
are cases where the o^^^i is ^f^^^^c^q^q ; 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 ^^s could now come in
under the ar^^s^sh^oAJW^-
(vi) One inevitable consequence of the share which
the grammarians had in the formulation of the ^^
theory was the adoption of their ^z theory by the
Alamkarikas. Anandavardhana in his >-:^?2TT55t^ (p. 47-48)
clearly recognises this indebtedness. He says — ^xfij f|
f^r^jf^T^^?ji^5i^: \\^^\^\ ^T5?Tftm s^ni^l o^r^^^^^T^i^vi^f^-
ftgrff; I In other words :-—
1?TTo call ^^ = ^, as being the ^m% of ^^ (to
which ^=^^Tf^ sounds are subordinate) ;
3TT^*» call ^5^T^ = ^^(^, as being the s^f^^ of 53^^ (to
which the W^ sense is subordinate).
This means that there is no ^cTTrf but only an 3Tfto3n%
of the ^8. That is to say, the gestures and move-
ments of the actor can prevail over you only if you
are ^^x^ and have once experienced feelings and emo-
ii. 275— ] Kavyadaria [ l74
tions answerable to those depicted or enacted. The
Alarhkarikas who followed this view of the case natu-
rally gave no independent place to ^^r^ and other
Alarhkaras. If Mammata in one place (Uliasa i. p. 23)
mentions the ^T^Rri^it is ^W^^:^ ^W%f%^^T^J^FTf^^W%^, as
a commentator explains it.
(vii) If 5T5^ (or ^^r§f) be the body and gws the life-
breaths of poetry, the question — what is the soul of
poetry — which is naturally suggested by the metaphor
is answered (i) by Varaana (I. ii. 6) as ^fcf^Tc^rr ^fs^r^^T;
(ii) by the ^"^f^ school (^^R^rR^r 1) as ^Ts^T^q^TfT ^: and
(iii) by Visvanatha (i. 3) as ^J^^ ^^fl% ^6^^^^ On this
point compare Notes to i. 10. The question can have
only an academic interest once we have realised the
function of ^^, frf^ or '^ in poetry.
(viii) How ^^ is produced in the heart of the ^^^r
^^^, its exact modus operandi^ has given rise to a
number of divergent views which it would take us too
far afield to discuss here in detail. Consult on the
question ^q?3TT^^^RJT p. 69, Mammata, Uliasa iv.,
pp. 101-111, and Rasagahgadhara pp. 22-31.
(ix) The distinction between '^RT^, ^^, and g5^%R[^
can be thus formulated. If the 50 ^r^s described above
(Note iii) are any of them produced by certain fq^T^s
the nature of which prevents the manifestation of a
corresponding full-fledged ^^ in the audience or the
reader— when, for instance, the ^5jnf%^r^ called J}^ is
produced not by some lady-love but by 3^, ^q, ^qT%, 5?f,
etc.— we have an incomplete ?:^ or rather ststth^^^^^TR,
which gives rise to ^^r^R. The alamkara is some-
times called ^TRT^R also; — cp. 3T^-^K^fe p. 189. A
j^m^ alamkara of course exhibits the f^r^s, OT^^^s, and
sqf^^RTf^s in regular sequence. As Bhamaha says (iii. 6)
^^rq^^q^^^RT^^^ 3f^ I Finally an (3^^%^ exhibits an
inchoate Rasa (as in Preyas) or a full'fledged Rasa (as
in Rasavat), but the manner of exteriorisation adopted
is 3T5f%^, is ?^f^5^f|55^, is in flagrant opposition to the
normal or the convectional, purposely with a view to
stamp one's own individuality upon it. Thus in the
I
175 1 Notes I— ii. 278
example given (ii. 293-4), to allow an enemy hemned
in battle to depart is what is unexpected; but the hero
does it owing to bis over-weening self-confidence.
Notes to II. 276-277— (i) The same example is given by
Bhamaha iii. 5. Cp. also our Note (iii) to ii. 37. The
verse seems to be an adaptation of the last verse
in the 92nd Adhyaya of the Udyogaparvan. It is
difficult to ascertain whether the adaptation was the
work of Bhamaha or of Dandin or of an unknown
predecessor of both. The example illustrates the 5(tl%
of f%^ for ^^'m and also of ^^^ for fq^.
Notes to II. 278-279— (i) The example illustrates the ^M
on the side of the King alone. The aj^l^^RS^'t gives us
this information about the King — ^m^T ^m %^^WTrf^-
^J^^RT^^ ?5^^J 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 geneo-
logy is almost nil Dandin's mention of a king of that
line — supposing he really belongs to that line — gives
us no solid ground for any chronological conclusion.
On the other hand Dandin in iii. 114 mentions a city
with a name of 5 varnas, the middle one being a nasal,
where rule kings with a name of 8 ^s. Here although
the city could be ^^\ or q^r (the capital of ancient
Kerala) as well as cfjy^ (Conjeeveram) the capital of
the Pallavas, yet the name ^y^^\'^ consists of 8 qfrls (in-
cluding the visarga) while the Kerala kings, even adopt-
ing their ancient local name of 'Cheraladan' do not
give the required number of varnas. In the present
state of our knowledge therefore Dandin seems to have
definitely alluded to the Pallavas of Kaiichi ; and the
temptation to regard ^Tcf^Jl as a Pallava king is
irresistible. Unfortunately, in the published names of
the Pallava kings, there is none of this name ; but if
the variant ^^iq^^ is adopted we can identify him
ii. 279— 1 KavyadaHa [ 176
with i?Ri%^*t II who had u^f%f^ as his other name.
Narasimhavarman*s date is A. D. 690-715 (see G. Jou-
veau-Dubreul, Ancient History of the Deccan, p. 70),
and he is described as a devout Saiva and as a builder
of several Siva temples including the noble Kailasa"
natha temple (Indian Antiquary for 1912, p. 90-92).
Hiuen Tsang who visited Kaiiohi in A. D. 640
during the reign of Narasirhhavarman I (630-668)
affords some testimony for the triumph of Saivism
at the time.
(ii) In partial variance with this we have the testi-
mony of the Ms, of 3rqRT5?^c{^srmT^ (Report of the Peri-
patetic Party of the Government Or. Mss. Library,
Madras, for the years 1916-19, Ms. No. 194) which
connects Dandin's grand-father with the Pallava king
Siihhavishnu (575-600) thus making Dandin a contem-
porary of Narasimhavarman I (630-668). The pertinent
verses from the poem (copied down on the occasion
of the First Oriental Conference in Poona, where the
Ms. was amongst the exhibits) may here be given : —
ggkj^f^^i^. II
177 1 ' Notes [ — ii. 279
^^^yr^ ^t I
^r^t^TR^^r =^ ^^^T ^T^r ?rwm^ f^r ii
^^K 5%^mR 52m^f%J^R?Iri; II
^ ^T^ trqf ^m ^ f^^ =^Tfq oij^3^,i I
srg^^r^ ^^7?r^r ^^^^r aj^^ ^ w
^ =^=^ U^TT^^: ^T%fT5^R^: 11
3T«rr|5T: %rr[tr?r 5RTP^tq5[^ ^ I
The story goes on to mention a visit which Dandin
subsequently pays to the temple of Vishnu in Maha-
mallapuram in Keral country adjoining the sea —
( iii ) We need not of course take all the gossiping
tales in the 3T^%§?^^2rr as sober history; but the pre-
sent story has some verisimilitude about it. Dandin
is here made a contemporary of Simhavishnu's sue*
cessorsMahendravarman I (600-630) and Narasimha-
varman I (630-668), the first of whom is famous as the
king under whose orders were constructed the remark-
able monolithic temples known as the *Seven Pagodas*
at Mamallapuram (see Smith's Early History, 3rd ed.,
p. 474). The trouble hinted at in the last verse above
quoted Ik therefore probably the invasion of the Pallava
23 [Kavyadarsa]
ii. 279— ] Kavyadarsa [ 178
country by the Chalukya monarch, Pulakesin II,
about 609 or 610. Pulakesin was victorious at first,
but was later defeated by Narasirhhavarman I in 642
A. D. Mahendravarman is reported to have been a Jain
originally, and to have been converted to faith in Siva
by a famous Tamil saint. If therefore we can imagine
that ^T^^^ is a poetic variant for Tlt'^^ or that
jfl^^q^f^ bore ^Rf^^^as an additional name, we have
here all the evidence that we can expect from tradition
for placing Dandin at the court of the Pallavas of
Kanohl in the first half of the 7th century. And as the
Pallava power was at its height during this very
period, their kingdom might have at this time included
the old Ohera or Kerala country. We may add that
the king Vishnuvardhana mentioned in the earlier
part of the extract can be the prince Vishnuvardhana
who founded, about A. D. 615, the line of the Eastern
Chalukyas. Anandapura the city I am unable to
identify,
(iv) The eight forms of manifestation mentioned
V i^ ii. 278 are of course the same as the ai^f^r cT^ or
5j^ alluded to by Kalidasa in the benedictory verse of
the Sakuntala.
Notes to II. 280-281 — (i) Dandin is now going to give in
succession the illustrations for ^^^, a separate one for
each ^^.
( ii) Our Ms. N., in a different hand, gives the margi-
nal note identifying ajq?^ with qi^R^rlT. Vasavadatta
was an Avanti Princess; compare Svapnavasavadatta
V. 5. An interesting question is to determine whether
Dandin is referring to Bhasa. Definite indications are
unfortunately lacking. The pretended burning of
Vasavadatta at Lavanaka is an old story not invented
by Bhasa. Many dramatists besides Bhasa have work-
ed on the theme. Tapasavatsaraja is a play later than
Ratnavali (see the account given by Hultsch in Nach.
