[[अलङ्कारशास्त्रस्य अवधारणाः Source: EB]]
[
[TABLE]
Price Rs. 4.0-0
Printed by
C. SUBBARAYUDU,
AT THE VASANTA PRESS
ADYAR, MADRAS
FOREWORD
IT is my privilege to introduce to the world of scholarship Dr. Raghavan’s second book in the Adyar Library Series. entitled Some Concepts of Alankara Śastra. His first book, The Number of Rasas, was published by the Adyar Library in 1940 and the uniformly good reception which it has had at the hands of literary critics has made me hasten with the work of bringing out this second publication.
The subject of Indian Aesthetics has yet to be built up by research work not only in Gita, Nāṭya, Śilpa and Citra but also in the important field of Sanskrit Alankāra Śastra. The vast and noteworthy contributions of Indian minds on the subject of Literary Criticism have not received the attention which scholars here and in other countries have shown to Indian contributions to Philosophy.
Bharata who defined Drama as re-presentation of moods (Bhāva-anukīrtana) and said that Rasa-anubhava (experience of Rasa) is its essence; Bhāmaha and Dandin who emphasized that Beautiful Expression (Vakrokti or Alankāra) is the vital thing in poetry (p. 260); Vamana who stressed Saundarya (p. 261) and declared tyle (Rīti) as the soul (Ätman) of expression (p. 143); Anandavardhana to whom it was given to show that the revelation in Art takes place through Suggestion (Dhvani); Abhinavagupta who expressly said that the ‘soul’ of poetry is the experience of Beauty (Cārutvapratiti, p. 263), and formulated along with others, that ultimately Harmony (Aucitya) is the life of Kavya (pp. 194-257); Bhaṭṭa Nayaka who distinguished poetry from other utterances (p. 17) as Mode of Expression’ (Abhidhāvyāpara) subordinating both Word and Idea (Śabda and Artha); Kuntaka who based style on poet’s character (p. 165), Mahima Bhaṭṭa, Bhoja— these would rank with the world’s eminent Literary critics. It may well be claimed that Rasa, Dhvani and Aucitya form the three great contributions of Sanskrit Poetics to world’s literature on the subject.
Among the more important topics, dealt with in this book, Alankāra, Riti, Aucitya, Saundarya (pp. 261-3) and Camatkāra (pp. 268-271), deserve to be specially mentioned. The treatment is original and some topics have been dealt with for the first time. The Author has utilized for his studies not only printed books, but a number of works available only in manuscript. The accounts are historical and given in great detail, so that a complete examination of the ideas of all the writers on a particular concept may lead to the discovery of several ideas which will be of value for a proper appreciation of the finer aspects of the rich contributions of the Alankāra Śastra. It will be seen that some of the studies take into account contributions of Western writers also; and it is hoped that the comparative study which the author mentions on p. 255, will be published soon.
It is with great pleasure that I record my sincere thanks to the author for the co-operation which he has been extending to me in the publication of the Adyar Library Series.
Adyar
G. SRINIVASA MURTI,
14th April 1942.
Honorary Director.
PREFACE
I HAVE dealt with Sāhitya, Ukti, Doșa, Guņa, Vakrokti, Alankāra, Dhvani and Rasa in my book on Bhoja’s Śrigara PrakāŚa. The contents of this volume supplement the studies contained in my book on the Śṛngāra Prakasa. The opening study here of the Lakṣaṇa forms the first exhaustive account of that little-studied concept. In the study of the Riti here, I have discussed it in relation to the conception of Style in the West. The study of Aucitya presented in this book forms the only account of that important concept. In these and the other studies in this book, I have, on the basis of a detailed, historical survey of the concepts as developed by the several Sanskrit Ālaṅkārikas, endeavoured to understand and interpret their underlying ideas and the value of these for the art and appreciation of literature.
I am thankful to the authorities of the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, the Journal of the Madras University, Madras, the Indian Historical Quarterly, Calcutta and the Indian Culture, Calcutta for their permission to bring out in the form of this book these studies of mine on concepts of the Alankāra Śāstra which originally appeared in those journals in the form
of articles. I am thankful to the authorities of the Madras University for permitting this publication, and to Dr. Srinivasa Murti, Director, Adyar Library, for accepting to publish this book in the Adyar Library Series, as also to Dr. C. Kunhan Raja, D.Phil. (Oxon.), Curator, Eastern Section, Adyar Library, and Head of the Department of Sanskrit, University of Madras.
Madras
** V. RAGHAVAN**
16-3-42
| CONTENTS |
| Foreword |
| Preface |
| Abbreviations and Select Bibliography |
| Lakṣaṇa |
| Use and Abuse of Alaṅkāra |
| Svabhāvokti |
| Bhāvika |
| Rīti |
| Vṛtti in Kāvya |
| Aucitya |
| Names of Sanskrit Poetics |
| Camatkara |
| Addenda |
| Index |
Please dont Edit this page (Blank Page)
ABBREVIATIONS AND SELECTBIBLIOGRAPHY
(For a full list of Works and Authors, See Index)
I
MANUSCRIPTS
** Abhi, Bhā.**— Abhinavabhārati, Abhinavagupta’s commentary on Bharata’s NāṭyaŚastia. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. nos. 2478, 2774, 2785
** Kaviślikṣā**of Jayamaṅgalācārya. MS. described with extractin Appendix I, pp. 78- 9 of the First Detailed Report of Operations in search ofMSS. in the Bombay circle, 1882-3, byP. Peterson
Kāvyāloka of Hariprasāda. MS. described with extracts onpp. 356-7 of the Third Detailed Report of Operations in search of Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay circle,1884-86, by P. Peterson
C.C.— Camatkāracandrikāof ViŚveŚvara. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, R. no. 2679; MS. described in the Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS. in the Library of the India Office by J. Eggeling, MS. no. 3966
D. R. Vyā.— DaŚarūpakavyākhyā of BahurūpamiŚra. MS. in theMadras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. nos. 3670, 4188
Nāṭakacandrikā of Rūpagosvāmin. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library.D. no. 12900. This work is however published in Bengali script.Cossimbazar 1907
Rasakalikāof Rudrabhaṭṭa. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. nos. 2241, 3274
Rasārṇavālaṅkāra of PrakaŚavarṣa. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 3761
Ritivṛttilakṣaṇa of Viṭṭhaladikṣita. MS. noted in the Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS. in the Central Provinces by Keilhorn, Nagpur 1874
Sṛ. Pra-ŚrigāraprakāŚa of Bhoja MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 3252.
Śṛigārasāra of Veṅkaṭanārāyaṇadikṣita. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. D. no. 12958
S.K.Ā. Vyā.- Sarasvatikaṇṭhābharaṇavyākhyā of Bhaṭṭa Nṛsimba. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 2499
Sahityakaumudi of Arkasūri. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 2391
Sāhityasāra of SarveŚvara. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, R. no, 2432
II
PRINTED SANSKRIT BOOKS
Agnipurāṇa, ĀnandāŚrama Series 41
A. R.—Anargharāghava of Murāri with Rucipati’s commentary. Kāvyamālā 5
AnyāpadeŚaŚataka of Nilakaṇṭbadikṣıta. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka, VI
AnyāpadeŚaŚataka of Bhallaṭa. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka IV
Sāk- AbhijñānaŚakuntala of Kālidāsa with Rāghavabhaṭṭa’s commentary. N. S. Press, Bombay
AmaruŚataka. Kāvyamālā 18
Alaṅkārakaustubha of VisveŚvara. Kāvyamālā 66
AlaṅkaraŚekhara of KeŚava. Kavyamālā 50
Alaṅkarasaṅgraha of Amṛtānandayogin
A. S.—Alaṅkārasarvasva of Ruyyaka with Jayaratha’s Vimarsini, Kāvyamālā 35
Alaṅkārasarvasva of Ruyyaka with Samudrabandha’s gloss. TSS. 40
Āryāstavarāja. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam
Au. V.C.— Aucityavicāracarcāof Kṣemendra Kāvyamālā Gucchaka I
Karpūramañjari of RājaŚekhara with Vāsudeva’s commentary. Kāvyamālā 4
K.K.Ā.—Kavikaṇtḥābharaṇa of Kṣemendra. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka IV
Kādambari of Bāṇa
Kāmasūtras of Vatsyāyana with the Jayamaṅgalā. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Benares.
K.Pra.— KāvyaprakaŚa of Mammaṭa—
—With Māṇıkyacandra’s gloss, University of Mysore, Oriental Library, Skt. Series, No. 60
—With the commentaries of Vidyācakravarttin and Bhaṭṭa Gopāla. TSS. 88, 100
K.M.—Kāvyamīmāmsā of RājaŚekhara. GOS. 1
K.Ä.—KavyādarŚa of Daṇḍin—
—With the Hṛdayaṁgamāand the commentary of Taruṇavācaspati. Edn. by Prof. M. Rangacharya, Madras
—With a gloss. ed. by Jivananda Vidyasagal
—With an anon, gloss. N. S. Press, Bombay
KāvyānuŚāsana of Vāgbhaṭa. Kāvyamālā 43
K.A.—KāvyānuŚāsana of Hemacandra with two glosses by author. Kāvyamālā 71
K.A.—Kāvyālaṅkāra of Bhāmaha. Chowkhamba Press, Benares
K.A.—Kavyālaṅkāra of Rudraṭa with Namisādhu’s commentary. Kāvyamālā 2
K.A.S.S.- Kāvyālaṅkārasārasaṅgraha of Udbhaṭa
—With Pratihārendurāja’s commentary. Edn. by N. D. Banhattı
—With Tilaka’s commentary. GOS. LV.
K.A. Sū. and Vṛ— Kāvyālaṅkārasūtras with Vṛtti of Vāmana; with Gopendra Tippabhūpāla’s commentary. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam
K.S.— Kumārasambhava of Kālidāsa
Kuvalayānanda of Appayyadikṣıta with the Rasıkarañjani of Gaṅgādharavājapeyin. Edn. by Pandit Halasyanatha sastrin, Kumbhakonam, 1892
Gaṅgāvataraṇakāvya of Nilakaṇṭhadikṣita. Kāvyamālā 76 Gitagovinda of Jayadeva with the Rasıkapriyā of Kumbhakarṇa. N. S. Press, Bombay
Candrāloka of Jayadeva with Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍa’s gloss. Gujarathi Printing Press, Bombay. 1923
Citramimāmsā of Appayyadikṣita. Kävyamālā 38
Tilakamañjari of Dhanapāla. Kāvyamālā 85
D.R.— DaŚarūpaka of Dhanañjaya with Dhanika’s Avaloka. N. S. Press, Bombay, 1897
Dharmabinduprakaraṇa with Municandrācārya’s gloss. Āgamodaya Samiti Series
Dhva. Ā— Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana with the Locana of Abhinavagupta. Kāvyamālā 25. Edn. of 1928
Nalacaritanāṭaka of Nilakaṇtḥadikṣita. Bālamanoramā Press, Mylapore, Madras
Nalavilāsanāṭaka of Rāmacandra. GOS. 29
Navasāhasankacarita of Padmagupta. Bombay Skt. Series 53
NāṭakalakṣaṇaratnakoŚa of Sāgaranandin. Edn. M. Dillon. Oxford, 1937
N.S.— NāṭyaŚāstra of Bharata
—Kāvyamālā edn. K. M. 42
—Kāsi Sanskrit Series No. 60
—GOS. edn. with Abhinavagupta’s commentary, chs. 1-18,GOS. XXXVI, LXVIII
Nai.— Naiṣadhiyacarita of Śriharṣa
Pra, rud.— PratāparudriyayaŚobhūṣaṇa of Vidyānātha with the commentary of Kumārasvāmin. BālamanoramāPress, Mylapore, Madras
Prāṇabharaṇa of Jagannātha. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka I Balarāmāyaṇa of RājaŚekhara. Edn. Govinda Deva Sastri, Benares, 1869
Bṛhatkathāmañjari of Kṣemendra. Kāvyamālā 69
Bṛhaddevatā. Bibliotheca Indica CXXVII
Bhaṭṭikāvya
—With the Jayınaṅgalā. N. S. Press. Bombay, 1928
—With Mallinātha’s gloss. Bombay Skt. Series 56-7
Bhāgavata purāṇa with Śridhara’s commentary
Bhāratamañjari of Kṣemendra. Kāvyamālā 65
Bhā.Pra.— BhāvaprakāŚa of Śaradātanaya. GOS. 45 Bhojacampū. N. S. Press, Bombay.
Mahāvīracarita of Bhavabhūti. N. S. Press, Bombay
M.M.— Mālatimādhava of Bhavabhūti with Jagaddhara’s commentary. N. S. Press, Bombay
Mālavikāgnimitra of Kälıdāsa
M.R.— Mudrārākṣasa of ViŚākhadatta. Edn. K. T. Telang. Bombay Skt. Series 27
MūkapancaŚati, Kāvyamālā Gucchaka V
Megha.— Meghadūta of Kālidāsa
R.V.—RaghuvamŚa of Kālidāsa
R.G.— Rasagaṅgādhara of Jagannātha paṇḍita. Kāvyamālā 12
R.A.S.— Rasārṇavasudhākara of Śiṅgabhūpāla. TSS. 50
R.T.— Rājatarangiṇi of Kalhaṇa. Bombay Skt. Series 45. 51. 54
Rājendrakarṇapūra. Kavyamālā Gucchaka 1
Rā.Rām.— Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki. Kumbhakonam edn.
Lalitāvistara. Edn. Lefmann
Lalitāstavaratna. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka X
V. J.— Vakroktijivita of Kuntaka. Edn. by Dr. S. K. De. Calcutta Oriental Series, No. 8
Vākyapadiya of Bhartṛhari
Vāgbhaṭālańkāra of Vāgbhaṭa with Simhadevagaṇi’s commentary. Kāvyamālā 48
Vācaspatya
Vāsavadattāof Subandhu. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam.
Vik., V. Ū.— VikramorvaŚiya of Kālıdāsa
Viddhasalabhāṇjikā of RājaŚekhara. Edn. Jivananda Vidyasagar. Calcutta 1883
Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa. Venkatesvara Press edn
Veṇisamhāra of Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa.
Vemabhūpālacarita of Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam
V V.— Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhaṭṭa with an anon. commentary.TSS. 5.