K. G.W. Gott., 18861 Abhinavagupta in his Natya-
vedavivriti (Madras Ms., vol iii, p. 44) speaks of a play
179] Note,s [ii. — 286
of Subandhu dealing with the story of ^^?t^ and ^rasf^fTT
His exact words are— cT^f^ ^g^i^lf^^ ^I'T^^STT'^cl^^^
^r^lI^TcT^^r^^ rr|[^[%5^'^R^# ^WSl^RT^<TRrJs^: (?) ^R^
aT^F{q^fTr%fs^ m ^^% ^THrf^f ^ ^4Tmt^:~cl^ 9=^?^"^^
^^^rr% I cTcT ^2H:— f ^ ^^ §^feRtT% ^rr^ ikwif^ l From this
it appears that this particular play made use of a play-
within-the-play in the denouement. There is also a
newly discovered play called Vinavasavadatta (?)
affording analogy in construction with the Bhasa plays.
Besides there are the BTT^^rrfws dealing with the story of
Vasavadatta which were probably known even to the
author of Vyakaranamahabhashya (see Kielhorn*s ed.,
vol. ii, p. 284), which however could not have contain-
ed a verse like the one given by Dandin. Seeing that
Bhasa's Svapnavasavadatta does not contain the pre-
sent verse, it is perhaps possible that Dandin is here
alluding to the unknown play of Subandhu referred to
by Abhinavagupta, or to some other unknown work.
(iii) In the variants to ii. 280 read— "R, B-.tlP^T ^r^
P, Rn ;" instead of '• P, R, B;".
(iv) The following quotation from Abhinavagupta's
Natyavedavivriti (Madras ms. p. 204) is worth noting-
f%t^?[T?lt =q[3T^5[ q^: | ^qjfl ^fo^^TT ^qT(^^T ?)^^R^^5)-4:q\^—
Notes to II, 282-285— (i) The stanzas ii. 282, and ii. 284
are apparently of Dandin's own composition ; and the
same explanation !night have been available in the case
of ii. 280 also.
Notes to II. 286— (i) The stanza is undoubtedly reminis-
cent of Raghuvamsa viii. 57—
ii. 287— ] Knvyadarsa •{ 180
Notes to II. 287-291— (i) It is difficult exactly to perceive
the point of ii. 290. Possibly irqf is not to be construed
with si^*i<illl^Hli3^but rather refers to certain denizens
of heaven that are the topic on hand. The poet is
struck to find all their wants answered by a mere tree.
Notes to II. 292— (i) Having introduced ^ as constitut-
ing the essence of a variety of Alarhkara as well as of
guna, Dandin guards against the possibility of every
'TT^^!?'!^ ^T53T necessarily containing the <^c|^ci*K, and
vice versa. In T[T1^ the emphasis is primarily upon
( ii ) Dandin apparently recognises only 8 ^s, ignor-
ing ^J^, the ninth. This is in conformity with the
older view ; compare ^rr^^lT^ vii. 98.
Notes to II. 293-294— (i) Udbhata thus defines gj^f^
(p.51)-
A good example of it is Malatimadhava iii. 12 —
^cTT5R??^^: 5^2rr% ^^^ ^^^ ^^q^i^L ^^
where Madhava the desperate lover seeks the very
objects that ordinarily lovers would carefully avoid, he
being regardless of life and callous to all suffering.
Notes to II. 295-297— (i) Vamana is the only other writer
besides ¥r^ who does not recognise q^rf^^. Bhoja and
Rudrata designate it as simply ^^^, a name which
some writers reserve for a distinct alarhkara not re-
cognised by Dandin. A few leading definitions are
here assembled —
Agnipurana (345.18) and Bhamaha (iii. 8)—
I
181 ] 'Notefi [ — ii. 297
Udbhata (p. 51) adds the extra line —
Rudrata (vii. 42)
Bhoja (iv. 80)—
Ruyyaka (p. iii) —
Mammata (Ullasa x. p. 828) —
Vagbhata (iv. 108)—
Vagbhata (p. 36)—
Hemachandra (p. 263) —
Prataparudriya (p. 446) —
Ekavali (viii. 29)—
Sahityadarpana (x. 61) —
Kuvalayananda (67) —
and Jagannatha (p. 409) —
ii. 297— ] Kavyndar^a [ 182
(ii) Most of the definitions (except those of Bha-
maha or Bhoja) contemplate the necessity of distin-
guishing an ordinary case of oi\^^ from q^ff^TTj. Thus
^TfT2?t 5^?: is a round about way of saying that the jttjt
.is cool and holy ; but it is a case of pure ^q[R or sug-
gestion, and not an instance of qsfRftrR. Why ? Dandin,
Bhamaha, and the earlier writers would answer that
there is no poetic pretext (^q, Sf^K) that makes the
periphrasis peculiarly charming. Writers who adopted
the >^ theory would reply that if the sentence is
uttered merely with the primary purpose of telling us
just the location of the village, and consequently if
the ^ and qr^c^ come in only by way of a back-door
suggestion, then it is not q^^VltTff. If, however, the
direct object of the speaker were to tell us that the JTfff
is ifc^rqi^f^Ria, and if the writer merely says TTfT^t 5jRr
or evefi ^T^Tcff^ W^'> with an emphasis on ir^r, the case
does not differ from an ordinary qqf^JtrR except that
the instance is =^Trc^fcf^3r^ or unpoetic, perhaps. In
other words in q^Mt'^ the s^f^^^ (ti^^nf^) is itself the
qr^^^fT^ or primarily intended, though it is not conveyed
as a ^^^TT^I, but only si^ru^^^il. Mammata means the
same thing when he writes in his Vritti — ^l^^q^ ci^
o2fW^2r«rr5o2ff3t ?r ^qt^??^ l Compare also the 5i^[q on
the^passage :— 5T5T ^w\ o^■^^\^'. ^TM^^-qi ^ ^^\\^i ^^^
(iii) Ruyyaka, Vidyanatha, and Vidyadhara go a
step further. They not only require that the q^^xfi
should convey the Ji^ or the ^^^ sense primarily;
but also that the exact mode or 5i^^ of conveying it
be by describing the effects of it, or the cause of it, or
by an analogue of it — the last two modes being re-
cognised by Jagannatha. Compare the Rasagahga-
dhara (p. 415)— 3t4 =^r^^R: WS^ %R^^ ^^^^ qjT^^ TH^
T^3^1%^: I This last is a limitation of the sphere of
the figure which is not generally recognised,
(iv) Paryayokta along with two or three other
alarhkaras has played in the hands of Bhamaha and
183 ] Notes [ — ii.29^
others the same role that was subsequently assigned to
••^of^r. Ja^annatha (p, 415) observes on the point as io\'
lows— viq^^fifi; Ri^^b#^5?*if^f^: ^^r5^3 f^rfq ':^(%^-
(v) The sense intended to be conveyed and the
sense actually expressed by the words used in a Par-
yayokta (as Dandin understands the figure) are
both of them 5|^^ but they are not therefore of co-
ordinate or equal importance ; and there is not be-
tween the two any relation of ^?^ etc , as there is
in Samasokti (including under the figuro arsT^^rTST^^ as
defined by modern writers— see our Note (ii) to ii. 205).
Hence ^TTT^ifrfi and qqi^ftTfj are adequately differentiated
from one another.
(vi) Bhoja gives (p. 457) —
w^ f%9xf;r srf^ ^w^\ ^[^^p^mm^ m^mi '
as an example of f^^s-e? W^ftrff, because there is the
express statement that the friend left the room under
the pretext of putting back the lute into its case. Our
verse ii. 296 he quotes as an example of the ^FTHpr^^
variety.
Notes to. II. 298-299— (i) See Note (ii) to ii. 235. Bha-
rata, Agnipuraua, Bhamaha, Ubdhata, Rudrata and
Hemachandra do not recognise the alamkara at all.
Ruyyaka, Mammata, Bhoja, Visvanatha and Jagan-
natha designate it as ^^[^^, making ^;?Tf|rT a f^qjR,
defined by Udbhata (p. 52) as—
Bhamaha's illustration from Rajamitra (iii. 10) points
to a bimilar concep^tion of the alamkara. VamSna
il. 299— 1 Kavyadarsa 184
makes W^f%^ a new category altogether in as much as
he defines it (iv. 3. 29) as— 3?^^!?^ rTOTf%: ^JTTftrTq[ illu-
strating it by the verse ^r Tiw^^5r|q^^r etc. from the
Vikramorvaslya, Act iv, with the remark— or^r JiM<=[^
55^RTgl^r: ^J^ ^jm- ^ ^^^ ^^^ ' Ruyyaka de-
fines the figure as— ^^r^^rTHri: sfiT^ ti*<^H.and quotes
Dandin's example ; and Mammata does the same
thing. Finally Jagannatha gives the definition in
these words— iT^j^RiR^^ ^^T^%?^?FK^^^^'^r^^l%T-
%^^wrf%: I
(ii) The figure-of-speech known as ^^^ (not re-
cognised by Dandin) involves also a number of co-
operating causes, and the distinction between ^5^^
and ^nrrf^ (i. e ^HTTIIcT) is thus formulated in the Alam-
karasarvasva (p. 161)— [^r^] |[^^ ^\^ 5fT% ^^ W^(^^
^|7Tlfl"«rriK^5iT4 ^^^' I To the same effect also Jagan-
natha (p. 490)— ^qrwT f| TT%fT ^T^ ffr^q^JTi%^#TT^j^JT^HTq^cTr
'4^*+i''5 m^f^ ^m^ ^ ^^^ I^T|j?f te^r ^q^rf^ ^n^
(iii) Bhoja distinguishes between different varieties
of this figure according as the ^T^RfifH is%frTT or ai^f^TT,
and according further as each of these is 3TI^%T^ or
5%^. Dandin's example he gives as 3Tr^f^;icfJ^ %^^
Notes to II, dOO-SOS — (i) Most writers who recognise
^^\t[ are agreed in giving two varieties of it similar to
those of Dandin. For instance,
Bhamaha (iii. 11-13)— i
Udbhata (p. 53)—
185 ] Notes [ —ii. 304
Ruyyaka (p. 183-184)—
Mammata (x. p. 831 ff.) —
Visvanatha (x. 94 f.)-
^^Tfq 5f5C5FT^3?rw" Mm "^^ ^ '^
(ii) Some writers refuse to recognise the figure.