Śabdakalpadruma
Śivalilārṇava of Nilakaṇṭhadikṣıta. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam
S.V.— ŚiŚupalavadha of Māgha. N. S. Press, Bombay
Śṛṅgaratilaka of Rudrabhaṭṭa. KāvyamālāGucchakaIII
SabhārañjanaŚataka of Nilakaṇṭhadikṣıta. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka IV
S.K.Ā.— Sarasvatikaṇṭhābharaṇa of Bhoja with RatneŚvara’scommentary. Kāvyamālā 95
Sahṛdayananda of Kṛṣṇānanda, Kāvyamālā 32
Sāhityadarpaṇa of ViŚvanātha
Sāhityamimāmsā. TSS. 114
Sāhityasāra of Acyutarāya. N. S. Press, Bombay.
Subhāṣitanivi of VedāntadeŚika. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka VIII
Suvṛttatilaka of Kṣemendra. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka II
Hamsavilāsa of Hamsamiṭṭhu. GOS LXXXI
Haravijaya of Ratnākara with Alaka’s commentary Kāvyamālā 22
Harṣacarita of Bāṇa, N. S. Press, Bombay
III
Bhoja’s S’ṛṅgara Prakās’a by V. Raghavan, M.A., Ph.D., Karnatak Publishing House, Bombay
History of Alaṅkāra Literature by P. V. Kane, M.A., LL.M., being an Introduction to an edn. of the Sāhityadarpaṇa
History of Sanskrit Literature by Dr. A B. Keith
Pathak Commemoration Volume, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona
Some Aspects of Literary Criticism in Sanskrit or the Theories of Rasa and Dhvani by A. Sankaran, M.A.,Ph.D., University of Madras
Skr. Poe.— Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poeties, 2 Vols., byS. K. De, M.A., D.Litt.
IV
Annals BORI.— Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona
Annals of Oriental Research, University of MadrasIndian Culture, Calcutta.
IHQ.— Indian Historical Quarterly, Calcutta
JOR. Madras.— Journal of Oriental Research, Madras
V
Bāla. m.— Bālamanoramā Press, Mylapore, Madras
Edn.— Edition
Gaek.}
GOS.}— Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda
K. M.— Kāvyamālā, N. S. Press, Bombay
N. S.— Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay
Triv.}—Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, Trivandrum
TSS.}
Vyā.— Vyākhyā
VI
Authorship and Style: Schopenhauer
Creative Unity. Rabindranath Tagore
Essay on Criticism: Pope
Essentials of Criticism: Lamborn
On style: Demetrius
On the Sublime: Longinus
Personality: Rabindranath Tagore
Picture of Dorian Gray: Oscar Wilde
Poetic Diction: Robert Bridges
Poetic Diction: Thomas Quayle
Poetics: Aristotle
Poetry as Representative Art: Raymond
Problem of Style: M. Murry
Rhetoric: Atistotle
Rhetoric and Composition: Bain
Seven Arts and Seven Confusions: J. E. Spingarn
Sleep and Beauty: Keats
Some Principles of Literary Criticism: Winchester
Style: Pater
Style: Raleigh
Technical Elements of Style : R. L. Stevenson
What is Art? Tolstoy.
| PAGE | LINE | READ |
| 191 | 20 | नाम्नां |
| 193 | 1 | निष्टुरा |
| 211 | 26 | Of this chapter |
| 219 | 13 | -विश्रान्तेरनुसन्धान- |
| 223 | 16 | over-developed |
| 224 | 1 | क्रमापेतः |
| 224 | 22 | वृत्यनौचित्यमेव |
| 230 | 29 | औचित्यानौचित्ये एव |
| 235 | 20 | Vicitra |
| 238 | 5 | Alaṅkāraucitya |
| 241 | 25 | Kuntaka’s |
| 242 | 4 | Vakrokti |
| 246 | 23 | Kavis’ıkṣā |
| 249 | 4 | Lokasvabhāvaucitya |
| 254 | 19 | Sṛṅgāra |
THE HISTORY OF LAKṢAṆA
SYNOPSIS
[1. Introductory-II. The text of Bharata on the subject: 2 recensions-III. The literature on the subject-IV. Its three names Lakṣaṇa, Bhūṣaṇa and Nāṭyālaṅkāra-V. The DaŚapakṣi, ‘10 viewŚ, on the subject in the Abhinava Bhārati-VI. Probable authors the views in the DaŚapakṣi-VII. Criticism of the DaŚapakṣi-VIII. Abhinavagupta’s own view-IX. Other writers on the subject: Daṇḍin, Dhanañjaya and Dhanika, Bhoja, Śāradātanaya, Jayadeva, Śingabhūpāla, Viśvanātha, Rāghavabhaṭṭa, Jagaddhara, Alaka, Rucipati, Bahurūpamisra, Kumbhakama, Sarveśvara and Acyutarāya-X. Bharata’s own view; the text of Bharata independently studied-conclusion-XI. Supplement table of the Lakṣaṇas in the various lists according to the different writers.]
I
Sāhitya along with grammar and prosody finds treatment at the hands of Bharata under Vācikābhinaya, the Kāvya which is the text of the drama. The Kāvya, Bharata says, should have 36 Lakṣaṇas काव्यबन्धास्तु कर्तव्याः षट्त्रिंशल्लक्षणान्विताः।XVI. 169. In chapter 17, he gives a list of 36 Lakṣaṇas and defines each. In the end he calls them ‘काव्यविभूषण’, adornments to Kāvya. He does not illustrate these
as he illustrates the metres and Alaṅkāras. He does not specify their place in Kāvya and does not define their difference
from Alaṅkāra. This concept of Lakṣaṇa is not elaborated very much in later literature on Poetics or Dramaturgy. Abhinava opens his exposition of the topic by observing that, as a topic of Poetics, it is quite unfamiliar, Aprasıddha. गुणालङ्कारादि (दी?) रिति (रीति) वृत्तयश्चेति काव्येषु प्रसिद्धो मार्गः। लक्षणानि तु न प्रसिद्धानि।Abhi. Bhā. p. 379.¹ Many of these look like Alaṅkāras while some actually go by names which are Alaṅkāras later literature. There is no clear grasp of the exact nature of Lakṣaṇa in the few writers on Dramaturgy who treat of it. Bharata certainly means them to be featuresof Kāvya in general and not of drama only. It would seem, by Bharata mentioning them first and by giving 36 of them, Bharata considers Lakṣaṇa of greater importance than Alaṅkāra. It had its day when it loomed large in the field, eclipsing Alaṅkāra, which was poor in numbers. But gradually Lakṣaṇadied in the Alaṅkāra Śastra. Writers on drama took it up, some enthusiastically defining and illustrating them, sune doing so out of loyalty to Bharata and some dismissing them as having been included in Alaṅkāras or Bhāvas. This lost Paddhati of Lakṣaṇa has a history of its own which is the subject of this chapter.
II
In chapter 17, Bharata gives a list of 36 Laksaṇas,defines each and in the end indicates their character and
_____________________________
1. References to the Nātya Śāstra of Bharata are to the KāŚi edition of that work. References to the Abhinava Bhārati are to Vol. II of that work in the MS. of the Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, Madras, the corrupt text of which, I studied and reconstructed as far as possible with the help of Mm. Prof. S. Kuppuswami Sastri. The GOS Edition of the work, not infrequently, adds to the mistakes. See GOS. LXVIII, pp. 290-321.
place in the Kāvya in one verse. This portion of the Nāṭya Śastra has two recensions, even as the portions on metres and Guṇas. The text on Guṇas followed by Abhinava is not the one followed by Mangala, whose fragments on the concept of Guṇa are available in Hemacandra and Māṇikyacandra. But as regards metres and Lakṣaṇas Abhinava is acquainted with both the recensions. He notes both the recensions as regards the definitions of the Lakṣaṇas and says he follows mainly the recension handed down to him through his teacher. ‘-उद्देशक्रमस्तु अस्मदुपाध्यायपरम्परागतः।‘p .384. This recension enumerates the Lakṣaṇas in Upajāti metre; the other recension, in Anuṣṭubh metre. He adds that he will indicate the other recension also then and there. Accordingly while treating of the Lakṣaṇas, one by one, he notices the definitions in the other recension and also shows, quite arbitrarily in most cases, how both mean the same thing. Further, though both recensions have Priyavacana, Abhinava includes the Priyavacana of the Anusṭubh list in the Protsāhana of the Upajāti list, and in the Priyavacana of the Upajāti list itself, he includes the BhramŚa of the Anustubh list. Garhana of the Anuṣṭubh list is twice included under Kapata and Kārya of the Upajāti list; similarly Prasiddhi under both Ākhyāna and Anunīti. Paridevana of the Upājati list is said to include two, Kṣobha and Anukta siddhi, of the Anuṣṭubh list. The Kavyamāla edition of the Nāṭya Śastra has the recension followed by Abhinava, the Upajāti recension. The other recension in Anusṭubh verses is found in the Kāsīedition which also gives in the footnote the Upajāti recension. The Rasārṇavasudhākara and Sāhityadarpaṇa follow the Anuṣṭubh recension while Bhoja, with whom elaboration is the principle, must have been acquainted with both recensions, since he makes up a list of 64 Laksaṇas from both
recensions. The Daśarūpa follows the Upajāti recension. The two recensions differ in their enumeration as well as in the definition of each Lakṣaṇa. Only 17 Lakṣaṇas are common to both. Of the definitions, eight are common to both, those of Bhūṣana, Akṣara sanghāta, śobhã, Guṇakīrtana, Manoratha, Pṛcchā, Samśaya and Prāpti; the definition of Kārya of the Upajāti list is the same as that of Garhaṇa in the Anuṣtubh list; five definitions agree in substance, those of Udāharaṇa, Nirukta, Siddhi, Padoccaya and Dṛṣtānta; the difinition of Anuvṛtti of the Upajāti list agrees in substance with that of Dākṣiṇya of the Anuṣṭubh list. Yāncāand Priyavaca na of the Upajāti list are defined by the same identical verse, and the definition suits the latter and not the former. There are also corruptions in the definitions in both recensions. The table at the end of this chapter shows the Lakṣaṇas according to the two lists, how Abhinava includes those of the Anṣṭubh list in one or the other of the Upajāti list, additional Lakṣaṇas in other writers, and other details.
III
Coming to the literature on the subject of Lakṣaṇa— Besides Abhinava’s commentary on this portion of the Nāṭya Śāstra, which deals elaborately with Lakṣaṇa, earlier commentaries of Udbhaṭa, Lollaṭa and śankuka must have dealt with the concept of Lakṣaṇa. Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s Hṛdayaparpana also probably dealt with it. We have sure evidence of Bhaṭṭa Tauta having treated of Laksaņas. In an extract given from his Kāvyakautuka in the Abhinava Bhāratī on p. 541, Vol. II, we find Lakṣaṇa included in his enumeration of the ‘Kāvyapaddhatiś, along with Guņa, Rīti, Alańkāra etc. Further Abhinava ascribes to Tauta certain definite views
on Lakṣaṇa during the course of his attempt to explain the difference between Alankāra and Lakṣaṇa. We noted above how the Upajāti recension was handed down to Abhinava from his teacher, i.e., from his teacher’s Kāvyakautuka, upon which Abhinava had commented. Before Abhinavagupta, views оп Lakṣaṇa were very confused, as is seen from Abhinavagupta’s commentary on the Lakṣaṇas which opens with 10 Pūrvapakşas on the real nature of the concept of Lakṣaṇa. Bhoja’s Śṛngāraprakāsa enumerates, defines and illustrates, not 36 of them, but 64. Śāradātanaya follows Bhoja. The Daśarūpa aud Avaloka mention the 36 Lakṣaṇas and briefly indicate their inclusion in Alankāras and Bhāvas. Bahurūpamisra, in his gloss on the Daśarūpa, speaks twice of the Lakṣaṇas and in addition to the Lakṣaṇas, mentions also the Natyalankäras. The Sangitarāja of king Kumbhakarṇa dealt with the Lakṣaṇas. Sarveśvara’s Sāhityasāra deals with the Lakṣaṇas of the Upajāti list. S’ingabhūpāla calls them Bhūsanas’, gives 36 of them, defines and illustrates them. The Sahityadarpaņa also gives them with definitions and illustrations. The Natakacandrikā, an unpublished work on Drama, criticises the Sahityadarpaṇa and follows the Rasarpavasudhakara as regards the 36 Lakṣaṇas. From Raghava bhaṭṭa’s commentary on the Śakuntala we learn that Mātṛgupta also dealt with Lakṣaṇas separately in his work on Nāṭya. Raghavabha -ṭṭa indicates some of the 36 Lakṣaṇas in the several situations of the Śakuntala. Jagadhara is another commentator who, in his Țīkā on the Mālatīmādhava, points out a few of the Lakṣaṇas. Rucipati, in his commentary on the Anargharaghava, points out two Lakṣaṇas. Rājānaka Alaka, in his commentary on Ratnakara’s Haravijaya, has occasion to speak of Lakṣaṇa. Alaka follows the Upajāti recension. The only work on poetics proper which
treats of Lakṣaṇas is Jayadeva’s Candraloka. It defines only a few of them with illustrations.
IV
Lakṣaṇa has changed its name in its history. śingabhūpāla and his followers call it Bhūṣaṇa. This name is derived from Bharata himself describing the Lakṣaṇa as ‘काव्यविभूषण’ and ‘भूषणसंमित’. Though Bhoja calls it only Lakṣaṇa, śāradātanaya calls it Bhūṣaṇa at the beginning and ends by calling it Alankāra. Jagaddhara calls it Nāṭyālankāra.
V
Bharata’s own view of Lakṣaṇa as far as it can be made out from his text alone, must be taken up only lastly. Before that we shall see what views of Lakṣaṇa are contained in the Abhinava Bhāratī. Abhinavagupta gives a number of confused views held by others and at the end of these he numbers them as ten. But actually, on first reading, we get only eight views. The text here is very corrupt and perhaps lost also here and there. These following ten views can be made out of this portion of the Abhinava Bharati. Pp. 379-381. Vol. II. Mad. MS.
i. Lakṣaṇa is different from Guṇa which is inherent in Rasa, the soul of poetry. As belonging to the body of poetry, Lakṣaṇa is on a par with Alankara with this difference: It is not separate from the body (i.e.) it is not पृथक्सिद्धं,Alankāra is separate from the body. पृथक्सिद्धत्वादलङ्कारः।शरीरनिष्ठमेव यत्पदं पृथक्सिद्धं (यदपृथक्सिद्धं) तल्लक्षणम्।Lakṣaṇais the body itself and as such is further adorned with Alaṅkaras. Just as we take the metaphor of necklace or anklet when we talk of Alaṅkara
so also we have to take the metaphor of the Lakṣaṇa of the body, such as the Sāmudrika-lakṣaṇas, when we speak of the Kāvyalakṣaņa. ThisLakṣaṇa is twofold-natural, Siddharūpa, such as the quality of having broad eyes, and artificial, Sādhyarūpa, such as the occasional grace while adopting a beautiful gait. In this view, Lakṣaṇas are features in the personality of the chief character of the story.
—तल्लक्षणं येन शरीरस्य सौन्दर्यं जायते। तच्च सिद्धरूपं साध्यरूपं वा, यथा श्यामेति मदमन्थरगामिनीति च। एतदेव लक्षणम्; तच्चालंक्रियते।
. . . . . . . . . . .
. तदेतल्लक्षणं द्विधेति, यथा श्यामा विशालाक्षी, मत्तमातङ्गगामिनीति च।p. 379.
तत्र प्रथमपक्षे वर्णनीयप्रधानभूताधिकारपुरुपगतगुणविभाग एव काव्ये पर्यवसीयते।p. 380.
ii. Some others think that situations or points in the plot of the drama or the Sandhyaṅgakas are called Lakṣaṇa. Just as the Sāmudrika-lakṣaṇas like Pāśa and Dhvaja indicate the greatness and the beauty of a Mahapuruşa, so also these Lakṣaṇas which are so many points in the development of the plot beautifying the story; as beautifiers of the text, they are called Lakṣaṇas; but the same are called Sandhyaṅgas as developers of the plot, and Vṛttyaṅgas as promoters of Rasa.
अन्ये मन्यन्ते— इतिवृत्तखण्डलकान्येव सन्ध्यङ्गकानि लक्षणानीति च व्यपदिश्यन्ते। निमित्तभेदात्पूर्वापरसंबन्धेन बीजोपक्षिप्तेऽर्थेसे निर्वहणपर्यन्ते परस्परसन्धायकत्वेन सन्ध्यङ्गतयाव्यपदेशः, रसविशेषोपयोगितया वृत्त्यङ्गवाचोयुक्तिः, काव्यगतख्यातिप्राशस्त्योपयोगितया महापुरुषगतपाशध्वजपादरेखादिवल्लक्षणशव्द वाच्यता । तदुक्तं तत्रैव—
लक्षणान्येव बीजार्यक्रम निर्वाहा[य]कानि चेत्।
प्रतिसन्धितदङ्गानि फलसिद्ध्युपपत्तितः॥ इति । p. 380.
iii. Some differentiate Gunas, Alaṅkāras and Lakṣaṇas not by the आश्रयाश्रयिभाव adopted by those who hold the first view, but by defining three different activities on the part of the poet’s faculty in introducing the Guņas, Alańkāras and Lakṣaṇas in a Kāvya. The poet’s imagination has three activities, Vyāpāras, and three corresponding vibrations, Parispandas. In the very first vibration the poet’s genius conceives the Rasa and its Guṇa, say Śṛngāra and its Guṇa, Madhurya. The second vibration which is also called Varnana, effects the introduction of Alaṅkāra. The third activity chooses the words and ideas. The effect of this third activity is the actual body of poetry, the Kāvyas arīra, suggesting the presence of the ten Gunas, Slesa etc. That beauty of the Kavyasarīra which is the effect of this third activity and which is not covered by the beauty effected by an Alaṅkära is what is called Lakṣaṇa.
एते (के)पां तु दर्शनम्— कवेः यः प्रतिभात्मा प्रथमपरिस्पन्द[त]: तद्व्यापावलोपनतेषु (ताः) गुणाः। प्रतिभावत एव हि रसाभिव्यञ्जनसामर्थ्यमाधुर्यादिः उपनिवन्धन (माधुर्याद्यपनिबन्धन) सामर्थ्य, न सामान्यकवेः। अनेन शब्देन इदं वस्तु वर्णयामीत्येवंभूतवर्णनापरपर्यायद्वितीयव्यापारसंपाद्यस्वलंकारः । शब्दः (दान्) अमीभिः शब्दैरर्थानमीभिरर्थैः संघटयामीत्येवमात्मकस्तु यस्तृतीयः कवेः परिस्पन्दः तदधीनात्मलाभादिः शब्दार्थात्मककाव्यशरीरसंश्रितानि वक्ष्यमाणश्लेषादिगुणदशकसमभिव्यञ्जनव्या-पाराणि शब्दार्थोपसंस्कारकल्पानि क्रियारूपाणीति। यदुक्तं तत्रैव
काव्येऽप्यस्ति तथा कश्चित् स्निग्धः स्पर्शोऽर्थशब्दयोः।
यः श्लेषादिगुणव्यक्तिदक्षस्याल्लक्षणं स्थितिः ( ? )॥
अत्र पक्षे कविव्यापारभेदाद् गुणालंकारलक्षणविभागः।p. 380.
This view seems to be like the first in making Lakṣaṇa the Kāvyaśarīra. This view further seems to formulate two andsets of Guṇas,one, the three Guṇas माधुर्य, ओजस्,प्रसाद, which are said to inhere in Rasa as Rasadharmas and the other, the ten Guṇas of the words, श्लेष etc. The suggesting of these and the effecting of a fine texture or appearance, Snigdha spars’a, in Śabda and Artha, forming the body of Kāvya, is said to Lakṣaṇa by those who hold this view.
iv. The fourth view, instead of restricting the Laksanas to Vākyas or points in the plot, lifts them to the position of प्रबन्धधर्मऽ— characteristics of different kinds of poems. As. for instance, some poems are characterised by the speciality of having profuse adornment of Guṇas and Alaṅkāras. Such poems are called by the first Lakṣaṇa called Bhūṣaṇa, which Bharata defines as the ample use of Guṇas and Alaṅkāras.
अलंकारैर्गुणैश्चैव बहुभिः समलंकृतम्।
भूषणैरिव चित्रार्थैस्तद्भूषणमिति स्मृतम्॥XVII. 6.
The example given here for such poem, i.e. a Bhūṣaṇa prabandha, is Meghadūta !
तथा हि— किञ्चित् प्रबन्धजातं गुणालंकारनिकरप्रधानम्, यथा मेघदूताख्यम्, तद्विभूषणम्। एवमन्यदपीति प्रब(न्ध)धर्मा लक्षणानि।
** v.** We are unable to have much light as regards the fifth view on which we have only a brief remark. It says—
केचित्तु ब्रुयते— कवेरभित्रायविशेषो लक्षणम्, इति । P. 381,
** vi.** Certain others are said to view Lakṣaṇa as the proper use of Guṇas and Alaṅkāras, i.e. in accordance with the principle of Rasa-aucitya.
इतरेपुनर्मन्यन्ते – यथास्थाननिवेशनं यत् गुणालंकारंयदूनं (रादीनां)तल्लक्षणम्। p. 381.
vii. The seventh view has affinities with the first and third views. It takes its stand on the fact that Lakṣaṇa, like Alankāra, belongs to the body of Kāvya and secondly, like Alaṅkāra, it is a beautifying factor. The beautiful Kāvyaśarīra itself is held as Lakṣaṇa. Such beauty as is inherent in Kāvyas like the Amaruśataka, even in the absence of Alaṅkāras or what may be called natural beauty, is the proper scope for the concept of Lakṣaṇa.
परेत्वाभाषन्ते— अलंकारादिनिरपेक्षणैव (क्षयैव) निसर्गसुन्दरो योऽभिनयविशेषः काव्येषु, अमरुकश्लोकेष्वपि (ष्विव), तत्सौन्दर्यहेतुर्यो धर्मः सलक्ष्यः (लक्षणं) स एव चार्थः काव्यविशेषरूपो लक्षणम्। p. 381.
viii. The eighth view has been made out with great difficulty for the text here is very brief. This view differentiates Lakṣaṇa on this score: Bharata has given only three Alaṅkāras, Upamā, Dīpaka and Rūpaka. These three become infinite with manifold species. The means of their multiplication is the interaction of these three Alaṅkāras with the 36 Lakṣaṇas. The text available is this—
उपनादीपकरूपकाणामानन्त्याद् भेदमाहुः।p. 381.
This view is more elaborately found in a further context on the basis of which we may reconstruct this text thus—
उपमादीपकरूपकाणाम् आनन्त्यप्रयोजकत्वाद् भेदमाहुः।
In discussing the difference between Alaṅkāra and Lakṣaṇa, in the Alaṅkāra section, Abhinava gives the same view more elaborately and as his own teacher’s, i.e. Bhaṭta Tauta’s. Upamābecomesप्रशंसोपमाby adding to it the Lakṣaṇa called गुणानुवाद; it becomes अतिशयोक्ति if the Lakṣaṇaअतिशय is added to it and so on. This view of Tauta is very clever and though it does not correctly define Lakṣaṇaand its nature, yet indicates how it is an easy transition from Lakṣaṇa to Alaṅkāra.
उपाध्यायमतं तु— लक्षणबलाद् अलंकाराणां वैचित्र्यमागच्छति। तथापि (हि) गुणानुवादननाम्ना लक्षणेन योगात् प्रशंसोपमा।अतिशयनाम्नोऽतिशयोक्तिः। मनोरथाख्येन अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा।मिथ्याध्यवसायेन अपह्नुतिः। [अ] सिद्ध्या तुल्ययोगितेत्यवमन्यदुत्प्रेक्ष्यम् 1 p. 404.
ix. The ninth view is obscure since, here again, the text is meagre.
शब्देन अर्थेन चित्रत्वं लक्षणमित्यन्ये।p. 381.
Abhinava later uses this view also and explains it as the beautification of Śabda by Śabda, of Śabda by Artha, of Artha by Śabda and of Artha by Artha. In effect this view also comes to be the same as the third view, Lakṣaṇa being held to be such beauty of the body of poetry as is present even in the absence of any Alaṅkāra.
x. The tenth and the last view, as Abhinava himself points out, does not differ from the second view very much.
Just as in the Mīmāṁsā Śastra the different subject heads are distinguished by the Lakṣanas, प्रसङ्ग, बाध, अतिदेश etc., so also in Kāvya, particular points in the story go by the name Bhūṣaṇa, Akṣarasaṅghāta and other Lakṣaṇas. This view thus, except for the illustration from the Mīmāṁsā, is not different from the second Pakṣa which holds Lakṣaṇas to be ‘इतिवृत्तखण्डलक’s or ’ सन्ध्यङ्गक’s.
VI
Now as regards the authors of these ten views— We have no evidence to definitely affirm where these views are to be found or who held them. Abhinava does not give the name of the theorists here, as he gives in his discussion on Rasa-realisation. It is not likely that these ten are purely imaginary Paksas. In the course of the exposition of the second and the third view, Abhinava twice quotes Anustubh verses with the words तदुक्तंतत्रैव. The third view takes its stand on Vyāpārabheda. From what the Anuṣtubhs look and the association of Vyāpāra with Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka we may conjecture that some of these views are expounded in Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s Hrdayadarpana. We also know of the Mīmāṁsā predilections of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka. So it is likely that the tenth view also is contained in his work. We can also make out the author of the eighth view definitely as Abhinavagupta’s own teacher, Bhaṭṭa Tauta, whose work, the Kāvyakautuka, must have dealt with the काव्यपद्धति calledलक्षण at some length.
VII
Taking this Dasapakṣī— the 10 views given above, the ideas more commonly associated with Lakṣaṇa are these—
- Lakṣaṇa belongs to the body of Kāvya.
2. It is a beautifying element.
3. As such, its difference from Alaṅkāra consists in this that it is more comprehensive, is not a separate entity like the ornament, Alaṅkāra, but is Apṛthaksiddha, i.e., is the Kāvyaśarīra itself.
4. By itself, it gives grace to the Kāvya while Alaṅkāra is added to it for extra-beauty.
This is one group of ideas, taking inspiration from the metaphor Sāmudrika- lakṣaṇa. Another line of thought is not to bring Lakṣaṇa at all in relation to Kāvya in general nor to take it, like Alaṅkāra, as a beautifying factor, but to associate it only with drama and the several situations in the development of its plot. Abhinava and his teacher took Lakṣaṇa in accordance with the first group of ideas, considering Laksaņa to be ‘Kāvya-sobhākara-dharma, a beautifying element pertaining to the body of Kavya in general. The other line of thought represented by Pakṣas nos. 2 and 10, considering Lakṣaṇa to be like Sandhyaṅgakas, which Abhinava does not accept, is the view that has however survived in some works. The works on dramaturgy alone (a few of them) treat of it and these take Lakṣaṇas to be features of drama like the Sandhyaṅgakas. The curious and purely speculative views, the connection of which with Bharata’s own view we do not see at all, are views no. 4, which takes them to be characteristics which classify the Kāvyas into 36 kinds and no. 5 which takes Lakṣaṇa to be the poet’sअभिप्रायविशेष. The main view which considers Lakṣaṇa, like Alaṅkāra, as a beautifying element, but pervading the whole of the body of the Kāvya, died with Abhinavagupta. The concept of Alaṅkāra, with which, even at its birth Lakṣaṇa has an overlapping of functions, swallows it up. Even Rāghavabhaṭṭa who takes Lakṣaṇa to be separate from Sandhyaṅgas, swearing
by Abhinavagupta’s great pains to explain them at length as different from Sandhyangas etc., takes them only as Nāṭakadharmas and not as Kāvyadharmas in general. Bhoja. Śaradātanaya, Śingabhūpāla and Viśvanātha accept their difference from Sandhyaṅgas, but mention them only in Nāṭaka and never as being related comprehensively to poetic expression itself. The Candrāloka is the only Alaṅkāra work which treats of Lakṣaṇa as a feature like Alaṅkāra, of श्रव्यकाव्य.The second line of thought which connects Lakṣaṇas with Sandhyaṅgas was first unconscious of its suicidal suggestion. Daśarūpaka rejects them on the score that they have no individuality and can be included in Alaṅkāras or Bhāvas. Viśvanātha realises this and says that though the 36 Lakṣaṇas can be included in Sandhyangas etc., they must be shown to be separately existent in a drama for the reason that Bharata has treated of them separately. But many works on dramaturgy do not treat of the Lakṣaṇa at all. The reason is plain. The Daśarūpaka shows us how the Lakṣaṇapaddhati perished. The Lakṣaṇas lacked individuality and most of them showed themselves to be some Alaṅkāras or Bhāvas or some Sandhyangakas. But it may be observed that the authors on dramaturgy who have shown an extraordinary genius for classification and elaboration of Angas on a stupendous scale might have followed the logic of the inclusion of Lakṣaṇa in other concepts and saved us their lists of minor Sandhyaṅgakas, most of which can be shown to be not different at all from some Alaṅkāra or Bhāva. The same criticism applies also to the lovers of Alankaras who have made a list of more than a hundred of them. As for instance the Viṣādana and the Ullāsa, Alaṅkāras in the Kuvalayānanda, are cases of Bhāvas.