Thus Hemaohandra observes (p. 293)—^^ 5 ^f^*T^3-
. if^f^qq^: I It will be noted— and Udbhata lays it down
as a distinct condition — that the Tf^r!5W^RrT must be in-
troduced only subordinately. As Pratlharenduraja ob-
serves (p. 54)— iT '^r^q^r qf [!y5#f^rt ^^^^T?Hr=J^*N^^fr3^r^ 1
T>;riP?i^5iTT^^ =^^^i^^^siT[Hq%ifrqT2WcT^?TrT^vrrqqT?it'?R^r^T-
^flT^Tc^l^^^^d ^m'^ I This disposes of the second
objection of Hemaohandra and serves to distinguish
W^ from \W{<i,
(iii) The ^^\r^ which is f^i^'^^'jf^n^ is not mere ^^TRffrff ;
cp. Note (iii) to ii. 9-J3. The Alamkarasarvasva also
distinguishes ^rrT from '^w^'^ (^TrfraHRrT^: iT^^^WT'JIc^fJL)
but this last is understood by Dandin in quite a dis-
tinct sense ( cp. ii. 364 ff.). The words of Ruyyaka are
these (p. 18 5f)-f^iql€r Mm% ^ ^T'^rq^^^q^l ^%q^^iT
Notes to II. 304 — (i) A few leading definitions of Apahnuti
are given below —
Agnipurana (345. 18) same as Dandin.
Bhamaha (iii. 20) and Udbhata (p. 59)—
snf f^wtsr =^ T'^f^'^^rT^T^fiq^TT 1
[ ftsp^: f^^^ p: II Udbhata].
24 I Kavyadarsa
ii. 304— ] Kavyadaria [ 186
Kudrata (viii. 57)—
Vamana (iv. 3.5)—
Bhoja (iv. 41)—
Ruyyaka (p. 50)—
Mammata (x, p. 735)—
<i
Vagbhata (p. 39)—
Vagbhata (iv. 86)—
NO
Ke^avamisra (p. 34)—
Hemachandra (p. 281) —
5[^?TT5i|Rcfr¥2Tt a^iqwiqtqff^: i
Vidyadhara (p. 380)—
Visvanatha (x. 38f.)— •
5If^ 5r%?q'-:3n^3T^5Tfq5t ^[^|f^: \
qf^ W^TT^T^rr ^r^q"^ ^fF^^: \
Jagannatha (p. 278)—
^^2T^R^^5[cn^^Hr^TmRTI%5p^o^?TT^.-?ITrmgqqM
Visvesvara (p, 235)—
and Achutaraya (viii. 131) —
3TI^3mT'JT%f5rdr^N ^^T^q^%: 11
Oil ] Notes (— ii. 305
(ii) It win be seen that while the majority of these
definitions require that there should be a sort of a
similarity between the thing negated and the thing
asserted, Dandln does not admit that necessity. A
^TT^^l^ 3NJ%, according to Dandin, constitutes what
he calles ^Tr^Nf^q^ (see Note (iii) to ii. 95). The Alarh-
karakaustubha clearly states the position (p. 235)—
Bhoja, as we have seen, admits both cas^s.
(iii) For the distinction between ^T^ff^ and ^f^cRT?!^
consult Note (ii) to ii. 66; and for that" between arqffcif
and ^ (or o2fi^f%) our Note (ii) to ii. 265.
Notes to II. 305-308— (i) Dandin gives only two varieties
of 3{q|%, viz. i%3TTq|f^ and ^^qrq|^. Rasagangadhara
gives the varieties m^^^ and ft^?R which are based
upon a different principle of division. So also are the
divisions into ^r^^r where the negation is directly con-
veyed and STT^T where it is suggested by words like ^jqs,
ft^, 15^, ^^, %cT^, 5?Tr^, ^3: <!;{\m\, qR-^W, etc. More im-
portant is the six-fold division given by the Kuvalaya-
nanda (stanzas 25-30), viz. ^^, I5, q^^^, '-bfT'^T, &^, and%^.
Of these the first variety is a normal case of Apahnuti
which can be made to include both the varieties recog-
nised by Dandin, while the last is an 3TT^f 3Tqff^. His
other varieties with definitions and illustrations are
as under —
^5IPciTq|frR?2T^ ^IfRt ^rf^cP^R^ I
rirn ^% %i^ ^m\ f% ^ wk ^jr: ii
^q|fcTC5=^^2r ^TfTrT^^^i% I
ii. 308— ] kavyadaria [ 188
(ii) In the illustration in ii, 305 the real nature of
:^^ etc. is admitted as perceivable by others : it how-
ever does not hold good in the case of the speaker
himself- In ii. 306 the negated thing is declared to be
entirely void of its very essence: is assigned an alto-
gether contradictory nature, so that the moon can no
longer be called moon ( sf^cf^fw = =^'^ ). In the example
in ii. 304 only a part of the nature of the thing was
negated, in ii. 305 even the negation of this part was
tempered by limiting its 9{m, In ii. 306 the negation is
absolute fis regards its contents and its range. Such
seems to be the basis of Dandin's distinction.
Notes to II. 309— (i) Compare Note (ii) to ii. 94-95. As we
saw there ^t^ can mean ii. 34 (5n%WNJ7T ), ii. 36 (cTr^r^^-
^qirr), or ii. 95 (^r^qf^^^). In view of the difference
of view noted above. Note (ii) to ii. 304, the temptation
to accept the last of these interpretations is very strong.
For Dandin must have known the view which makes
mWi the sine qua non of 3Tq^i%. Bhamaha in any case
knows the view and even adopts it. Differing from
. him Dandin considers ^T?^^c5?pmifcf as a variety of ^^:i^.
He consequently must have made a slip here or we can
adopt the justification of Ca— ^qTrr^qw^^^^^Tci^l There
is something f^R^ whatever the view we finally adopt.
Notes to II. 310 — (i) It is rather unfortunate that the same
name (^ or fw) should signify both a Guna and an
Alaihkara. For the nature of the guna see Note (iii)
to i. 43. The alamkara has nothing to do with the
guna.
(ii) That Slesha involves the use of paronomastic
words, or words conveying more than one sense, is
conceded by all. The main controversy is as to whether
we should regard it as a <»K4 !<**!< only or an^r^iff^^ only
or partly the one and partly the other. There are
writers holding all these views with more or less show
of reason. As so much depends in a Slesha upon the
189 J Notes I — ii. 310
use of specific words it seems reasonable to treat it as
a gs^T^^R and to assign to it a lower place in criticism.
At the same time it is necessary that we should under-
stand the two- fold sense of the words in question: the
words as words do not give us the pleasure of the figure
as is done for instance by an alliteration. Hence it is
equally plausible to regard the %q as exclusively an
3T5!ife^^, as is done by Udbhata and Alamkarasarvasva-
kara. Jagannatha (p. 401-2) gives a clear exposition
of these views in these words — ^4 W: ^^IW^^W^'^fe^T^
cl^TP^rf^R'rjfRuirfi: I I ^"^ ffWI2Vr?T: II 3T?^2T5q-|%^T4:2rt
ft ^^3^^^w ^3 am ^o^r^'^^rf^ i ^ ^vmw^^K' i
A reasonable view to hold is that of Mammata ( Ix, p.
626 ), who observes— ^f ^S^r^-^RPJlt ^?r4^rm#f % f^vim-
^s^Tfc^rqj^ ^^ 3 ^imjA '^wm^i^W^ f^^r^cfn'^ ^i^: —as a
commentator explains it.
(ill) Others try to get out of the difficulty by recog-
nising a distinct variety of ^^%q and of 3t4w. Thus
Bhoja gives six varieties of ?^|5^>dq[ ( ii. 68ff ) viz. 5f^,
5r^2r, f^¥{%, q=^, q^, and ^^^\. Man^mata adds two more
varieties to the list : ^^ and T%i^, while Bhoja includes
the former under the q^ variety and the latter under
the a^icT variety. In these varieties the word-element
is distinctly the all-in-all. For illustrations see, be-
sides the two works in question, Sahityadarpana pp.
457fr., and Alamkarakaustubba pp. 242ff.-— The ^k^^
on the other hand includes the cases where the use
of the paronomastic words brings about prominently a
comparison between the w^^ and the ^5|fcT statements.
As we have a two-in-one statement in ^T^frff so also
we have it in 3T'4%q, only the method is different.
Dandin does not bring out this point in his definition
(and it is in this sense that we wish to have our remark
on Slesha in Note (iii) to ii. 207 understood), but most
other writers including even Bhamaha (iii.l4) use ^^\^
and ^q^^in the very definitions of the figure. — Rudrata
IS so much impressed by the different useb to which
IL 310— 1 ttavyndaria [ 190
paronomastiojvordscan be_ put_tb^at_he_makes_%q a
basic principle of subdivision for alamkaras along with
^T^^, 3Th«T, and 3TRRR. He gives (x. 1 - 23) ten sorts
of %^^c5T^Rs, viz. 3{f^q, [^r^, 3??^^, ^^i 53^^, g^,3T^*Tq,
8T^^, ^T^, and Rd^RW. For illustrations see the
Kavyalarhkara itself.