VIII
Coming to Abhinavagupta’s own view of Lakṣaṇa— the main thread of his view must be caught in the bewildering text on this concept in various places in this chapter. He points out even at the outset that these views cannot stand to be logical when we consider the 36 Lakṣaṇas themselves one by one in the light of these views; for, to a certain extent, the views have been purely speculative, spinning round the word Lakṣaṇa having its counterpart in the Sāmudrikalakṣaṇa of the human body, without relating themselves to the nature of the individual Lakşaņas. So Abhinavagupta makes a convenient suggestion that the 10 views cannot be exclusively and separately followed.
एतेषु पक्षेषु अन्यतमग्र विशेषणानि न संगच्छन्ने स्पष्टेन पथा।
p. 381.
One comprehensive and definite view must be made out of the cloud of these several Pakṣas. Abhinava adopts shades of each view and gives his own definite idea of Lakṣaṇa, which itself takes conclusive shape only as he proceeds further and further. Here and there Abhinava cannot help pushing new wine into old bottles in his difficult task. One line thought he has definitely rejected and that is, the association of Lakṣaṇa with Nāṭaka only and taking it as something like Sandhyaṅgakas. He refutes this view in this chapter and elsewhere also while dealing with the Vithyangas. He says there—
नन्वेषाम् (वीथ्यङ्गानाम्) उक्तिवैचित्र्यरूपत्वं चेत् लक्षण[म्] अलंकारादिभ्यः को भेद इति।
न चैतद्व्यतिरिक्तमेषां सामान्यलक्षणमस्ति। तत्र केचिदुक्तलक्षणादिविशेषरूपत्वमेवैषां प्रतिपन्नाः। विवेचकास्तु तद्व्यतिरिक्तान्येवैतानीत्याहुः।
pp. 481-2.
In this same context Abhinava thus indicates the difference of Lakṣaṇa and Alankāra on the one hand and the Aṅgas on the other:
लक्षणालंकारादीनां नोक्तिनियतं रूपमिति विशेषः। p. 482.
Having thus rejected the view that Lakṣaṇas are identical with Sandhyaṅgakas, as also the fourth and fifth views, he combines the various ideas of the other line of thought and says that Lakṣaṇa is Kāvyaśarira itself. It is said to be the Abhidhāvyāpāra itself as a whole. Commenting on the verse—
षट्त्रिंशदेतानि हि लक्षणानि प्रोक्तानि वै भूषणसंमितानि।
काव्येषु भावार्थगतानि तज्ज्ञैः सम्यक्प्रयोज्यानि यथारसं तु॥
in the text, Abhinavagupta says that the poetic expression itself as a whole, written in accordance with the Rasa, is called Lakṣaṇa. Lakṣaṇa is nothing but the Abhidhāvyāpāra of the poet’s language intended to evoke Rasa.
यथारसं ये भावाः विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिणस्तेषां योऽर्थः स्थायीभावरसीकरणात्मकं प्रयोजनान्तरं गतानि प्राप्तानि। यदभिधाव्यापारोपसंक्रान्ता उद्यानादयोऽर्थाः तत्र सविशेष(वि)भावादिभावं प्रतिपद्यन्ते तानि लक्षणानीति सामान्यलक्षणम्। अत एव काव्ये सम्यक् प्रयोज्यानीति विषयस्तेषामुक्तः।
p. 383.
This Lakṣaṇa or the beautiful language or the poet’s Abhidhāitself is what distinguishes Kāvya from other
utterances. And here, as is usual with him wherever he agrees, Abhinava quotes Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka, who emphasises Abhidhā, or the poet’s Vyāpāra in choosing the beautiful mode of expression as the characteristic of Kāvya, which is different from S’astra or Purāņa. In S’astra, S’abda predominates, It is enough in Purāṇa if the story, the Artha, is somehow said. But in Kāvya one looks to the delectable way in which things are put. Thus in Kāvya, the Vyāpāra is important while word and idea are subordinate.
भट्टनायके(ना)पि ( अ ) त एव … अभिधाव्यापारप्रधानं काव्यमित्युक्तम्।
शब्दप्राधान्यमाश्रित्य तत्र शास्त्रं पृथग्विदुः।
अर्थतत्वे तु युक्तेन वदन्तः स्थानमेतयोः॥
(अर्थे तत्त्वेन युक्ते तु वदन्त्याख्यानमेतयोः)
द्वयोर्गुणत्वे व्यापारप्राधान्ये काव्यगर्भवेत्।p. 383.
Abhinava quotes Bhāmaha also here to show that Kāvyasarīra is distinguished from other utterances by the peculiarity of its expression, by its वक्रोक्ति. Later also he says—
बन्धो, गुम्फः, फणितिः, वक्रोक्तिः, कविव्यापार इति हि पर्यायात् लक्षणं त्वलंकारशून्यमपि न निरर्थकम्।
P. 405.
तत्र चित्तवृत्त्यात्मकं रसं लक्षयन् तद्रसोचितविभावादि[च]संपादकः त्रिविधोऽभिधाव्यापारो लक्षणशब्देनोच्यते इत्येषां सामान्यलक्षणम्।**…**एवं किंचिदभिधीयमानं केनचिद्रूपेण रसोचितेन विभावादिरूपेण तमेव पदार्थक्रमं लक्षयन् लक्षणम्।
p. 382.
Immediately after quoting the above given verses from Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka he says—
भामहेनापि – ‘सैषा सर्वैववक्रोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते’ इत्यादि।तेन परमार्येव्यापार एवं लक्षणम्।
In another place he says—
सर्वो विभावाद्युचितो निर्वर्ण्यमाणः काव्यलक्षणत्वेन सूचितः।
p. 399.
If Lakṣaṇa should be thus taken as equal to poetic expression, the natural consequence is that Lakṣaṇas are not 36 only but as many as the poetic expressions. This Abhinava grants and says that Bharata only indicated a few, 36 of such possible Lakṣaṇas. He adds that it is because of this that, according to another view, Bharata gives another set of Lakṣaṇas with definitions. Abhinava here refers to the Anuṣṭubh and Upajāti recensions, takes both of them as given by Bharata, but says, that he follows the list handed down from his own teacher.^(1)
** **षट्त्रिंशदिति च नान्यादि(नान्यनि)वारणपरम्। कविहृदयवर्त्तिनाम् प्रियाणां (अभिप्रायाणां) परि (अपरि) संख्येयत्वात्।
… तथा च मतान्तरेण भरतमुनिरेव अन्यथाप्युद्देशलक्षणेन च नामान्तरैरपि लक्षणान्तरैरपि च व्यवहारं करोति। तत एव पुस्तकेषु भेदो दृश्यते। तं च दर्शयिष्यामः। परि(ठि)तोद्देशकमस्तु अस्मदुपाध्यायपरम्परागतः ।
p. 384.
_________________________
1. But this is an after-thought which Abhinava got up as evidence for his view of infinity of Lakṣaṇas. It is also a passing thought, for instead of, consistently with this, explaining the two sets with different illustrations, he tries with great difficulty to show the identity of many of the Lakṣaṇas of the Anuṣṭubh list with those of the other, which he mainly follows.
It also follows, if Lakṣaṇa is Kāvyas’arīra it has further adornment with Alaṅkāras. So says Abhinava—
एवं कविव्यापारबलाद् यदर्थजातं लौकिकात् स्वभावात् विद्यमानं तदेव लक्षणमित्युक्तं। तत्र(स्य) शरीरकल्पस्य अलंकारा अधुना वक्तव्याः।
p. 404.
काव्ये लावलक्षणं शरीरम् तस्य उपमादयः त्रयोऽर्थभागाः।p. 404.
Lakṣaṇa is Kāvya itself while Alaṅkāra is extraneous ornament, Pṛthaksiddha, Vastvantara.
एवमर्थस्यापि यद्रसाभिव्यक्तिहेतुत्वं सोऽर्थगुणः। यस्तु वस्त्वन्तरं वदनस्येव चन्द्रः, सोऽलंकारः। यस्तु त्रिविधोऽप्यभिधाव्यापारः स लक्षणानां विषयः।p. 382.
Thus Abhinavagupta adopts the first view, the third view and the seventh view, in generally stating his conception of Lakṣaṇa. In interpreting particular Lakṣaṇas and their definitions given by Bharata, Abhinava adopts the other views related to these views. Thus in explaining the first Lakṣaṇa called Bhūṣaṇa or Vibhūṣaṇa he adopts the sixth view. Bharata defines Bhūsana thus—
अलंकारैर्गुणैश्चैव बहुभिः समलंकृतम्।
भूषणैरिव विन्यस्तैस्तद्भूषणमिति स्मृतम्॥
Abhinava says here that Bhūṣaṇa is the proper use of Alaṅkāras and Guṇas in accordance with the Rasa, with an eye to रसौचित्य. In pointing out what this Rasa-aucitya is and how Alaṅkāras should be introduced in accordance with ait, he quotes Ānandavardhana’s Kārikās in the Dhvanyāloka,
II Uddyota, on Alankāra-samīkṣā— विवक्षा तत्परत्वेन नाङ्गित्वेन कदाचनetc. and refers to his own Locana thereon.
Then Abhinava adopts the seventh view often in dealing with the definitions of particular Lakṣaṇas and in suitably illustrating them. The illustrative verses he cites for a Lakṣaṇa happen to exhibit an Alaṅkāra also. Abhinava notes that fact and says that the beauty of the verse is due, not to the Alaṅkāra but only to the Lakṣaṇa. He shows how there is no “गतार्थता” by Alaṅkāras. Commenting on his illustration for the second Lakṣaṇa called अक्षरसङ्घात, he says—
अत्र अर्थस्य अलंकारघटनाप्रयासमन्द(न्त)रेणैव सुन्दरत्वं लक्षणकृतमेव।
P. 386.
This non-alaṅkāric beauty in this case is due to the Lakṣaṇa, Akṣara saṅghāta, which Abhinava takes as Padaaucitya. the suggestive appropriateness of Padas, Nāmapadas and Sambodhana padas. Having said this, Abhinava finds himself hard put to distinguish this Lakṣaṇa of the Sābhiprayatva of Padas from what Bharata has given as the Guṇa called Ojas; he then advances the explanation that behind Guṇas like Ojas, there is a Kavi-vyāpāra responsible for the beauty meant by those Guṇas and it is that Vyāpāra which is Lakṣaṇa; and that instances of Lakṣaṇas cannot be had without being mixed up with Alaṅkāras and Guṇas.
एतेषां च लक्षणानां सङ्कीर्णत्वेन लक्ष्यं दृश्यते। p. 386.
The natural grace of a verse even in the absence of Alaṅkāra as in the verses of Amaruka is due to Lakṣaṇa. This is the view he often adopts. He illustrates the third Lakṣaṇa called शोभा by the verse in the Śākuntala - ‘मेदश्छेदकृशोदरं लघुभवत्युत्थानयोग्यं वपुः’ etc. and makes the comment that there
is no Alaṅkāra in the verse but yet there is beauty in it and that it is due to the Lakṣaṇa called Śobhā.
न चात्र अलंकारः कश्चिदिति कविव्यापारेण (व्यापारः) यः शब्दार्थव्यापारादेव अर्थघटनात्मा, तत्कृतं हृद्यं लक्षणार्थमेव (?)। अशोभनोऽप्यमुना नयन शोभत इति शोभेयमुक्ता।
P. 387.
That the very Abhidhāvyāpāra of the poet is Lakṣaṇa is clinched by Abhinava in his exposition of the fourth Lakṣaṇa called Abhimāna, by reading that Lakṣaṇa in the end as Abhidhāna.
अथाभिमानः . . . . . . . . .कविना अलङ्कार (?) उपमानोपमेयभावस्यकथञ्चिदप्यस्वीकारात् केवलं वक्तुरभिमतं लक्षणम्¹। इति अभिधानाख्यं
p. 387.
He adopts the eighth view, which is his own teacher’s, in his exposition of the Lakṣaṇa calledगुणानुवाद and in other places. Explaining the Lakṣaṇa calledगुणकीर्तनin his illustration which involves Śleṣa Alaṅkāra, he says—
अत एव तत् ( ? ) श्लेषोऽत्र प्रधानम् **. . . . . .**गुणकीर्तनं नाम लक्षणं उपमाश्लेषानुग्राहित्वे (न) स्थिति (तम्)।लक्षणानि हि अलंकाराद(न)पि चित्रयन्ति। तदेव अग(ग्र) एव वक्ष्यामः
p. 388.
Here he adopts the eighth view only slightly.He says that the Lakṣaṇa called Guṇakīrtana helps Upamā and Śleṣa and that Lakṣaṇas beautify even Alaṅkāras. He clearly adopts this eighth view that the further elaboration of
_________________________________
1. Regarding the verse defining this Lakṣaṇa, Abhinava notes both the variantŚ Dhāryamāņa’ and ‘Vāryamāna.’
manifold Alaṅkāras is the result of their interaction with the Lakṣaṇas, in a further passage under the ninth Lakṣaṇa, Guṇānuvāda.
अथ गुणानुबादः।**…**यथा पालिता द्यौरिवेन्द्रेण त्वया राजन् वसुन्धरा।
ननु उपमेयमलंकारः ? कि . . . तत (किं ततः ?) उक्तं ह्यलंकाराणां वैचित्र्यं लक्षणकृतमेव। एत एव शिक्षितैरपि दण्डिप्रभृतिभिः ये निरूपिताः उपमाभेदाः, तत्र यो भेदकोंऽशःआचिख्यासासंश्र(श)यनिर्णयादिरर्थःस तादृक् पृथगलंकारतया गणितः। गणनेऽपि वा संसृष्टिसंकरापत्तिः। अर्थमात्रं तदिति चेत् तर्हि तदेव लक्षणम्। यथा हि राजतामविभज्य विचार्यमाणः इत्थमवतिष्ठते— मुकुटाद्यलंकारः शौर्यादिगुणव्यूढोरस्कत्वादिलक्षणसमुदायः। राजा अलंकार्यश्च गुणवांश्च लक्षणीयश्च।तथा काव्यमपि। तेन गुणालंकारातिरिक्ताः सर्वे लक्षणमिति मन्तव्यम्।
p. 390-1.
Whatever beauty in a Kāvya is not due to either Guṇa or Alaṅkāra is due to Lakṣaṇa. If so, will it not be that all Kāvya is Lakṣaṇa ? Yes, says Abhinavagupta,
नन्वेवं सर्वत्र लक्षणयोगः ? क आक्षेपार्थः ? प्रियमेव ह्यस्माकमदः।
p. 391,
Thus in this passage Abhinava combines his teacher’s view, i.e. the eighth with the seventh, reconciles both by making them as parts of a bigger and more comprehensive view of his. Abhinava opines that Lakṣaṇa is sometimes natural grace and sometimes it adds beauty to Alańkāra also. Thus he considers it to be more important than Alaṅkāra.
अत एव पूर्वं ‘काव्यबन्धास्तु कर्तव्याः षट्त्रिंशल्लक्षणान्विताः’ इति लक्षणान्येव हि प्रधानम्, तत्प्रसंगेन ग्रहा ( गुणा )लंकार(रा) इति। तात्पर्यविशेषलक्षण(लक्षणविशेषतात्पर्य)व्याख्याने चैतत् स्फुटयिष्यामः।
p. 382-3.
In the explanation of the sixth Lakṣaṇa, Protsāhana, Abhinava again adopts his teacher’s view and points out how this Lakṣaṇa adds Vaicitrya to Aupamya and Aprastutapras’amsā. Under the tenth, Atis’aya, he says that it is this Atisaya Lakṣaṇa that makes the Atis’ayokti Alaṅkāra. The Kavivyāpāra view recurs under Kṣamā, the twenty-eighth ; as the very — Kāvya śarīra’, the same view recurs under Anuvṛtti, the thirty-first and Yukti, the thirty-third.
Thus Lakṣaṇas are important because they are elaborately enumerated at first, they are the very Kāvyasarīra,¹ or the Kavivyāpāra or Abhidhāof the poet, they are elements of natural beauty even in the absence of Alaṅkāras, they are the factors that multiply the three Alaṅkāras into many, and they beautify sometimes even Alaṅkāras. Through the first Lakṣaṇa Abhinava forces the idea that
______________________________
1. It is this idea of Lakṣaṇa as the Kavyaśarira itself that Abhinava holds at the end of his commentary on the previous chapter, while commenting on the text, ‘काव्यबन्धास्तु कर्तव्याः षट्त्रिंशल्लक्षणान्विताः ‘, which introduces the topic of Lakṣaṇa in the next chapter. Abhinava here works out a metaphor with a beautiful house, the metre being the ground, Lakṣaṇa, the building of the bouse itself, Alaṅkāras and Gunas, the paintings etc.
यथा प्रासादकोट्यादिके (?) कर्तव्ये प्रथमं भूमिः, तद्वत् काव्ये निर्मातव्ये भूमिकल्पः छन्दोविधिः, क्षेत्रपरिग्रहवृत्तसमाश्रयमित्यादिविरचनस्थानीयं लक्षणयोजनम्, चित्रकर्मप्रतिममलंकारगुणनिवेशनम्, … एवंभूतवाचिकाभिनयस्वरूपं चतुर्दशादिभिः षड्भिरध्यायैरुच्यते।’ p. 377.
Lakṣaṇa is also a principle of औचित्यand under the last, he speaks of Aucitya as the purpose of Lakṣaṇa. परमौचित्यख्यापनं प्रयोजनम्।p. 403. If Lakṣaṇa should be so elastic or so comprehensive, we would have not 36 of them only, but an infinite number of them. Quite so replies Abhinavagupta. The Lakṣaṇas are अलंकार- अनुप्राहक and in their combinations with each Alaṅkāra, they produce many varieties. In combining among themselves also they breed numberless varieties. Thus infinite are the varieties of beautiful expression in kāvya. Abhinava says under the thirty-first, Anuvṛtti :
अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसात्वेऽपि हि यदप्रस्तुतस्य शरीरवैचित्र्यं तल्लक्षणकृतमेव। लक्षणं हि शरीरमित्युक्तम्। . . . . . . . . . . .
** **ततोनो(तेनो) पमानशरीरस्य उपमेयशरीरस्य वा वैचित्र्य(यं) लक्षणानामेव व्यापारं(रः) इत्येवमुपमा रूपकदीपकानां त्रयाणामलंकारत्वेन वक्ष्यमाणानां प्रत्येकं षट्त्रिंशल्लक्षणयोगात लक्षणानामपि च एकद्वित्र्याद्यवान्तरविभागभेदादान(न्त्यं) केन गणयितुं शक्यम्, इदानीं शतसहस्राणि वैचित्र्याणां सहृदयैरुत्प्रेक्ष्यन्ताम्।
P. 401.
In this passage Abhinava gives a new and clever idea. An Upamā is an Alaṅkāra. It is expressed and has its Śarira. That Śarira itself has to beautiful. The beauty of the very expression of Simile or other Alaṅkāras is Lakṣaṇa. In his Dhvanyaloka locana, Abhinava has pointed out that Alaṅkāras have to be beautiful and that expressions like ‘गौरिव गवयः’ do not become Alaṅkāra because of the absence of a basic beauty which is necessary. This basic beauty he ascribes to Lakṣaṇa in the Abhinava Bhāratī in his exposition of the Upamā Alaṅkāra.
काव्यबन्धेषु काव्यलक्षणेषु^(1)सत्स्विति अनेन गौरिव गवय इति नायमलङ्कार इति दर्शितम्।p. 405.
IX
Daṇḍin, as he was going, cast a remark on Lakṣaṇa. For him the whole Kāvyaprapañca is Alankāra-Brahman. Naturally he considered Lakṣaṇa to be Alankāra. When he considered even the Sandhyaṅgas and the Aṅgas of the four Vṛttis, Kaiśikietc. as Alaṅkāras, it is no wonder that he considered so this concept, Lakṣaṇa, which has so much in common with Alaṅkāra. He says—
यच्च सन्ध्यङ्गवृत्त्यङ्गलक्षणाद्यागमान्तरे।
व्यावर्णितमिदं चेष्टम् अलंकारतयैव नः॥II, 366.
The Lakṣaṇa referred to in this verse is Bharata’s Lakṣaṇa. Taruṇavācaspati says— लक्षणम् विभूषणम् अक्षरसंहतिश्च। आगमान्तरे भरते। Alaṅkāra in Daṇḍin is a wide berth which can conveniently accommodate these and many more.
The Daśarūpaka mentions the Lakṣaṇas at the end and does not treat of them since it includes them in Alaṅkāras and Bhāvas. This attitude is very logical, since many of the Lakṣaṇas are either Alankāras or Bhävas. The text says—
षट्त्रिंशद्भूपणादीनि सामादीन्यकविंशतिः।
लक्ष्य(क्ष्म)सन्ध्यन्तराख्यानि सालंकारेषु तेषु च॥
हर्षोत्साहेषु अन्तर्भावान्न कीर्तिता इति पूर्वश्लोकादध्याहारः।
_____________________________
1. The text of Bharata here is यत् किञ्चित्काब्यबन्धेषु सादृश्येनोपमीयते and ‘Bandha’ here meaning merely ‘composition’ can hardly bear the interpretation Abhinava puts on it.
The Avaloka adds—
‘विभूषणं चाक्षरसंहतिश्च शोभाभिमानौ गुणकीर्तनं च।’ इत्येवमादीनि षट्त्रिंशत् काव्यलक्षणानि ‘साम भेदःप्रदानं च’ इत्येवमादीनि सन्ध्यन्तराण्येकविंशतिः उपमादिषु अलंकारेषु हर्षोत्साहादिषु चअन्तर्भावात् न पृथगुक्तानि।
Bhoja, in his Śṛṅgāraprakāśa (Vol. II, Chapter 12, p. 450, Mad. MS.), while dealing with the technique of the drama, says first that the drama shall have 64 Lakṣaṇas.
लक्षणैश्च चतुष्षप्ट्या युक्तं कुर्वीत नाटकम्।
He comes to the topic, Lakṣaṇa, on p. 524, first enumerates 64 of them, then defines and illustrates each. Bhoja is given to elaboration and he takes up some of the Anuṣṭubh list of 36, some of the Upajāti list of 36, adds a few which are his own and thus makes a good number of 64. Certain numbers have a destiny and in Bhoja’s bulky writings, in his classifications, such numbers appear often. This chapter is called ‘प्रबन्धाङ्गचतिष्षष्टिचतुष्टयी’dealing with 4 sets of 64 Angas of the Prabandhas. Thus it is out of an artistic sense of uniformity that Bhoja made Lakşanas also 64. For Bhoja’s list, see table at the end.
Bhoja is acquainted with both the lists of Bharata. His definitions are mostly reproductions from Bharata with slight variations. From the name of the chapter we are to take that Bhoja considers Laksana as a प्रबन्धाङ्ग like सन्ध्यङ्ग, with which it is clubbed together and described. He generally says that they are for beautifying the work. At the end of his treatment of the Lakṣaṇas he says of them—
एतानि काव्यस्य विभूषणानि प्रायश्चतुष्पष्टिरुदाहृतानि।
प्रबन्धशोभाकरणाय तज्ज्ञैःसम्यक् प्रयोज्यानि यथारसानि॥
Bhoja takes Lakṣaṇas as features of dramas only. He tries to give us some distinction between the Lakṣaṇas and the Sandhyangas. After illustrating the first Lakṣaṇa called Bhūṣaņa, which is speech full of Alankāras and Guṇas, he says—
अत्र श्लेषोपमाप्रत्यक्षादिभिरलंकारैः श्लेषप्रसादसौकुमार्यादिभिश्च गुणैरुपेतता द्रष्टव्या। एवं वक्ष्यमाणेष्वपि गुणालंकारा यथासंभवमूहनीयाः। … कारैश्च नियमो नारभ्यन्ते ?।सन्ध्यङ्गेषु तु गुणालंकारयोगो नो(ना)पेक्ष्यत इति।
The text is incomplete and corrupt. Bhoja means to say that just as the first Lakṣaṇa involves Gunas and Alaṅkāras, so also the others and it is this that differentiates Lakṣaṇas from Sandhyaṅgas which do not involve Guṇa or Alaṅkāra. This explanation is clever and shows us how many Lakṣaṇas look like Alaṅkāra but is not wholly sanctioned by Bharata, who described Bhūṣaṇa alone as being ‘profuse with Guṇas and Alaṅkāras’ and never meant the extension of its nature to
the other Lakṣaṇas also. No doubt, some Lakṣanas definitely mention and involve a few Alaṅkāras.
Śaradātanaya, in his Bhāvaprakāśa, deals with Lakṣaṇas in Chapter 8. In the Nātya Śāstra we see the Lakṣaṇadescribed as Bhūṣana. ‘प्रोक्तानि वै भूषणसंमितानि’ ‘एतानि वा काव्यविभूषणानि।’ So some writers have called the LakṣaṇasBhūṣana also. There is propriety in this name from the point of view of function, since all the writers say that Lakṣaṇas adorn the Kavya. S’aradātanaya calls them Bhūṣaṇas and gives.
them as one of the items in the technique of Nāṭaka. He says— ‘षट्त्रिंशद् भूषणाणि च’ : ‘36 Lakṣaṇas also’. But while enumerating and defining he gives 54. At the end again he mentions their total number as 64 and calls the Lakṣaṇa here नाट्यालंकार ‘चतुष्षष्टिरलंकाराः कथिता नाटकाश्रयाः’ p. 224. Gaek. edn. Thus, as in other places, the text of Śāradātanaya causes great confusion. Śāradātanaya’s list contains Lakṣaṇas from both the lists. A few of them are new. 26 are from the Upajāti list and 14 are from the Anuṣṭubh list. The remaining 14 in the total of 54, are new. They are—
नयः, स्पृहा, अभिज्ञानम्, उद्देशः, नीतिः, अर्थविशेषणम्, निवेदनम्, परिवादः, उद्यमः, परिहारः, आश्रयः, उक्तिः, देशःand प्रहर्षः।
Two of these, and fare found in Bhoja’s list. Naya may be Bharata’s Anunaya and Parivāda may be Bharata’s Parivedana or Paridevana. Śaradātanaya’s definitions of the Lakṣaṇas are most of them brief adaptations of Bharata’s definitions.
Jayadeva’s Candrāloka is the only work on poetics which treats of Lakṣaṇas along with such topics as Guṇa and Alaṅkāra. It is curious how Lakṣaṇa found its way into this work of later times, not dealing with dramaturgy. Jayadeva is aware of the topic of Lakṣaṇa but is not sure of its nature or place in Kāvya. Even among the Lakṣaṇas, he gives with definitions and illustrations, only a few. Mayūkha3 of the Candrāloka gives the following Lakṣaṇas :—
अक्षरसंहतिः, शोभा, अभिमानः, हेतुः, प्रतिषेधः, निरुक्तम्, मिथ्याध्यवसायः, सिद्धिः, युक्तिःand कार्यम्— all of the Upajāti list. It is remarkable how Jayadeva missed the very first Lakṣaṇa called Bhūṣaṇa and the no. 36 also and gives only 10. Jayadeva’s definitions of these are concise and more definite
than those in Bharata and when we read these together with their illustrations, we cannot miss the fact that it is not very far from Lakṣaṇa to Alaṅkāra. In the last verse he briefly indicates the nature of Lakṣaṇa and says that Lakṣaṇas like the above given ten, are many.
इत्यादिलक्षणं भूरि काव्यस्याहुर्महर्षयः।
स्वर्णभ्राजिष्णुभास्तुत्व(भालत्व)प्रभृतीव महीभुजः॥
Just as Mahāpuruṣas like kings have the Lakṣaṇas, a goldbright forehead etc., Kāvyas have their Lakṣaṇas. Vaidyanātha Payaguṇḍa, in his commentary on the Candrāloka, says in an earlier context, that the Lakṣaṇas are Kāvya Jñāpaka, an attempt at explanation which does not carry him or us far.