(iv) For the distinction of this figure from Samasokti
see Note (ii) to ii. 207. Our remarks there apply to the
developed conception of Slesha leading to ^rq?^ as it is
found in other writers. Dandin's illustrations do in-
deed suit the definitions of the later Alamkarikas, but
his definition is non-commital.
t^otes to II. 311— (i) Bhoja quotes this illustation and thus
comments upon it (p. 465)— ar^fRrg^^fJTR^T^jn m^^ |^
Notes to II. 312— (i) Bhoja's comment on the figure is as
follows— 3T^ 5i^r ^: mmim f%r^f% ft^TRfl^ ^j ^ ^fvi%
Notes to II. 313-— (i) Paronomasia constitutes the ingredi-
ent of so many figures that a question has been started
as to whether in these several cases the alamkara is
primarily Slesha alone, or the other figure feqrr (ii. 28),
^qqj (ii. 87), 3Tr%q (ii. 159), o^rfrf^ (ii. 185),etc.], or a ^[^
or mixture !of both. The discussion is started by
Udbhata's statement (p. 54) —
Jagannatha (p. 393ff.) gives a resume of it in these
words— 3T3f ^\^m]i: mmm\iFm^ fk^^^f^R'm^^ ^^ ]%^m
191 ] Notes I— ii.316
^T7^5[[v^rT i I ?T^^^T|qJrrf^ST%^:qfTT?3: m^
^^tmh{\^»\V' w tTcT^iq^ 5T ^iT^ i ^^\\i i
5rfcf^rfnTT5iT%% ^^^ ^m ^ mm^, 5{g^ ^q^^ siRt^r.
q^tq^i^^^rr ^^ifRr^t m^f^ \ iir^ =^^^7r^F^dq^R-
^^^\ %?^: %q'- ?BWt Wl%^A ^ >^^N^5qq^ qtfjftSrftfcT
^^^^rSTT^ T75 ^i^-iujig: i) The most reasonable view to hold
is that it all depends upon the particular circumstances
of the case, and these differ in different illustrations, so
that no hard and fast rule of universal application can
be laid down.
Notes to II. 314-315 — (1) Dandin's classification is some-
what peculiar. Bhoja gives the varieties f^v^q^-^rfwi^,
fvmf^-5Tf^f^^5 f^mqjT<qi-3Tf^v{qjr^. Bhamaha, after de-
fining the figure (iii. 14) as—
gives illustrations for ws involving ^Itfrfi, ^Hqrrr, and
^ respectively as under —
fJT'feRT JTIT^^ ^\^^ *icT% H
^TJFprf^ %^^q m^\^ ^^\ ^ il
It will be seen that the last example is %q^;^ ^gq^TT
(ii. 50), the second, a regular %qtqJTT (ii. 28), while the
first has greatest affinity with ii. 316.
Notes to II. 316— (i) Bhoja reads ^q^R4:i^I*-T%J''-TrJ instead of
^r: ^V[Tq?T^^: 1 His comment is (p. 467)— 3T^ qjil^cT #cT^=?n
ii, 317 — 1 Katyyadaria i 1^"
Notes to II. 317— (i) Bhoja (p. 466) explains the point thus—
JT-^: I T%^q?^ ^ I ^r: i 3T^^^r: ^W^^q: \ l^i^:
fT^^BoST: ^1
Notes to II. 318— (i) Here as also in ii. 322 below we have
a combination of %qSf%52T with the '^^^ of f%<R as
exemplified in ii. 334. For tho distinction of this from
^^^cTT see Notes to ii. 330 below.
Notes to II. 319-320— Most writers with the exception of,
besides Dandin, ^imf , ^^J^S, ^T^, ^\^^, and W-Wth — to say
nothing of ¥i^ and ^Tf^S^"^,— admit a figure of speech
called qfet(c?fT which consists in a ^\^JP^^'^^^• An ex-
ample will explain the nature of this figure —
^if^fp^ ff \^'i^ o^^^ ^rir ^ 5^T%?HTTn% \
The Sahityadarpana (p. 563) from which this illustra-
tion is taken goes on to observe— ^^c5?^ ^R^T ^^^^f^ift
2T«Tr— 2fi%^ ^[^ft f^cTSFTfcT ^m^f^ fr^ f%^% ^'^wm^^^^^ 3'Ji-
Notes to II. 32l-322~(i) It is difficult to distinguish ii. 321
from ii. 87, the illustration of a f%g^':p. All that we
can say at the utmost is that in ii. 87 the identity with
a lotus is given an exclusive prominence, while here
the king receives at least as much prominence as ^^ or
^fS%?T. It cannot at the same time be ^qrqrrr illustrat-
ed in ii. 28 because there is an absence of any ^HTJrf^-
(ii) Compare Note (i) to ii. 87 and Note (i) to ii. 318
above.
Notes to II. 323— (i) Some distinctive definitions of Vise-
shokti are —
Agnipurana, same as Dandin*s definit
193 ] Notes^ [ -ii 3133
Bhamaha (iii. 22) —
Udbhata (p. 58)—
c^r ^^ f|''^T c5# ^S^^Trt v5T%cn?^^: II
Varaana (IV. iii. 23)—
Bhoja, same as Dandin.
Ruyyaka (p. 126) —
Mammata (x. p. 800) —
and Jagannatha (p. 437) —
•flp^: I — compare his definition of Vibhavana—
(ii) While Vamana's definition of this figure (which
he illustrates by ^^ f| ?[riT 5^^rFTTf^^RR jy^^H) is put down
by later writers as a case of f^m* (as Jagannatha says : —
J}%^ ^^^^ I m ?^d4 ^^'^^CTf^^) it mus!; be admitted that
Daiidin*s conception of Viseshokti, in as much as it
does not bring the causal relation prominently to the
fore, is a development from a root conception of the
figure quite allied to that of Vamana. It is rather
difficult to accurately distinguish this figure from
^T^r%q (ii. 131), 5HFft%q (ii. 133), and f^^TRffT (ii. 199).
Compare Note (ii) to ii. 131-132, Note (i) to ii. 133-134,
Notes (i) and (ii) to ii. 199, and Note (ii) to ii. 235.
Keeping ourselves strictly to the conceptions of these
figures as Dandin gives them, we can say that whil^
in a normal case of cause producing effect we have the
125 [KSvyadarsa]
ii. 323— ] KSvyadaria [ IH
presence of (i) principal cause, (ii) presence of acces-
sory causes, (iii) presence of extraordinary circum-
stances favouring the production of the cause, (iv)
presence of agreeable natural conditions, and (v)
absence of special hindrances, — all co-operating to
produce the normal result, — we have —
IN *H«H^
Principal cause absent *
•Effect absent ;
Accessory causes present
IN gsTTT^
Principal cause present
\ -Effect absent ; *
[Extra circumstances lacking?]
IN f^-^TT^RT 1ST KIND
Principal cause absent
•Effect present ;
Extra circumstances inferrable *
IN f^^R^T 2nd kind
Principal cause absent
Effect present ;
Exceptional natural circum-
stances inferrable *
IN Q^Hia
Principal cause present ^ —Effect present
> through greatness
but with special hindrances J ^^ cause ; *
IN 3ftf (Bhoja iii. 18)
Principal cause present 1
> — Effect absent*
[ 9T?2 unpropitious ? ] J
The point of the figure in each case is the item
marked by an asterix (*).
}
h
Notes to II. 324— (i) Bhoja reads (p. 431) f^TcIW^ for i%-
^^^' His comment on the stanza is~3Tpf dr^u)H|chdl^
m 1 ttotes I — iL 33d
Notes to II. 325 — (i) On this stanza Bhoja observes — ^^ ^-
Notes to II. 326— (i) Bhoja (p. 432) explains the point thus—
Notes to II. 327- (i) Bhoja remarks— 3T5r ^iV^^i^t^ ^*\<^^'
R^I'JlRh: I Bhoja however is not correct in supposing
that the I5 is here expressed. The real fg is the JT^TfT?^
of the glances which is to be understood. .
Notes to II. 328-329— (i) Bhoja reads ^SRTc^I^ ^or ;nq^^^ .
His remarks are — 3T5f ^r^^t ^^TT'^'-b-^*^ I l^f>3*c^ f^ ^^-
Notes to II. 330-332— (i) We have already given a few
definitions ot Tulyayogita in our Notes (i) and
(iii) to ii. 48-49. We make room here for a few more-
Vagbhata (iv. 88)—
Kuvalayananda (43, 45, 46)—
ftcTffl^ fm^TcSRW ^c^I^f^
5^cf^- ^^^ ^^^r g^2Rrr%f 11
and Jagannatha (p. 317) —
(ii) It will be noted that more than one conception
of this figure is current amongst the Alarhkarikas,
ii. 330—, J Itavyadaria I 1^^
Vamana. Bhamaha, Vagbhata, KuvalaySnandakara,
Bhoja, and Dandin are all attempting, each in his
own way, to define the figure in conformity with the
etymology of its name. Under the circumstances we
will have to keep close to our author's conception of
the figure and try to distinguish it from sifcT^^^jjmr
(ii. 46), |[c??3it5TtqTTT (ii. 48), <Cn^ (ii. 97), ^mT^>^ (ii. 205),
^ (ii. 310 ff.), 3T5r'^^5Rl^T (ii. 340), 5J[t:5T^% (ii. 343) and
%^fT (ii. 348). To begin with, in 5rfd4t^44Hr (cp. the
illustration in ii. 47) the ^jqriR is not intended to be
extraordinarily superior to the H^^^T and the ^nfpR^ be- .
tween them is not directly expressed, but is 5[^^ only ;
whereas in ^^^Rtl'trn there are things decidedly sup-
erior or g'JTl^c^ with which an inferior thing is joined
in an assertion. The ^iftci^oT (not the W^) is direct,
and not left to be suggested. Further, the intention in
the present figure is either ^gm or t%^, and this is
absent in jrfrf^^fjT.
(iii) In 5^5ijtTh^JiT (ii. 48) we have the superior and
inferior relation between the things and an attempt to
equate them, as in ^e^RtT^^r. But while in the former
3^WT is consciously sought to be expressed by reference
to identical %3TT (or goj), in the latter the ^s^m relation is
subordinate and the point of it is not fully brought
out. Further in 3?2f3ftf5tr[r the desire to praise or blame
is prominently present, the same being absent in the
gq?Tr variety.
(iv) Consider the sftq^B illustrations in ii. 99, and
ii. 100. In these there is o Brf^^^sf relation and no
^%f^r 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 ^^f^r is quite obvious.
(v) In a ^fli^fxh the two things are ge^T, neither
being by nature sif^ or ^. Besides, only one of
them (r^^ or 3T5if^) is expressed directly, the other
being sirft^ only. Nor is there here any conscious de-
sire to praise or blame. In g^^Jtfw, besides the arftRj-
I
Wj UoteB [— ii.338
^ relation and ^^f^f^F^TiRTsR, we are required to make
an express mention of the two objects compared.
(vi) Though the illustration of a %q (ii. 310 ff.) might
offer points of comparison with ^^4) (4)^1, the figure
^ always turns upon an unmistakable peculiarily
which is its sufficient distinctiveness. The parono-
masia in ii. 332^ is not intended or indispensable.
(vii) Aprastutaprasamsa as Dandin conceives it in-
volves ^^, if not 5^fcr or f^^, but there is an absence
of arf^r^^ relation, and an implication of sr^cf through
*ra^^ statement, in place of the direct statement of the
two found in a ^^^tfrRTT.
(viii) Vyajastuti (ii. 343) involves ^5% (or f^^) but
it is feigned. And it is a ^T% made of a certain thing
which might not be joined with any thing else in
simile. A ge^Rtf^^T is necessarily based upon a
relation between at least two things.
(ix) In ft^5^ the m^ between the two things is not
a well-established fact so that we could know before
hand which is gqt^fS or g^RfS. The m^ is evolved
just in the very act presented to our eyes.
Notes to II. 333-339— (i) All writers except Bharata ad-
mit f^^^ as a distinct figure. A few leading defini-
tions are given below : —
Agnipurana (344. 28)—
Bhamaha (iii. 24) and Udbbata (p. 59)—
S^FT ^ ^^\^\ ^ f^^^[R3ifiRTfvr^T [v. 1. w^-.] 1
3?T [v.l. ^^] Rwft^mr?[ f^-k ^ fq||«IT: [v.l a^^lll
Rudrata (ix. 30)—
Vamana (IV. iii. 12) and Ruyyaka (p. 121)—
ii. i39— j knvyndaria { IM
Bhoja (iii. 24)—
Mammata (X. p. 807)—
Vagbhata (iv. 121)—
5T5^4^cWRrfcr ^ f^^: W^ q^ II
Vagbhata (p. 38)—
Kesavamisra (p. 35) —
f^^: 1 3T2T^ fq^mmm ^^^1% i
Hemachandra (p. 269) —
Vidyadhara (viii. 33) —
Vidyanatha (p. 416)—
Visvanatba (x. 68) —
Kuvalayananda (st. 75) —
f^lft ^f^ ^I^ ^^^ ^^ flfw II
Jagannatba (p. 427) —
Visvesvara (p. 321) —
A.cbyutaraya (viii. 202)—
199 I Notes I — ii. 339
(ii) The figure is said to be w^^ when a word like a^
is used in the statement ; otherwise it is ^•^. This
division is however disputed ( cp. Rasagahgadhara
p. 428 ). It is called ^^ when not based upon ^ or
paronomasia. Dandin*s last example ( ii. 339 ) is
^N^tji*. The ten-fold division of the figure given by-
most writers is, like that of ^q^NiRh or ^q^, based
upon the four-fold 4%^ of words recognised by gram-
marians. Jagannatha (p. 428) rightly calls this classi-
fication 3^, Bhoja gives four kinds, viz. 3T^Fr%,
JT^^, 9Tf^* and ^^^. Rudrata gives 13 varieties,
denying the validity of ^JilldJ^o^f%d'<^, and adding 4 addi-
tional varieties (cp. ix. 33, exemplified in ix. 41-44) not
generally recognised by other alamkarikas. Dandin's
classification is based on no definite principles.
(iii) Virodha enters into the composion of a number
of other figures such as ^^^[ (iL 33), ^q^ (ii. 84), ^q^
(ii. 109), etc., while figures like r^tt^t or certain varie-
ties of 3TT%q are, on ultimate analysis, special kinds of
fq^^ only. Cp. the list of fq^^^rg^^ figures on p. 69
above, as also Note (iii) to ii. 199. Hemachandra in
fact even observes (p. 272) — ir^ =^ fw^^TTf^ttqhRwrfcr-
The Kav.yaprakasakara however takes a different view.
These alamkaras, as being special cases of f^<q" and
having a distinct charm of their own, can be considered
as independent figures. For he says (about aT^Ri%,
p. 871)— ITG[T =^ f^^n%J^ ^ l%d^: 3Tq^rc[%^7q%ftoTt-
(iv) Strictly speaking every poetical identification
such as 5?t *ii^H. involves an element of ^?t>T; but that
has to be ignored. Jagannatha observes (p. 430) —
ftf#^rT^ I tr^ ^ -^ ^^^^ f^^cr^JTrfq ^r ^ ^ jrfrifw^-
ftf^cf: I I ^d^JR«r^ 3 f^rf^ ^KT: f^ 31%^...
(v) Dandin and Bhamaha are alone in putting ^^-
^^ specially into the very definition of this figure.
Other definitions imply this.
ii. SS9— ] Kavyadaria [ 200
(vi) In ii. 339 the reading ^i^TRT^frJR^ etc. for f^^^^3?H
etc. is worth noting. It is a deliberate attempt to
improve the original.
Notes to II. 340-342 — (i) Dandin understands 3T5r^^^i^ in
the literal sense of 3T5l^^T^ [jRgrlR^?] SRl'^r, and so
strictly limits the application of this figure 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)—
TJdbhata (p. 61) reads the second line thus —
Vamana (IV. iii. 4) and Vagbhata (p. 36) —
Bhoja (iv. 52)—
f^ l^t^mr =^ 5{^^T52rT =^ ^^ II
Ruyyaka (p. 104)—
Mammata (x, p. 750) —
^ ^rft% m^ fq^ 51^ ^ II
^^r^m ^^^ ^^^^[^ =^ ^W{\ II
Vagbhata (iv. 134)—
3T5R3cT5r^^ ^Trri|: ^^^fi ^^r II
?^ fll^ ^ %% ^1t =^ ^sr^qfci I
f^^: %^1 ^% ^RRR^2ftl%^: II
Jagannatha (p. 402) —
sq^d 2r^ 5Ri^% ^TM<:4dM<(kT, adding in explana-
tion, ^m^ ^ qr-^feTir^fij^ ^ 5 ^: i
(ii) It will be. seen that while to later writers—
8T5l^^T^?f 5l^^q<fe5[^ftl%: is 3W^^^ ;
to Daijidin —
8T5l5gci5Rf5B^ SI^rrf^T^OTcftf^: is 3T5n^cI5RteT.
This has saved Dandin from the necessity (i) of dis-
tinguishing this figure from ^nTT^^i%, SfM^<1<Wil«, ^, etc ;
and (ii) of explaining the circumstances which make
it possible for the 3T5R|[cI to suggest 5f^. These oir-
oumstances give the several varitrties of the figure at
admitted by subsequent writers. In order to show how
very complicated the whole business of classification
has become at the hands of these later writers w«
give below a tabular statement based on the Kavya-
prakftfr» —
r (i) ^ 5i?Eg^ ^Rqrfw^
I (ii) ^^ 5(^3^ ^Fiqffw^q;
s?5I^dM«!f«l { (iii) ^m^ ^^ f^tt^fw^^
j (iv) \^ 5T^^ ^mT^=?nfw^i^
Mv) 3^ 5R3^ 3??TRRifvnin^
Variety (v) further divided into
!
i \ T \
A. Use of f^ B. Through s^t^^kN C. Through
words for as in 5af;Tr^frl% (with simple
f%^rqiJI+f|^ ^^q alone f^) m^m
Or again, independently, into
!
Ai. «TJ?w!n^i^ Bi. ar^i^^^ui Ci. 9^w=-2n^i^
(iii) Bhoja gives for ara^^TSRmr the twofold classifica-
tion into ^['^!^\ and SR^^T^qj, his instance for the latter
being Dandin's illustration in ii. 341 paraphrased ;
viz. —
26 [ Kavyaiwrva ]
ii. S4^— ] ICavyUdaria 1 202
The ?T^T variety he illustrates by—
MWt ^5=^^J^f?t ^ ^t 3fTfe ^psfi q^
W^ ^ ^JTf^ f^ ^irf^ ^sfepTT ^•
Notes to II. 343-347— (i) A few representative definitions
of this figure are' —
Bhamaha (iii. 30)—
Udbhata (p. 61)—
Rudrata (x. 11)—
^rf^ f^ ^f^ H?3[T^r ^r ^f^: si^fr^ i.
Vamana (IV. iii. 24)
^*n5?Tj%f$i^cbijU<yii Ri'^T ^^^ 33Tr3j^f^: i
Bhoja (iv. 56)—
Ruyyaka (p. 112)—
Mammata (x, p. 815) —
Hemachandra (p. 276) —
Vidyadhara (viii. 30)—
Vidyanatha (p. 443)—
and Jagannatha (p. 416) —
«2fT^^: I
1 Notes [ — ii. 34?
(ii) It will be noted that all writers except Dandin,
Bhamaha, Udbhata, and Vamana consider both \^^M\
^[ft: and ^^ %^ as the legitimate spheres of this
figure. It is not certain therefore whether Dandin
really would permit the ^3^05^ which we have put
upon the definition in our Sanskrit Commentary
ii. 3431 Rudra^a gives the figure as a variety of ^q^n^
figures, and so requires that it be based necessarily
upon paronomasia. Bhoja, finally, makes no distinc-
tion between s^^^^^gfcf and ^ defined as in Kavyadarsa
ii. 268.
(iii) According to Dandin*8 view it seems that Lesa
No. 2 is distinguished by the presence of a subtle
element in the praise or blame, while in a ©^jm^^R no
such subtle element is necessary. This is the only
distinction between these two figures. Hence we must
either suppose that Dandin did not intend to accept
Lesa No. 2 without reserve, or that Bhoja is justified
in making ^ = ^T^^Rl.
(iv) In an 3i3i^cT5l5t^ there are two things : a si^ and
an ^(iit^d. Further the ^^ of the 3^51^5^ ^^ ^®*^ ^^^
not intended to be withdrawn. So also the ^p^ of the
3T5i^. The 5^f% and f^^, it is also to be noted, is of
two distinct things: it is not a case that the same
thing is outwardly censured but really praised [and
vice versa], as in a o^M<4%.