Again, if we go through the 5th Mayükha and its list of Alaṅkāras, numbering hundred, we find there, besides दृष्टान्त, निदर्शना, संशय and other names, associated in Bharata with Lakṣaṇas, which must have very early passed into the fold of Alaṅkāra, some of the above given ten themselves are counted as Alaṅkāras.Thus we have मिथ्याध्यवसितिः, युक्तिः, निरुक्तिः, प्रतिषेधः and हेतुःAmong these, the illustration for मिथ्याध्यवसिति alaṅkāra in the Kuvalayānanda is an adaptation of that given for the Lakşana of the same name. The same illustration— ‘ईदृशैश्चरितैर्जाने सत्यं दोषाकरो भवान्’ is given for both निरुक्तिलक्षण and निरुक्त्यलंकार.
Śingabhūpāla also calls the Lakṣaṇa, Bhūṣaṇa. (R.A.S. chap. III, pp. 247-264. Triv, ed.) He considers them as beautifying elements of the plot of the drama.
शरीरं यस्त्वलंकुर्यात् षट्त्रिंशदूषणैः स्फुटम्।
He completely follows the Anuṣṭubh list with this minor difference that he reads लेश as लेख and gives the synonym मधुरभाषण for Bharata’s प्रियं वचनम् Śingabhūpāla takes Bharata’s own definitions and compresses them in half verses. In some cases, as for instance in the definition of प्राप्ति, he is more definite than Bharata, by restricting a comprehensive idea to a particular case. His definitions of निदर्शनम्, विशेषणम्, पदोच्चयः, तुल्यतर्कः तद्विपर्ययः, अतिशयः, गुणकीर्तनम् and माला are reproductions of Bharata’s verses.
Viśvanātha, in chapter six of his Śāhitya darpana, treats of Lakṣaṇa. He gives the 36 of the Anuṣṭubh list with this difference that he gives Sańkṣepa newly in the place of Kṣobha. Some of his definitions of these are succinct adaptations of Bharata’s, while some are reproductions of those of Bharata. He points out their existence in dramas with illustrations. He realises the logic of the attitude of the Dasarūpaka but is more loyal to Bharata, for the sake of whose words he takes that there should be 36 Lakṣaṇas in dramas. He says in the end—
एषु केषांचित् गुणालंकारवसन्ध्यङ्गविशेषान्तर्भावेऽपि नाटके प्रयत्नतः कार्यत्वात् विशेषोक्तिः।
Besides these 36 Laksaṇas, Visvanātha has another set of similar items which he calls Nāṭyālańkāra. They are 33 in number. When we go through this list we find that most of them are the Lakṣaṇas themselves of the Upajāti list. Thus we find here व्याशीः, आक्रन्दः, कपटः, क्षमा, पश्चात्तापः, उपपत्तिः, प्रोत्साहनम्, अभिमानः, अनुवर्तनम्, याच्ञा, आख्यानम् and युक्ति, 12 from the Upajāti list of Laksaṇas. While dealing with Lakṣaṇasin that same name he used the Anuṣṭubh list with a small difference. He left outक्षोभand had in its placeसंक्षेप,
The Kṣobha left out there has entered this list of 33 Nāṭyālaṅkāras. The remaining 20 of this list are not available anywhere in the Nātya Śastra. Among those Lakṣaṇas of the Upajāti list which are not common to the Anuşṭubh list also, there are yet गुणानुवादः, मिथ्याध्यवसायः, प्रतिषेधः, निर्भासनम्, कार्यम्, अनुनीतिःand परिदेवनम्, seven, which are not taken at all. The first writer who is now known to have introduced new Lakṣaṇas is Bhoja. In his list of 64 which contains all the 36 of the Anuṣṭubh list and a few of the Upajāti list, he introduced 12 new Lakşanas, स्पृहा, परिवादनम्, मृषोद्यमः, छलोक्तिः, काकुः, उन्मादः, परिहासः, विकत्थनम्, यदृच्छायोगः, वैषम्यम्, प्रतिज्ञानम् and प्रवृत्तिः. Of these 12, स्पृहा and परिवाद : are the only two found in Śāradātanaya’s list of 54. It is quite likely the text is not complete and Śāradātanaya who numbers Lakṣaņas in the end as 64, took more of the above 12 of Bhoja. Viśvanātha follows Śaradatanaya and takes the following of Sāradātanaya’s new Laksanas, उद्यमः, आश्रयः, स्पृहा, परिवादः, नीतिः, अर्थविशेषणम्, परिहारःनिवेदनम् and प्रहर्ष, numbering 9. The remaining eleven in the 20 are new, found only in Viśvanātha. They are गर्वः, उत्प्रासनम् आशंसा, अध्यवसायः, विसर्पः, उल्लेखः, उत्तेजनम्, साहाय्यम्, उत्कीर्तनम्, प्रवर्तनम् and उपदेशनम्. It is likely that some of these are really Śāradatanaya’s, ten of whose 64 are now missing in the text1.Of these अध्यवसाय is said to be प्रतिज्ञानम् by ViŚvanātha. If so, it is not different from Bhoja’s प्रतिज्ञानम्. उत्प्रासन which is explained as उपहास is the same as Bhoja’s परिहास. उत्कीर्तन is unnecessary reduplication for it is described just as the other Nāṭyālankāra called आख्यान, which is a Lakṣaṇa in Bharata’s Upajāti list. There does not seem to be any.
distinction between उत्तेजनम् and प्रोत्साहनम्. प्रवर्तन is nothing but Bhoja’s प्रवृत्तिः. उपदेशन need not be a separate Nātyālańkāra, since he has already given a Lakṣaṇa called उपदिष्टम् .
Why is it that Visvanātha made two separate topics as Lakṣaṇas and Naṭyālaṅkāra and how? The materials for him are the 2 sets of Lakṣaṇas in Bharata and those in Bhoja and Śaradātanaya. Viśvanātha took the Anuṣṭubh list to represent Lakṣaṇas and made out a 33 from the Lakṣaṇas of the Upajāti list and of Śāradātanaya’s list and called the latter Nāṭyālaṅkāra. Viśvanātha perhaps wanted to stick to the number ‘36’ given in Bharata. Śāradātanaya says at the end
of his treatment of Lakṣanas—
चतुप्षष्टिरलंकाराः कथिता नाटकाश्रयाः।
This use of the words ‘Alaṅkāras of Nāṭaka’ gave a convenient title under which, with a claim to be more neat and to have introduced a new item, Viśvanātha could put all the other Lakṣaṇas.¹ Jagaddhara who takes this name applies it to Lakṣaṇas themselves which will agree with what Śāradātanaya has actually said. Further Viśvanātha seems to have thought that he could easily interpret the word Alaṅkāra in the following verses of Bharata which he quotes here, as Nāṭyālankāra, whereas, it refers only to figures of speech.
______________________________
1. Mātṛagupta seems to be the first to speak of the Nāṭyālaṅkāra. We see it mentioned in his definition of Nāṭaka, as also the Laksaṇa under the name Vibhūṣaṇa, as quoted by Rāghavabhaṭṭa in his commentary on the Śākuntala.
**प्रकृत्यवस्थासन्ध्यङ्गसन्ध्यन्तरविभूषणौः।
नाव्यालंकरणौर्नानाभाषायुक्पात्रमञ्चयैः।
नाटकं नाम तज्ज्ञेयं रूपकं नाट्यवेदिभिः॥**Kale’s ed., pp. 5 and 6.
षट्त्रिंशल्लक्षणोपेतमलङ्कारोपशोभितम्।
. . . . . . . . . . . .
मृदुशब्दाभिधानं च कविः कुर्यात्तु नाटकम्॥
Viśvanātha realises also that Nāṭyālaṅkāra is not much different from Lakṣaṇa and that both again, to speak boldly, are unnecessary, since they turn out to be either Bhāvas, Alaṅkāras or Sandhyaṅgas.
एषां च लक्षणं(ण)नाट्यालङ्काराणां सामान्यत एकरूपत्वेऽपि भेदेन व्यपदेशःगड्डलिकाप्रवाहेण। एषु च केषांचित् गुणालङ्कारभावसन्ध्यङ्गविशेषान्तर्भावेऽपि नाटके प्रयत्नतः कर्तव्यत्वाद् विशेषोक्तिः।
Talking of the function of Nāṭyālaṅkāra he says— ‘नाट्यभूषणहेतवः’, which vague description is further argument for what we have said just above.
Taking Lakṣaṇa as a feature of drama only is a view narrower than the one attached to that word. Bhoja,Śāradātanaya, Śingabhūpāla and Viśvanātha have narrowed it further by mentioning them only in Nāṭaka, the first and best form of drama. Rāghavabhaṭṭa in his commentary on the Śākuntala criticises Dhanika for the inclusion of the 36 Lakṣaṇas in Alankāras and Bhāvas. He quotes the authority of the Abhinava bhāratī for proving the difference of Lakṣaṇa from these and promises to indicate the Lakṣaṇas in the Śakuntala in the course of his commentary. The list of 36 Lakṣaṇas is quoted by him from Mātṛgupta. This long passage and discussion on Lakṣaṇa is found only in the Nirnaya Sāgar edition of Rāghava Bhaṭṭa’s commentary and of the Śakuntala. The edition of Mr. Kale, without any discussion at all, points out the first Lakṣaṇa called ‘Bhūṣaṇa’
as being present in the portion up to the verse of Act I ‘यदालाके सूक्ष्मं’ etc. Rāghava Bhaṭṭa is not so enthusiastic over Lakṣaṇa as he goes further, for he points out only nine of them in Act I, none in Act II, only two in Act III, none in Acts IV and V, only one in Act VI and only two in the last Act. These are the Lakṣaṇas he points out— भूषणम्, अभिप्रायः, प्रसिद्धिः, निरुक्तम्, पदोच्चयः, उदाहरणम्, अनुक्तसिद्धिः, निदर्शनम्, दृष्टम्, माला, मनोरथः, हेतुः, अक्षरसङ्घातःand अनुनयः, numbering fourteen, all belonging to the Anuṣṭubh list. The definitions he gives for some of these are from S’ingabhūpāla. These Lakṣaṇas he points out just in those places which S’ingabhūpāla himself has given as illustrations.
Jagaddhara in his ṭīkāon the Mālatīmādhava indicates four Lakṣaṇas in Act III and two in Act IV. He gives their definitions which resemble but are not exactly those in Bharata. These six are पृच्छा, पश्चात्तापः, आख्यानम्,निदर्शनम्, माला and प्रसिद्धिः.These are from both the Anuṣṭubh and the Upajāti lists. He calls them Nāṭyālańkāra.
Rucipati, in his commentary on the Anargharāghava, points out two Lakṣaṇas in Act IV, calling them by the name Nāṭyālaṅkāra. These two are अभिमानand छलोक्ति (p. 157 and p. 182, Nir. edn.). He also quotes definitions for these two under the name Bharata, but the definitions are not from Bharata. The second,छलोक्ति is no Lakṣaṇa in Bharata. Bhoja is the first to give it. Thus Rucipati follows some unknown writer who followed Bhoja but substituted the name Nāṭyālankāra for Lakṣaṇa.
Rājānaka Ratnākara, in his insatiable love for Ślesa, introduces the Nāṭyaśāstra very often in his Haravijaya. In the penultimate verse (57) of canto XXI he describes a Nāṭaka, through where he mentions Lakṣaṅa.
इति रसपोषयुक्तिमदनुज्झितवृत्तिगुणव्यपाश्रयं
प्रथितशुभाङ्गलक्षणम् अपूर्वकृतिप्रवणात्मतां दधत्।
कविरिव नाटकम्॥K. M. edn., p 286.
Rājānaka Alaka says in his commentary here—
अङ्गानि सन्धीनामवयवाः, ‘उपक्षेपः परिकरः … परिभावना’ इत्यादयः[\।] चतुष्पष्टि (:) लक्ष्याणि (\।) (लक्षणानि) ‘विभूषणं चाक्षरसंहतिश्च… गुणाभिमानोऽतिशयःसहेतुः’ इत्यादीनि षट्त्रिंशत् काव्यव्यवस्थास्थापकानि।
Ratnākara refers to Lakṣaṇas as a feature of the Nāṭaka. Alaka follows the Upajāti list. We cannot get much out of his vague explanation of the nature of Lakṣanas as काव्यव्यवस्थास्थापक; but we see that he followed Bharata and held them as features of Kāvya and not of Nāṭaka only.
Bahurūpamısra, commentator on the Daśarūpaka, a writer later than S’āradātanaya, speaks of Lakṣaṇa twice:
(a) Commenting on Daśarūpaka III, 32-33:
रसं वा न तिरोदध्याद् बस्त्वलङ्कारलक्षणैः।
Dhanika says: लक्षणैःभूषणादिभिः।
Dhanika takes Alankāra in the text as Upamã etc. But Bahurūpa takes Alaṅkāra also as Nāṭakalankāra, Atis"aya etc., and Lakṣaṇa as the concept of the same name.
उपमादयोऽलङ्काराः।अतिशयादयो नाटकालङ्काराः। शोभोदाहरणसंशयदृष्टान्तक्षमागुणानुवादान-न्दकपटादीनि लक्षणानीति।
P. 35, MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library.
(b) At the end, the Daśarūpaka says षट्त्रिंशद्भूषणादीनि etc. Here Bahurūpa gives the Lakṣaṇas, Bhūsana etc and
says that, sımilar to the Laksaṇas, there are also others called Nātyālaṅkāras.
Thus Bahurūpa has two sets, one called Nāṭakālaṅkāra and the other Lakṣaṇa. The MS. gives a list of Nāṭakālankāras and Lakṣaṇas and there are gaps in the MS.
(नाटका)लङ्कारानाहुः— अतिशयः, नयः, दाक्षिण्यम्, अभिन .. उपदिष्टम् माला, सम्भ्रमः, अर्थापत्तिः, …विशेषणम् गुणातिपातः, विचारः, … आशीः, अभिमानः, कपटः,याञ्चानिदर्शनम्, अभिज्ञानम् … (भूषणम्), अक्षरसङ्घातः, शोभा, उदाहरणम्, क्षोभः, अर्थविशेषणम्, प्रोत्साहनम्, गुणकीर्तनम्, कीर्तिः, आख्यानम्, निवेदनीयम्, परिवारः, उपपत्तिः, गुणानुवादः, परिहार, उद्यमः, कार्यम्, अनुक्तसिद्धिः, आश्र(श)यः, युक्तिः, लेशः, अनुवृत्तिः, क्षमा, प्रहर्ष, प्रियवचनम् इति (लक्षणानि)
The text unfortunately stops with ‘Iti.’ Bahurūpa’s position regarding Lakṣaṇa is similar to that of Viśvanātha and it is most likely that Śāradātanaya’s fuller text is the basis for Bahurūpa whose two lists contain Lakṣaṇas of both the lists in Bharata and those found newly in S’āradātanaya. See also my article on Bahurūpamis’ra’s Daśarūpavyākhyā, J. O. R., VIII, pp. 333-4.