(v) Similarly, while in o^^i^^f^ the apparent f^^ is
to be ultimately set aside, and ^fcl obtained by im-
plication, the case is not one of simple «^, in as
much as the ^r^ is here entirely thrown overboard —
a thing which does not necessarily happen in an
ordinary ^v;. Cp. on the point Jagannatha (p. 416) —
(vi) Bhoja quotes both the examples given by Dandin
and remarks (p. 410)~sjjr5T^i'^2q^lql¥IT^^Tjn^^IT^ ^q^ I
(vii) In ii. 345*^ ""^^ is a better reading than °^?n^,
but we have no Ms. authority for adopting the im*
proved reading.
ii. 348— ] Kavyadarsa [ 2Q4
Notes to II. 348-350— (i) A few representative definitions
of f^JT or %^r are here assembled. The figure is
not recognised by ¥Rrf, 3nJT5^w, W-, l^=^> %fI^%T, and
both the ^RVRs.^—
Bhamaha (iii. 32)—
Udbhata (p. 62)—
^qjiRtq^R^ ^j«i% w %?kT II
Vimana (IV. iii. 20)—
Bhoia (iii. 31)—
^t^i^j?^ cT^ ^^ ^ ^^E«r^ II
Ruyyaka (p. 76)—
Mammata (x, p. 744 ff.)—
Vidyadhara (viii. 19)—
Vidyfinatha (p. 433)—
^Rr^j^feqi TR^ ^T^r ^ ^iRi4<{Mi ii
Visvanatha (x. 51)—
^r^r f^4^i#4.«ic4 ^vT^^^r f^'^^l'ii ii
Kuvalayananda (st. 52fif.) —
3|^: ^Mai ^ ^5^<'h^|;dl II
<^^1^!i^ '^T^ ^^ Jitc5r^f3F5FFf- II
3n?[f ^f\^ 5rT|: l^j^^l^c^^^Jqt: I
S05 ] Notes [ — ii. 350
Jagannatha (p. 339) —
and Visvesvara (p. 262) —
(ii) It will be observed that Dandin, BhSmaha,
Vamana, and others admit what is known as the ^>^-
^^^T as the only variety of the figure, while Mam-
mata and most other writers admit an additional
variety. Dandin's conception of this figure has the
advantage of keeping true to the etymological sense
of the figure.
(iii) This ^HM<^«1I is the same as the W?5^f^^[^
of Ruyyaka» Visvanatha, and most later writers. As
Appaya Dikshita observes in his Chandrika (p. 74)—
^^feRT q^H.5lfcr '^^^^^t^ tm\^ W\^ »T^t^i% l To the
same effect also Jagannatha (p. 345). The second, and
with later writers, the more usual variety is er^^cj^i^ft-
^^T divided into ^5Pit4m<^^1hi and q^Pl^^^Sni, a good
example of the former being Mudrarakshasa (vii. 6) —
The qualification which requires a ^^p^ra^rf^tsi relation
between the two statements is to be noted. This rela-
tion 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 QTOViqt^^ variety, we need not
enter in details into the exact scope of the figure as
also its distinction from ?ST^, which is another figure
not recognised by our author. See on the point Alam*
karasarvasva (p. 77).
(iv) Bhoja (p. 299ff.) introduces in Dandin's f^\^^
one or two minor principles of sub-division. The
similarity is directly asserted in the statement or is
left to be inferred. jThe former is ^ the latter,
ii 350— ] KSvyadaria [ 206
qR>. Further we have cases when there is a complete
?SRT statement given at first, the 4l«.lPd* statement
being given almost as an after-thought ; or the
relation is the reverse of this ; or the two state-
ments are simultaneous. According to Bhoja, Dandin*s
first example (ii. 349) is ^^, his second (ii. 350),
Wl^' His comment on ii. 354 is — 3T^ '(Nl^KMlftRi
Notes to II. 351-354— (i) A few other definitions of thw
figure are —
A«nipurana (344. 23)--
Bhamaha (iii. 38) and Udbhata (p. 67)—
^c^RJT^ f^ ^ ^k:^iMim\^ [^Rlf^ V. 1.1 i
'^^JT ^^ 'H^Rh: ^ ?T?TT 3T5irT [^cTTl^V. 1.] U
Rudrata(viii. 99f)—
Vamana (iv. 3. 28)—
Bhoja (iv. 57 ff.)—
^'r^ mi^: ^T^i fmi^ I
ft%Fi^lRRTh^ ^%: ^ RTT^ 11
f^%tR^ ^¥1% f^fqrffT ^nfq W»^ II
Ruyyaka (p. 81)—
Mammata (x, p. 817) —
^ ^Tftf%: ^^^ ^^^ %r^^ I
Vagbhata (iv. 119)—
tWl ^oUii [-ii.354
VagbhaU (p. 38)—
Kesavamisra (p. 36) —
Hemachandra (p. 273) —
Vidyanttha (p. 400)—
Visvanatha (x. 55) —
and Jagannatha (p. 357) —
(ii) The statement of simultaneity between the
qualities or actions of two objects, which constitutes
the essence of this figure, is not a matter-of-fact de-
scription as in ^w ^^Mld: ftcTT. It is orfcRT^Ttfrfi^^iS^. Ruy-
yaka however goes further and says (p. 81) — ^ 9m^^]'
9T^vqc|^|rqv-ll '-^ ' 3T^^"^^RT^ '^^m^f^sTT ^J I Ruyyaka
thus recognises, amongst others, a variety of ^^Rh
based on ^JT^^PRTO^'tq^'^^^T, giving as an example —
^if4M<l^: ^5 "^ml ^^^^^^^l l Jagannatha refuses how-
ever to recognise this variety. As Alaihkarakaustubha
fp. 331) observes— ?HT2f^^^: 'Tr^!q4%'5'4 k^*l f^^r^fi^^J??^-
^ ?l^T f^f^5l%[ = =^c5BR]R^tiM^^1^rri: I The relation
between the two objects brought together in a ^^tfwn
should be merely gaTsnsrR^^ (cp. Ptnini II. iii. 19. ^r^p^-
ffHJk). Dandin would endorse the view of Jagannfttha
ti. 354— \ kSvylSdaria t tM
though his conception of 'iffcl^i^Rh, as we have seen
(Notes, p. 146-47), is somewhat different. The ^^^i
illustrated by Dandin in ii. 256 would be considered
by Ruyyaka as ^^(rh ; but the very fact that Dai;4in
regards it as a separate alamkara proves his non-
acceptance of qr^r^f^^^Ti^T ^f^ variety. In none of
the examples given by Dandin for ^r|tl%i is there in
evidence a ^JT^W^W relation, the real cause in ii. 352
and ii. 353 being i^3R^%^ and in ii. 354, probably*
Notes to II. 355-356— (i) The figure is defined by Dai;i4iH
in ii. 351^ latter half. Other definitions for this figure
are —
Bhamaha (iii. 40) —
3<^l'd<'^Wcf<^ ^R^frK^ spur u
Udbhata (p. 69)—
Rudrata (vii. 77)—
Vamana (IV. iii. 16)—
Bhoia(iii. 29f.)—
Ruyyaka (p. 152)--
and Jagannatha (p. 481) —
209 ] Notes [ — ii. 357
(ii) Two points deserve to be noted. The barter
ought to be ^[^chf^^ and charming. An actual com-
mercial transaction howsoever noteworthy cannot
be an instance of this figure. Secondly, there ought
to be a regular sales-agent in the transaction. Accord-
ingly a case like— R)ftr4Mli:2fT^q^TR ^t^ v?^ c^r qwj^^
^^*^^ or rlRfR^rr^ qf^ JJ^[ ^^K ^wi^jj'Jii stjit^ where
there is only a o^^i^ or f%%i^ c^T^c^ f%f%^T^wrT^ cannot
be a regular q%% in the normal acceptance of the term
f^ftjTq. Mammata and Jagannatha also are against
admitting ^o^^^^, while ^rh and ^:^^ admit it. Bhoja
attempts to hold the balance evenly by recognising
^'<m as a sub-variety of Parivritti. His example
(p. 297) is—
(iii) In the above example several things belong to
or reside in one and the same object. Conversely we
can have a case where one object resides in succession
in several places. Both these are taken by Mammata
and later writes to be instances of q^ifq^ (an alarhkara
not recognised by our author) which is thus defined by
Jagannatha (p. 478) — ^[^r^^jTf^r^^TTqj^^W^^^- q^: I
Notes to II. 357 — (i) Vagbhata the author of the ^Mi-i^ll^H
is the only writer besides ^\^^ and ^f^g7j[. to recognise
3Tr?^: as a figure of speech. Vagbhata defines it as
(p. 46) — ^4^l<l^HH. while the definition of Bhamaha
(iii. 54) is —
Hemachandra (p. 294) declares himself against the
recognition of this figure in the words— 3n#^ f^lrWTr^
^rqfTq^ 3oft^52IF^I¥r ^^r*. « See his commentary on
the passage.
Vi I K5vy5dar6a ]
ii. 357— ] Kavyadaria [ 210
(ii) At the same time it is necessary to point out
that the 36 embellishments of speech involving specific
emotional modes which are enumerated by Bharata at
the beginning of the 16th Chapter of the Natyasastra,
and which occur also in Jayadeva's Chandraloka,
Mayukha iii, include (along with such things as
3^c(fT, itc^^, ^m^y 5lfcm, qf^^, etc.) 3n^: or bene-
diction. Now it must be admitted that, in a given
situation, benediction can become a very effective
mode of expressing one's thoughts; and a dramatur-
gist has every right to collect all such effective modes
of expression together. But why Dandin should have
selected only one of them for inclusion amongst the
regular 3T^^5Rs cannot be determined. We may how-
ever point out in passing that some others out of the
36 have been universally regarded as forming the
basis of some of the regular figures.
(ii) It is worth noting — as pointing to an indepen-
dence of tradition and perhaps an absence of interde-
pendence between Dandin and Bhamaha — that Dandin
takes 3Tr^: as a regular benediction. Bhamaha gives
two illustrations for the figure. In the first (see our
Com. ii. 357®-") two friends, who have been estrang-
ed from one another by malicious and mendacious go-
betweens, perceive their error, and one of them calls
upon the other to join hands again. On this Hema-
chandra remarks— ^=^ cT^ %^l%%tt^: ^^\m ^rav[iqf^tt^^q
3TT€t^R'JT Slrft^ ^1% ^^"^RR^T^ I I 3T5r STRTI^rrR^^
'^^^•^^^ifff^^'Jt ^ c^5ITH5lTeT'^n%^ ^\%^'. \ in the second
example also (see our Com. ii. 357*^"^^). Hemachan-
dra points out that the hostile cities have already been
vanquished. Hence, ^snmr^it ^^rjiTTfi'Jlt ^^^Tim stth^t^cT^tt-
¥^35R% I The illustration given by Dandin is of course
3T5lTH5ITBt'^3Tftqvr 3TRft: I And the same is the case with
Vagbhata,
Notes to II. 358-359ab.— (i) Before winding up his treat-
ment of the regular alaihkaras and passing on to a
consideration of the mixed alamkaras (ii. 360), Dandin
211 ] Notes t — ii. 358
vindicates the completeness of his list, by remarking
that 3???;^, ^^^, ^3^WT^^^, and ^^[q^f^, which are
normally given by Alaihkarikas 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, can easily be subsumed under
a regular figure. Compare also ii. 309. See note (ii) to
ii. 37 ; Note (ii) to ii. 26 (where in the last line on
p. 90 read ' Dandin ' for * Bhamaha') ; and Note (iii) to
ii. 88.
(ii) The alarhkaras 3^;^^ and^^%, though not sepa-
rately given by Dandin, are treated as independent
alarhkaras by almost all other writers, including
Bhamaha. The figures ^Mfll^M* and ^^|fcfJ-|4 are how-
ever given by Bhamaha alone amongst extant writers;
and Dandin*8 specific rejection of them raises the ques-
tion as to Dandin's chronological position with refer-
ence to Bhamaha. In our notes to ii. 88-90 we have
adduced reasons to show that Daiidin's posteriority to
Bhamaha need not be regarded as an inevitable con-
clusion so far as the treatment of OTflP^^^ by these two
writers is concerned. As to ^fflT^^f^, in as much as
Dandin gives us no indication as to his own idea of
the figure, the means for forming any opinion one
way or the other are unfortunately lacking.
(iii) An =3$f^n^2r^ is — to judge from the illustration
of it given by Bhamaha (see our Com. ii. 359*"') is a
combination of s$[^%f^^ with %^f%^5T and ^?7^1f%^,
and as Dandin's sub-varieties often exhibit such com-
bined %ft[53r, Dandin is justified from his own point of
view in regarding ^^TT^^ as ^^^. Abhinavagupta
in his ^qR[T^t?F#^ (p. 41) discusses Bhamaha's illustra-
tion for ^^TR??^ and regards it as a regular variety of
(iii) That a very large number of alarhkaras recog-
nised by modern writers are absent in Dandin's book
is no impeachment of it. Science must grow.
ii. 359— J ICavyadaria [ ^12
NotestoII. 359cdto360— (i) It will be remembered that
in ii. 7 ^^fe was designated ^4 Later writers make
a distinction between these terms, reserving ^^ for
co-ordinating or W{^^ mixture and %^ for prepondera-
ing mixture or mixture with the 9TWn%^R relation.
Although Dandin is aware of this two-fold method of
mixture he has not deemed it necessary to appropriate
a distinct name for each. Bhamaha, Rudrata, Vamana,
Bhoja, Hemachandra, and the two Vagbhatas have
likewise contented themselves with just one name :
Bhamaha, Vamana, and Bhoja choosing ^?jfe the
others having fixed upon w^- The later alamkarikas
including W^> 'TWTH, ^^^^rrsr, and others clearly dis-
tinguish between ^^fe and ^\^ some adding also a
third category of ^^f or arf^^f^r.
(ii) The more important statements of these &lam-
karikas are here assembled for easy reference —
Bhamaha (iii. 48)^ —
Vamana (IV. iii. 30f.)—
Rudrata (x. 25)—
Bhoja (iv. 88 ff.)—
^^f^ftfe f%^\ 5Tmr55iFRg*^^: I
3i^2?w ^)r^^5^ Mi^Mi^l-i^^^ ^ 11
f^^l^'J^^JfJi^JfRT^^R^f^ II
Hemachandra (p. 289) —
213 ] i)otes [ — ii. 360
Pratlharenduraja (p. 66) —
Mammata (x, p. 915 ff,) —
«^^f^ ^ Nt^ ^^: ^rf^^cT: 11
Visvanatha (x. 98 f.)—
(iii) It will be noticed that Dandin has not yet
treated of the ^s^r^^Rs, and although a mixture of
^R^ and 3?t4 alamkaras is possible, Dandin is not
primarily thinking of such a mixture but probably a
mixture of two (or more) 3T«j^^Rs, as the illustration
given by him goes to prove. We have already seen
that many a sub-division under the several alamkfiras
given by Dandin is based upon a combination of ^ft-^^s
proceeding from more than one figure-of-speech. All
the same of course we would be justified in extending
the scope of Dandin's definition of ^^ so as to
include mixtures of w§, and arnl alamkaras.
(iv) Should we admit ^^^ or ^^^ as an independent
figure-of-speech at all ? This question is analogous to
the question in Indian Logic as to the recognition of
of f%5r^ or f^TTT^. Ruyyaka(p. 193) gives his con-
clusion on the point in these words — ^ ^^ ^\^\^^\im\
a 361— ] Kavyadaria V 214
Notes to II. 361-362— (i) In the first half of ii. 361 there is
an Jsq^TT statement which can stand by itself. The ^^^\
is thus the principal figure. The ^T^'^rf^^t considers
the figure in the first half to be ^^r ; but STT^TRI can
be an ^HqJTT^T^sp^TS^ though not actually enumerated by
Dandin. In the second half we have an arsr^^R^^
based upon %Ef. The particular statement about the
invasion of the beauty of the face by lotuses is corro-
borated by the general fact that, given ^^ and ^o^,
any body can invade. The awkwardness of the gen-
eral statement containing a pronoun (irqt) referring to
a noun in the particular statement can be got over by
making iTqn3L=iTqt ^^rtj^. Nor is the difficulty so very
serious at all. We need not accordingly make the
figure a ^ instead of an 3T«rf?cT^=^IT^, as suggested by
some commentators.
(ii) Dandin has not apparently given an illustration
for gf qf 5OT^g^T. The stanza ii. 362 (cp. ii. 226^^) sup-
plies the deficit. But it is omitted in most Mss. and
Cb quotes the stanza with the remark — ^^TOj^^qr
ST'^^Tl^'iR^pr ^sqj^ I It may be added in passing that
Bhoja gives as his example for this kind of ^^^ (which
he calls f^^ScTJf^s^^) the extra stanza f^^ ^Rwft: etc.
mentioned in the variants to ii. 226 above. Even the
^l-iMlki^fl" does not notice ii. 362 ; and surely it would
have been possible for Dandin, without repeating him-
self, to give another instance for ^JT^SRfefe if he had
thought it necessary. We should in this connection
recall the fact that Dandin has nofc given illustrations
for all the JT^^T^R^ or the ^T^^N^B varieties. Compare
our Commentary to ii. 104 ff.
Notes to II. 363.— (i) Of the three figures-of-speech con*
tained in ii. 361 the relation between %q and 8T^^;^d<^l^
is perhaps much more immediate than that between
QT^^^^n^ and ^s^m; but it would be incorrect to sug-
gest that the former is qt^w^it^ and the latter ^rt^^TcTT.
All the same, %q forms, as Dandin himself says ii. 313,
the ingredient of quite a large number of figures, with
215 ] Notes [ — ii. 363
which it generally has an arf^TTW^T^ relation. Compare
our Note to ii. 313 and the illustrations in ii. 28, ii. 87,
ii. 159, ii. 185, etc. In fact there is no figure-of- speech
the charm of which cannot be heightened by introduc-
ing an element of ^ into it somewhere. Of course
the charm resulting from paronomasia is artificial and
so cannot be said to reflect accurately the charm of
the original object in Na ture which the poem seeks to
describe in the most effective and agreeable fashion.
Paronomasia is like the frame of the picture. It can
set off the beauty of the portrait: but the beauty of
the portrait must be there. Svabhavokti is the beauty
of the portrait; Vakrokti is the contribution of the
frame-maker.
(ii) It is thus evident that Vakrokti is Dandin*s
general name for any rhetorical device used to garnish
or embellish some normal matter-of-fact description or
narration. As the ^cfT^qrf^r remarks — ^^^^f^fffirr ^^-
^m^'^T q^T%5 qm^r. ^T^if^f: 3^t^t^^ ^%i We
should in this connection recall Dandin's earlier
assertion (ii. 13) about ^^Rn%—^^^^^M33fcUT^^^^-
^Trt^i^ I Mahimabhatta in his Vyaktiviveka (Triv.
Sans. Series ed. p. 28) is more precise on the point.
Quoting the view, presumably, of Kuntaka the author
of ^^f%J^t%T ( a work which has been brought to light
only a few months ago in a solitary and fragmentary
ms. from the South ) he says— ^^fsr^g^s^^fiqf^^^^^ozff^-
%f^^=^sf^ I The 1f^^ of a Sastra proceeds from its
description of facts as facts. In a poem the^^^ is,
in the words of Jayaratha (p. 8), a ^sifcrvrrMfS^ s^TNR,
or as another puts it, a q^J^¥r#mMT%: I Compare also —
(iii) Bhamaha's conception of q^Rtfrff can be gathered
from the following passages in his work — (i. 36)—
^^f*1^3j^5^1 Rhfer ^T^m^^T%:— where ^T^ is given as a
part of his definition of alamkara ; ( cp. Abhinava-
ii. 863— ] Kavyadaria [ 216
gupta's comment — ^s^^ f| ^^T sff^l^^T^ =^ ^^^ ^Wrff^
^Wq^Mftc^2T^^l^Nci*K^l^chi<|r^K^lTq:) ; (i. 30)-— gxff ^.