There is evidence to show that the Saṅgītarāja of king Kumbhakarṇa dealt with the Lakṣaṇas. In his comments on sl. 12 of the last canto of the Gītagovinda, Kumbha says in his Rasikapriyā :
गुणकीर्तनं नाम नाट्यालङ्कारः। तल्लक्षणं सङ्गीतराजे—
बहूनां गुणिनां यत्र नामार्थजनितैर्गुणैः।
एकोऽपदिश्यते यत्तुकीर्तितं गुणकीर्तनम्॥
Gunakīrtana is a Lakṣana of the Upajāti list in Bharata. Kumbha’s definition of it follows Bharata’s. It is not known how many Lakṣaṇas Kumbha recognised and whether he took also those of the Anuṣṭubh list. See Annals B.OR. I., Vol. XIV, Pts. 3.4, my Note on the Saṅgītarāja— (pp. 261-262).
Sāhityasāra of Sarveśvara, a work (Madras MS.) in 631 Anuṣtubhs treats of the Lakṣaṇas in Ch. III ( p. 28 ). It gives in Åryā verses the 36 Lakṣaṇas of Bharata’s Upajāti list :
भूषणमक्षरसङ्घः शोभा गुणकीर्तनं निरुक्तं च। 5
अभिमानोदाहरणे गुणानुवादः प्रियं हेतुः॥ 5
प्रोत्साहनसारूप्ये मिथ्याव्यवसायसिद्धिदृष्टान्ताः। 5
आशीःसंशयकपटौ क्षमानुवृत्तौ तथोच्चयाक्रन्दौ॥ 7
परिदेवनोपवृत्ती याच्ञाप्राप्तिर्मनोरथो युक्तिः। 6
अतिशयपृच्छाख्यानप्रतिषेधाः सानुनीतिनिर्भासाः॥ 6
कार्यः पश्चात्तापः षट्त्रिंशल्लक्षणावधिः(लिः) सेयम्। 2=36
नाट्ये भावार्थगता सालङ्कारा बुधैः प्रयोक्तव्या॥
Each is defined in a half-verse. The definitions are note-worthy, being original though untrue in some cases. Bhūṣaṇa for instance is defined as an Alamkāra-dominated expression.
अलङ्कृतिरलङ्गारैरभिधेयस्य भूषणम्।
Akṣarasaṅghāta is defined as Vāmana’s Arthaguṇa called Ojas, the Prauḍhi of the variety called ‘condensed expression’— वाक्यार्थे च पदाभिधा।
The Sāhitya mīmāmsā(TSS. 114) says that some speak of 36 Lakṣaṇas in a Kāvya, similar to the Sāmudrika Lakṣaṇas in a man, but these are included in the other already accepted concepts. The work here gives the Upajāti
list and reproduces Bharata’s definitions of the first three Lakṣaṇas. (pp. 117.8.)
Acyutarāya, a modern writer, considers Lakṣaṇa as one of the six Guṇas of Kāvya in his Sāhitya Sāra. Acyutarāya has a new conception of Guṇa, which is like the Alaṅkāra of Bhoja. Under it come Rasas, Vṛttis, Ṛītis and Lakṣaṇas.
धर्मा रसा लक्षणानि रीत्यलङ्कृतिवृत्तयः।Ś1, 10, Ch. I, p. 8.
रसिकाह्लादका ह्येतेकाव्ये सन्ति च षड्गुणाः॥
The Lakṣaṇas mentioned here include Bharata’s Lakṣaṇa, for the commentary says: “लक्षणानि अक्षरसंहतिशोभादीनि वक्ष्यमाणानि—I"p. 9. These are called Guṇas because they are ‘Rasikāhlādaka’,
At the end of the chapter on Guṇas (7th), the work says :
शाब्देषु तेषु गाम्भीर्यंविस्तरो रीतिरेव च।
आर्थेष्वपि तथाश्लेषः समता सुकुमारता॥
माधुर्यौदारते श्रेयः समाधिः सौक्ष्म्यमेव च।
संमितत्वं तथाक्तिश्च लक्षणानि मतानि मे॥ Śls. 207-8.
Com. लक्षणानीति। निरुक्तकाव्यगुणत्वेन प्राक्प्रतिज्ञातलक्षणानीत्यर्थः। एवं च चन्द्रालोकसारीभूतं अक्षरसंहतिः शोभा चेति द्वयं, तथा प्रतापरुद्रीयादिसारीभूतं द्राक्षापाकादित्रयं, कण्ठाभरणसारीभूतं शाव्दगुणान्तर्गतं गांभीर्यादित्रयं, आर्थगुणान्तर्गतं श्लोपादिदशकं चेति मिलित्वाअष्टादशलक्षणीयमिति सङ्क्षेपः।
This is a strange conception of Lakṣaṇa. Acyutarāya knows Lakṣaṇas only through the Candrāloka. But while the Candrāloka gives ten, Acyuta chooses only two from them. These two Lakṣaṇas, Aksara samhati and Śobhā, the three Pākas,
Gāmbhīrya, Vistara and Rīti which are three S’abdagunas of Bhoja, Śleșa, Samatā, Sukumāratā, Mādhurya, Udāratā, Preyas, Samādhi, Sauksmya, Sammitatva and Ukti which are ten Arthaguṇas of Bhoja,— these are put together into a set of 18 items and meaninglessly labelled as the 18 Lakṣaṇas. See Sāhityasāra, pp. 353-4, N.S. Edn.
X
Now, coming to Bharata’s own idea of Lakṣaṇa,— he says after treating of the metres—
काव्यबन्धास्तु कर्तव्याः षट्त्रिंशल्लक्षणान्विताः।
In the end he says ‘एतानि वा काव्यविभूषणानि’ and ‘काव्येप्रयोजनानि’.Again he says:
एभिरर्थक्रियापेक्षैः कार्यं काव्यं तु लक्षणैः।
From these we are sure that Bharata meant Lakṣaṇa as Abhinava and Tauta took it, to be a feature of Kāvya in general and not of drama only as all the above mentioned writers on dramaturgy took it. Bharata meant it to be on a par with Alaṅkāra and Guṇa as a feature of Kāvya in general.¹ The second idea that we cannot miss in Bharata is that Lakṣaṇas, though different from Alaṅkāras, are themselves also another species of beautifying factors. In this capacity theyare called ‘Vibhūṣaṇa’.
‘एतानि वा काव्यविभूषणानि।’ ‘प्रोक्तानि वै भूषणसंमितानि।’
____________________________
1. Though, while defining the Lakṣaṇas individually, Bharata occasionally uses the expression Nāṭakāśraya’. See the definitions of Prāpti alone in the Anuṣṭubh list, and of Akhyāna, Prāpti and Upapattı in the Upajāti list.
Bharata does not illustrate the 36 Lakṣaṇas, as he does the Alaṅkāras. Nor does he make any attempt to differentiate them from Alaṅkāras. He gives only three Arthālaṅkāras, Upamā, Rūpaka and Dīpaka. He indicates 5 sub-classes of Upamā. Bhaṭṭa Tauta has taken that the manifoldness of Alaṅkāra is achieved by combining Alaṅkāras withUpamā Lakṣaṇas. For instance, he says that the Upamā calledप्रशंसोपमाis got by combining the Alaṅkāra Upamā with the Lakṣaṇa called गुणानुवाद; that अतिशयोक्त्यलङ्कार is got by combining उपमा and the Lakṣaṇa called अतिशय Such ingenuity is all Tauta’s own. Bharata does not indicate this. He simply says that he has pointed out five kinds of Upamā and that the intelligent must take other varieties from Kāvya and Loka.
उपमाया बुधैरेते भेदा ज्ञेयास्समासतः।
शेषाये लक्षणैर्नोक्ताः ते ग्राह्याः काव्यलोकतः॥
Nor in his definition ofप्रशंसोपमा does Bharata indicate anything like what Tauta has said. Bharata really does not propose to himself the task of distinguishing the concept of Lakṣaṇa from Alaṅkāra. From what we see in the chapter, i.e. the 17th, in his time, the concept of Lakṣaṇa had much development, while that of Alaṅkāra was in its infancy. The fecundity of the latter that produced in course of time a breed of more than a hundred Alaṅkāras is not seen in Bharata. But many of these later Alaṅkāras have their counterpart in Laksaṇas. The Lakṣṇas had developed separately as adorning features, independently of Alaṅkāras, and in themselves they constitute a double personality. When we critically examine the 36 Lakṣaṇas, they fall into two classes. One class of them looks like Alaṅkāra, being mere turns of expression. As a matter of
fact, we have actually Lakṣaṇas with the names of some of the later Alaṅkāras themselves. For example, संशयः(सन्देहः), दृष्टान्तः, निदर्शनम्, निरुक्तम्, अतिशयः, विशेषणम्, अर्थापत्तिः and लेशः. There is also हेतु.It is another matter that the definitions of these are not exactly the same as in later Alaṅkāra works. Besides, the two Lakṣanas उदाहरणम् and सारूप्यम् involve Aupamya and Sādṛsya. Aksarasanghāta and Śobhāinvolve Ślesa. The definition of तुल्यतर्क contains the mention of रूपक and उपमा as part of that Lakṣaṅa. In their definitions, विचार andतद्विपर्ययinvolve Sandeha and Ullekha. The definition of प्राप्ति makes it the काव्यलिङ्गालङ्कार.
दृष्ट्वैवावयवान्कांश्चिद्भावो यत्रानुमीयते।
प्राप्तिं तामपि जानीयाल्लक्षणं नाटकाश्रयम्॥
The Lakṣaṇa called अभिप्राय contains सादृश्यपरिकल्पनम्2 .
** **The Lakṣaṇa calledलेशis quite different from the Alankāra of that name. Lesālaṅkāra is thus defined by Bhoja—
दोषस्य यो गुणीभावो दोषीभावो गुणस्य यः।
स लेशःस्यात्ततो नान्या व्याजस्तुतिरपीप्यते॥
The Lakṣaṇas called Guṇātipāta and Garhaṇa (Kārya in the Upajāti list) correspond to this Vyājastuti. They are thus defined :
गुणाभिधानैर्विविधैर्विपरीतार्थयोजितैः।
गुणातिपातो मधुरो निष्ठुरार्थो भवेदथ॥
यत्र संकीर्तयन् दोषं गुणमर्थेन योजयेत्।
गुणातिपाताद् दोषाद्वा गर्हणं नाम तद्भवेत्॥
The Lakṣaṇa calledलेशis said to be a clever speech suggesting through the mention of a similar thing — ‘सदृशार्थविनिष्पन्नः’. The Lakṣaṇa पदोच्चय involves the Alaṅkāra समुच्चय. The Lakṣaṇa calledदृष्टbecomesदिष्टfig in Bhoja, Śāradātanaya and Viśvanātha. As Bharata has described it, it is only स्वभावोक्यलङ्कार. The Lakṣaṇa called माला is an element which has been associated with many varieties of Alaṅkāras like मालारूपक etc. The Candrāloka actually mentions Mālā as an element helping many Alankāras.
माला परम्परा चैषां भूयसामनुकूलके। V. 121.
We can see the value of Bhaṭṭa Tauta’s suggestion insuch cases. The Lakṣaṇa calledमनोरथhas in its definition the word ‘अन्यापदेश’ and is actually the अन्यापदेश of later literature, i.e. अन्योक्ति.
हृदयार्थ(यस्थ)स्य वाक्यस्य गूढार्थस्य विभावकम्।
अन्यापदेशैः कथनं मनोरथ इति स्मृतः॥
प्रसिद्धि looks like उदात्तालङ्कार and प्रियं वचनम् is nothing but पेथोऽडलङ्कार or चाटु. Thus, Lakṣaṇas of one class are clearly Alaṅkāras or approximations to Alaṅkāras or light shades of Alankāras to be mixed with many a major Alankāra. Abhinava realises this when he describes Lakṣaṇas as उक्तिर्वेचित्र्यरूप and अलङ्कारानुग्राहक. This class of Lakṣaṇas is really a supplementary list to the three Alaṅkāras of Bharata. The seeds of many of the later Alaṅkāras are available among these
Lakṣaṇas. Leaving aside the late stage represented by the Candrāloka in which Lakṣanas like मिथ्याध्यवसाय, युक्ति and have become Alaṅkāras, we can take that, very early, some of the Lakṣaṇas passed into the fold of Alaṅkāra. Bhaṭta Tauta’s view may suggest this historical fact. We have other clear evidences on this point. आशीः, a Lakṣaṇa of the Upajāti list, is an Alaṅkāra in Bhaṭṭi and we can see it in its transition from Lakṣaṇa to Alaṅkara. Bhāmaha mentions indifferently that it is an Alaṅkāra according to some (III. 55). Similarly हेतुः, a Lakṣaṇa in both the lists of Bharata, can be seen in its stage of transition into Alaṅkara in Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin. Bhāmaha refuses to accept it as Alankāra since it is devoid of Vakrokti (II. 86). Some pre-Bhāmaha writer must have made it an Alaṅkāra. Bhāmaha points out that only definite and remarkable turns of expression must be named Alaṅkāra. But soon, since it was the palmy days of Alaṅkāras when many things entered its fold, we find Daṇḍin asserting thatहेतुis a great Alaṅkāra, उत्तमभूषण, आशीःis an Alaṅkāra, firmly established, in Daṇḍin. But poor Hetu had a chequered career3. The name Nātyalańkāra might have also helped sorne of the Lakṣaṇas to become Alaṅkaras. The evolution of Alaṅkāras from three in Bharata to what we have in Bhāmaha is an interesting study but the gap is all darkness. We feel that in that stage of the history of Alankāra, the concept of Lakṣaṇa and the merging of most of it in Alankāra is a big chapter.
But we must be clear as regards this point : in the first class of Lakṣaṇas which are mere turns of expressions there are various grades. While some are plainly Alaṅkāras, others
have an element of Alankāra in them, the expression as a whole being more than Alaṅkāra.