^^ntr^^l ^T^crf^^^-— where he tells us, like Dandin,
that q^tf%> and ^^^TRtftj constitute the contents of all
poetic writing ; (ii. 34,35) — where he intends to say
that thel^ style, in spite of its srtt^, ^cTT, or ?stJf^c^,
will be no better than a sweet choppy music, if devoid
of 5ST?T^ and ciilRh; and that, per contra, Gaudiya poe-
try with its many alarfakaras, provided it is not vulgar
or confusing and has some sense to convey, is also not
unacceptable ; and lastly the oft-quoted verse (ii. 85) —
^ ^ (v. 1. ^ ) q^tf%?:^T^ f^vrrsq^ i
which, coming as it does in connection with his treat-
ment of 3lfeRt%, leads to the equation arfrRI^f^f = ^^tf%r
which Mammata (x. p. 906) and Hemachandra (p. 267)
distinctly lay down— ^i^ ^^frRRtf^i^ 5[T'Jlc^Hmfdycl I ^
ft^T Ml^yJI^^K^I^itTT^ I Other testimony to this extended
application of the term q^% is Alarhkarasarvasva (p.S)-
aW^tl^ V^ -AY^^MV' I I >dmKi=i5hcni%ft: ^w# ^^^f^q^:
52T^%^1 And again (p. 177)— ^n%;^l^^^j^jR^nTn'2I^^-
i|]^l^*l<ft?t^ ^f%T: I To the same effect also srf^P^SH in
his vxir^l<A)ch^Nq (p. 208)— 2nfciWf%i^f^ %^ ^ q^tfiff:
3i^^l<M4>K: ^' I I cSt^?^ iwi^q: I^T^Rtf^:
^c|1<Aghl«^l*<l«-^q^l Compare also Kavyadarsa ii. 220.
(iv) As against this earlier conception of q^tf%f (or
3ifiRI^t%) given by Bhamaha, Dandin, Kuntaka and
others? we have the subsequent restriction of it to a
specific figure-of- speech defined by Ruyyaka (p. 175)
as—si-qifl^h^ 4WW ^JlfS^^T^rm:^^ tPSRi^ I and illus-
trated by —
Another illustration given by Kuvalayananda (st. 158)
is— s^in^f^^ [JIT'jfff^^] 5[TH ^ ^ ^^cl% I Rudrata
(ii 14-17), Mammata (ix, p. 593), Hemachandra (p. 234),
217 ] Notes [ — ii. 363
Vidyanatha (p, 410), and most later writers have the
same limited conception of cfifitf^i, which some go to
the length of regarding as a ^^;^^FT^ only. Rudrata
(x. 9) gives besides a variety of ^ called ^.^<?q.
(v) As coming between these two conceptions of
cfcpifTf:, though not therefore necessarily forming the
transition between them, is Vamana*s conception of
^■^^?^ as (IV. iii. ^)—m\\^mmi q^li^: \ A ^e^iiT, the
Kamadhenu explains, is possible in five ways — ,
3tM%^ ^^^m^ e. g. #.^-'^JT^-^W;
^R^Tci: e. g. f^T ^\^^^^ (a case of q^T%) ;
^fl^R^: e. g. ^m ^: ;
"^'^^^^Tci: e. g. f f^qf^^^t ^4: ;
and, T%2rRITnri: e. g. Ti^% ^^ ^^^^^J^.
Vakrokti is thus, according to Vamana, a metaphori-
cal mode of poetic expression, while Dandin regarded
it as any striking mode of poetic expression. If we
now recall that to Vamana all figures-of-speech are
^HMTfraq^ only, while they are ^^iF^iiq^ or 5Tfcmn%;5iq^
to the earlier school, it will be perhaps evident that
between Vamana's conception of ^^f%; and that of
Dandin, Bhamaha, and others there Jis not that wide
gulf that is sometimes made out.
(vi) At the same time, comparing Kavyadarsa
ii. 93-94 with Vamana's example for ^#ii%f, viz. —
RjfRS^ ^ir^^il^I^^T^ ^^^:) it is evident, as • Jacobi
has said (Z. D. M. G„ vol. Ixiv, p. 130 ff.), that Vamana
has turned what was a 5^ (^Wlf^ in Dandin, 5i^T^ in
Bharata xvi, 95) into an ST^.^PR. Samadhi is declared,
like q^n% and arRf^frTr, as the all-in-all (ii. 100) of
poetry ; and it is difficult to talk of more than one
thing in the superlative and yet maintain a distinction
between them, especially if we remember that with
Vamana the boundary-line between Gunas and alam-
karas was very vague indeed (cp. II. 3. 172 — ^c5!^t*IR1:
q^^Rt ^^i 3WT: ^5[fcl^2i^^^#.q5TU: )• As far as the facts of
the case go, we have no definite ground to regard
Vam.ana*s treatment of q^f% as either a forerunner or
23 [Kavyadarsa]
ii. 363-- ] Kavyadarka [ 2iB
a subsequent development of Dandin*s and Bhamaha*s
conception of the same. Even if Udbhata, Bhamaha's
commentator, is to be regarded as a rival contempo-
rary of Vamana, yet Vamana may have persisted in
following his own indendent Bi^^R^Sf^^. The chrono-
logical relation between Dandin and Vamana cannot
be made to turn upon their account of ^n%.
(vii) The ultimate conception of ^i% as a ^c^r^i^^
cannot be genetically connected with either Dandin's
or Vamana's conception of the same. The art of
speaking at cross purposes was regarded as an accom-
plishment of a cultured beauty (JT^Tg"^), and it is
conceivable that it was raised to the dignity of a re-
gular alarhkara irrespective of what the Texts had
already to say about the other ^^%.
Notes to II. 364-3 ^"—(i) Compare Note(iii) to ii. 13 above.
The normal conception of Bhavika found in Ruyyaka
(p. 1?8), Mammata (x, p. 822), and Visvanatha (x. 93-94),
and most later writers is contained in the fol-
lowing definition of it in the Kavyaprakasa— sic^j^ ^
^:^W' l%?r% ^irWlf^: » ^^TT^^. Some writers add to
this the further condition that the object (v[t^) should
be 3T^^f^, and should be expressed in vivid and non-
confusing terms (^T=^fr?lT^$?T). An example of a past
incident revivified is Mrichchhakatika (iii. 6) —
^<^iM %^fi 'f\\^^^^ T^?5Tm n^^^ w
For a future incident anticipatorily glimpsed Ruy-
yaka (p. 182) gives the instance^—
(ii) In accordance with this later conception of the
figure its name is explained as — ^t^: ^o,^ft5[T^5ii^=rTi% \
viT^T ^n^\ ^\ ^^'. ^?.%^i% P.^^^^iil^^^iT^'lf^ \ This etymology
219 j Notes I— il. 366
probably goes back to KavyadarSa ii. 364*=^, where
however ilTq apparently is used in a rather peculiar
sense. We would there translate it by Sustained
Intuition especially as Dandin makes it a ^^rj^x^'q^^nj.
Bhamaha also calls it (ii. 52) a STSFWm^TS'^ laying down
for it the four-fold requirement, viz. —
sT^^T^Tf ^^ ^fci ^^ I3 5f=^# n
But Dandin's requirements for the figure as enume-
rated in ii. 365-366 seem to be peculiar to him, as also
his whole conception of the same, wherein he is
probably following a tradition distinct from that of
Bhamaha. Bhoja's conception of Bhavika (which he
identifies with ^:^.5;, iv. 85-86) is so very far removed
from the two conceptions discussed hiiherto that it
need not be here taken into consideration at all,
(iii) The Bhavika of later writers is distinguishable
from the jut called 51^1^, the i^ named sr^^rT, and sr^.^fs
like ^^^1^11% or wf^^ffT^or 5Tlci^2lti%. Compare ^lf|c3^«f'JT
(x. p. 574f.)--^ -^ 3?^ri?T?^?]T 5^: Hcivm^^: Sf^^r^Tffm^ ^W
\^J^ < ^ =^i?;i|^r i^' f^^^ ^mi^ \^^K ' ^ =^f^^^i%^^)^:
^^ 3 ^3^- ^^^iq^TMc^^r %'^^%f#^^'rm 1 Hemachan-
dra however refuses to admit this figure. He says
(p. 293)—^!^ g ^^c[^i^q^^5{^^'[^wcfi^fif^'^?i5i5i^^ TT^ ^^]^ \
(iv) Confining our attention to Dandin's own con-
ception of ¥iif^?fj it will be observed that Dandin's
treatment of it is quite in place, coming as it does
after his treatment of q^rf%; whereas, it is not quite
clear why Bhamaha should have called his ^r%f> a
Sf^^^l^^fqj^iJT. Bhavika is the quality belonging to a
poem taken as a whole, and it suggests the formula*
tion of questions like, — Is there a meaning to the
whole ? Is it consistently carried out ? Is there a
harmony and proportion of parts ? Is it a clear and
self-sufficient theme ? These are questions of higher
ii. 367— ] Kavyadaiia [ 220
criticism; and it is creditable. to Dandin that he hae
recognised their importance and made room for them
in his treatment of poetry.
Notes to II. 367-368 — (i) Having considered a poem from
the point of view of higher criticism and constructive
technique, Dandin is naturally led to think of the
dramatic Nodes and their minor constituents, or the
Rhetorical-modes and their further literary distribu-
tion, these being respectively treated at length in the
Natyasastra, Chapters xii and xx. Dandin here per-
mits the possibility of an application of similarcritical
canon to the appreciation of poetry. It is to be wished
however that Dandin had made himself more explicit.
For vrittis compaie our Note (ii) to i. 40.
(ii) Here again, as at the end of the first Parich-
cheda, Dandin emphasises, for an aspiring poet, the
necessity of constant practice. Repetitio mater
studiorum.
-^andin .
Dandn.n's Kavyadarsa
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11