The other set of Lakṣaṇas shows a different character. They are not ‘उक्तिवैचित्र्यरूप’. उपदिष्टम, भ्रंशः, अनुनयः, दाक्षिण्यम्, गर्हणम्, पृच्छा, क्षोभः etcbelong to this class. The Upajāti list contains mostly Laksaṇas of this class, प्रोत्साहनम्,आक्रन्दनम्, आख्यानम्, प्रतिषेधः, क्षमा, पश्चात्तपनम्, अनुवृत्तिः, अनुनीतिः, परिदेवनम् etc. Most of these are Bhāvas or actions resulting from certain Bhāvas. These would give support to the view which takes the Lakṣaṇas as minor Sandhyangakas. But this view cannot hold good regarding the other class of Alankāra-like Lakṣaṇas.
Bharata himself seems to be conscious of this double personality of his Laksaṇas when he says at the end of the section on Alaṅkāras—
एभिर्यक्रियापेक्षैः कार्यं काव्यं तु लक्षणैः।
Some Lakṣaṇasare अर्थापेक्ष. These are turns of expression, those of the first class, related closely to Alaṅkāra. Others are क्रियापेक्ष4. These are related to Bhāvas and form the second class. Thus the two main lines of thought in theदशपक्षीgiven in the Abhinava bhāratī hold good as regards these two aspects of Lakṣaṇas. There will be much ‘Kles’a’ if one tries to make all Lakṣaṇas look like turns of expression and factors of natural grace, or to make all Lakṣaṇas look like सन्ध्यङ्गक or इतिवृत्तखण्डलक. The Das’arūpaka realised these points and included part of them in Alaṅkāras and part in Bhāvas.
TABLE OF SEVERAL LISTS OF LAKṢAṆAS
[TABLE]
| 23. अनुनयः | 28. क्षमा (Bh.) (Sa) (विशेषणम्) | |
| 24. माला | 30. पश्चात्तपतम् (Bh.) (Śā) (विचारः) | |
| 25. दाक्षिण्यम् | 31. अर्थानुवृत्तिः, (Bh.) (Śā.) [also called अनुवृत्ति by AG.] (अनुनयः) | |
| 26. गर्हणम | 32. उपपत्तिः (Bh.) (Śā.) (उपदिष्टम्) | |
| 27. अर्थापत्तिः | 33. युक्तिः (Bh.) (Śā.) (अभिप्रायः) | |
| 28. प्रसिद्धिः | 34. कार्यम् (Bh.) (Śā.) [also called गर्हणम् by others, says AG.] (अर्थापत्तिः) | |
| 29. पृच्छा | 21. पृच्छा | 35. अनुनीतिः (Once more here प्रसिद्धिः) |
| 30.सारूप्यम् | 12.सारूप्यम् | 36. परिदेवनम् (क्षोभः and अनुक्तसिद्धिः) In the 26th प्रियम्, AG. includes भ्रंशः |
| 31. मनोरथः | 17. मनोरथः | |
| 32. लेशः (लेखः- Śinga.) | ||
| 33. क्षोभः or दोषः | ||
| 34. गुणकीर्तनम् | 5. गुणकीर्तनम् | |
| 35. अनुक्तसिद्धिः, or सिद्धिः | ||
| 36. प्रियं वचनम् | 21. प्रियम् Total common with the Anuṣṭbh list - 17 |
New Lakṣaṇas of Bhoja.
Śā. = contained in Śāradātanaya’s list. Viś. = Viśvanātha.
-
साहा (Śā.) (Nāṭyālañkāra in Viś.)
-
परिवादनम् (Śā) May be the correct form of the Paridevana in Bharata’s Upajāti list.
-
मृपोद्यमःः (उद्यमः) (Nāṭyālankāra in Viś.)
-
छलोक्तिःCompare Kapata in Bharata’s Upajāti list.
-
काकुः
6.उन्मादः
- परिहासः(उत्प्रासनम् Nātyalañkāra in Vś.)
8.विकत्थनम.
- यदृच्छायोगः
- वैषम्यम्.
- प्रतिज्ञानम् ( प्रतिज्ञाध्यवसायःNāṭyālatikāra in Viś.)
- प्रवृत्तिः (प्रवर्त्तनम् Nāṭyālaṅkāra in Viś.)
New Lakṣaṇas of Śāradātanaya.
Nā. Viś— Nāṭyālaṅkāra in Viśvanātha.
- नयः( may be Anunaya of Bharata).
- अभिज्ञानम्.
- उद्देशः
- नीतिः(Nā. Viś.)
- अर्थविशेषणम् (may be Bharata’s विशेषणम्) (Nā. Viś.)
- निवेदनम् ( Nā. Viś.)
- परिहारः
- आश्रयः(Nā, Viś.)
- उक्तिः
- देशः
- प्रहर्षः(Nā. Viś.)
New Ntyalankaras of Viśvanātha, names which are not Lakṣaṇas in Bharata’s Upajāti or Anuṣṭubh lists, or in those of Bhoja and Śāradātanaya.
- गर्वः
- आशंसा
- विसर्पः
- उल्लेखः
- उत्तेजनम्
- साहाय्यम्
- उत्कीर्तनम्
Note. In Lakṣaṇas, Viśvanātha has a new one called संक्षेपःinstead of क्षोभःof the Anuṣṭubh list. This क्षोभः is made a Nāṭyalaṅkāra. Certain Lakṣaṇas of the Anuṣṭubh list themselves are made Naṭyalaṅkāra with a slight change in name, e.g. उपदिष्टलक्षणम् and उपदेशन नाट्यालंकारः
USE AND ABUSE OF ALAṄKĀRA IN SANSKRITLITERATURE
POETRY is not mere thought. ‘While great poetry must necessarily embody it, very genuine poetry, at times, may do no more than give to the mercst airy nothings a local habitation and a name,’ ‘Poetry does not reveal truth in logic butin light.^(1) Mere thoughts and emotions are proper subjects for the science of psychology etc. Facts, by themselves, are unattractive; sometimes reality appals us; but poets teach us as they charm :
शास्त्रेषु दुर्ग्रहोऽप्यर्थः स्वदते कविसूक्तिषु।
हृद्यं करगतं रत्नं दारुणं फणिमूर्धनि॥
—Nīlakaṇṭhadikṣita, Sabhārañjanaśataka.
Darśana has to wait for Varṇana. It is wrong to regard poetry as merely truth or noble emotion. Who can deny the validity of the statement—
गोरपत्यं बलीर्वदः तृणान्यत्ति मुखेन सः ?
Quotations of this nature occurring in this chapter are chiefly from five works: Raymond, ‘Poetry as a Representative Art’, Lamborn, ‘The Essentials of Criticism’, Bain, ‘Rhetoric and Composition,’ and Tagore ‘Creative Unity’ and ‘Personality’.
_____________________
1. तथा हि दर्शने स्वच्छे नित्येऽप्यादिकवेर्मुनेः।
नोदिता कवता लोके यावज्जाता न वर्णना॥—Bhaṭṭa Tauta.
Yet, is it poetry? Are there not hunger and suffering in the poor Brāhmaṇas’ plea to the king—
भोजनं देहि राजेन्द्र घृतसूपसमन्वितम् ?
Yet, the king refused to help them and the story goes on to say that the king gave them presents only on hearing the other half filled, the story says, by Kalidāsa, with the extravagant plumes of figurative language.
माहिषं च शरच्चन्द्रचन्द्रिकाधवलं दधि॥
True, as Leigh Hunt says, ’there are simplest truths often so beautiful and impressive that one of the greatest proofs of the poet’s genius consists in leaving them to stand alone, illustrated by nothing but the light of their own tears or smiles, their own wonder, might or playfulness’. But, as he himself points out elsewhere, ‘in poetry, feeling and imagination are necessary to the perception and presentation even of matters of fact’. The so-called figure of natural description, the Svabhāvokti, is a plain statement only in a comparative degree. Plain fact or feeling is always embellished in some manner and given some catching power. Who can refuse to recognise the difference between a proposition like this Svabhāvokti of Kalidāsa :
निष्कंपवृक्षं निभृतद्विरेफं मूकाण्डजं शान्तमृगपचारम् ?
—Kumārasambhava, III.
Even the natural description of a poet has its strikingness; Bāṇa says that Jātī must be Agrāmya, नवोऽर्थो जातिरग्राम्या (Harṣacarita). Bald statements are thus excluded. Bhāmaha also excludes ordinariness in expression in his description of poetry :
अग्राम्यशब्दमर्थ्यं च सालङ्कारं सदाश्रयम्। K. A. I. 19.
अलङ्कारवदग्राम्यम् अर्थ्यंन्याय्यमनाकुलम्।” “35.
So poetry requires not only fact and feeling but a beautiful form also; it has not only to be useful, but primarily attractive. That all poetic expression involves some kind of expressional deviation of beauty,^(1)some out-of-the-way-ness, is well brought out by the following verse of Nīlakaṇtha dīkṣita :
यानेव शब्दान्वयमालपामः यानेव चार्थान्वयमुल्लिखामः।
तैरव विन्यासविशेषभव्यैः संमोहयन्ते कवयो जगन्ति॥
—Śivalīlārņava, I. 13.
This expressional deviation, this striking disposition of words and ideas, is Alaṅkāra; this constitutes the beautiful poetic form. It will be easier to dissociate love from its physical aspect than to keep the concept of poetry aloof from its form.
If we try to arrive at a clear definition of poetry with an objective differentia, certainly the definition will revolve round the concept of Alaṅkāra, the word Alaṅkāra being taken here in the widest sense of that term in which Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana understood it. Alaṁkāra is the beautiful in poetry, the beautiful form, —सौन्दर्यमलङ्कारः(Vāmana). Examining the field of poetic expression, Bhāmaha found Alaṅkāra omnipresent in it. When we reach the stage of Appayya dīkṣita, who has given as many as one hundred and twenty-five Alaṅkāras, we see that the whole range of poetry is almost ‘Vyāpta’ with Alankāra in general, is ‘Avinābhūta’ with Alaṅkāra. And to this numberlessness of Alaṅkāra, Ānanda refers to :
‘वाच्यालङ्कारवर्गचश्चरूपकादिर्यावानुक्तः वक्ष्यते च कैश्चित्,अलङ्काराणामनन्तत्वात् (The Locana adds here, प्रतिभानन्त्यादिति) \। Dhva. Ā.,
___________________________
1Cf. Bain: ‘A figure of speech is a deviation from the plain and ordinary mode of speaking, for the sake of greater effect: it is an unusual form of speech. Rhetoric and Composition, I.
p. 88, Mahimabhaṭṭa says: अलङ्काराणां च अभिवात्मत्वम्उपगतं, तेषां भङ्गिभणितिरूपत्वात्।’ V. V., I, p. 3, T.S.S. ‘भङ्गिभणितिभेदानामेव अलङ्कारत्वोपगमात्।’ Ibid., II, p. 87. ‘चारुत्वं हि वैचित्र्यापरपर्यायंप्रकाशमानमलङ्कारः।’ ‘चारुत्वमलङ्कारः।’ Commentary on the V.V., p. 4, T.S.S.: ‘तथा च शब्दार्थयोर्विच्छित्तिरलङ्कारः।’Ibid., p. 44. Namisādhu also says ‘ततो यावन्तो हृदयावर्जका अर्थप्रकारास्तावन्तोऽलङ्काराः।’ Vyā on Rudrata, p. 149. Ānanda has this further remark – ‘तत् (रस) प्रकाशिनो वाच्यविशेषा एव रूपकादयोऽलङ्काराः। p. 87. If Alaṅkāra is understood in this large sense as emphasising the need for a beautiful form in poetry, it is not very improper for the subject of poetics to be calledAlaṅkāraśāstra.5
^(** **)Thus, Alaṅkāra, properly understood and properly employed, can hardly be a subject for wholesale condemnation. This is said not only in view of the large sense in which we have tried to explain it above. Taking the figures as such, the best definition we can give of them is that, in a great poet, they form the inevitable incarnations in which ideas embody themselves. Says Ānanda :
अलङ्कारान्तराणि हि निरूप्यमाणदुर्घटान्यपि रससमाहितचेतसः प्रतिभानवतः कवेः अहंपूर्विकया परापतन्ति। * * * युक्तं चैतत्। यतो रसा वाच्यविशेषैरेव आक्षेप्तव्याः, तत्प्रतिपादकैश्च शब्दैः, तत्प्रतिपादिनो वाच्यविशेषा एवं रूपकादयोऽलङ्काराः। — Dhva ā, p. 87.
Such figures can hardly be considered ‘Bahiraṅga’, in Kāvya, and comparable only to the ‘Kataka’ and ‘Keyūra’, the removable ornament. Therefore Ānanda continues : “तस्मान्न तेषां बहिरङ्गत्वं रसाभिव्यक्तौ ।’ p. 87. They should properly
be compared to the Alaṅkāras of damsels which Bharata speaks of under Sāmānyabhinaya, Bhāva, Hāva etc. and not to the Kaṭaka and Keyūra. (N.Ś., XXII, K.M. edn.)¹
** **Ānanda says in Udyota II that, though Alaṅkāras are only the Śarīra, the outer body, they can be made the Śarīrin, the soul, sometimes, i.e., when Alaṅkāras are not expressed but suggested; when simile, contrast etc. are richly imbedded in an utterance and in the clash of words in an expression, Alaṅkāras shoot out.
शरीरीकरणं येषां वाच्यत्वेन व्यवस्थितम्।
तेऽलंकाराः परां छायां यान्ति ध्वन्यङ्गतां गताः॥²
—II, 29, p. 117.
Here Abhinava says: As a matter of fact, Alaṅkāras are external ornaments on the body but can sometimes be like the Kuṅkuma smeared for beauty on the body, when they are organic and structural, when they are रसाक्षिप्त, अपृथग्यlत्ननिर्वर्त्य andसुश्लिष्ट. Far, far away is the hope to make this Alaṅkāra the very soul. But even this is possible in a way, saysĀnanda: just as in the mere play of children, there is some temporary greatness for the child which plays the role of the king, so also, when this Alaṅkāra is suggested, it attains great beauty and partakes of the nature of the soul.
एतदुक्तं भवति— सुकविःविदग्धपुरन्ध्रीवत् भूषणं यद्यपि श्लिष्टं योजयति, तथापि शरीरतापत्तिरेवास्य कष्टसंपाद्या, कुंकुमपीतिकाया इव।
___________________________
1. There is the ‘Alaṅkāra’ in Music also, with which profitable comparison can be made here but for the obscurity of the concept in early music literature and the changes in meaning the concept underwent in its later history. (N.S., K.M. edn., XXIX, 22-31.)
2. On the greater beauty of the implied or suggested figure as compared to the expressed figure, see further Ānanda, III, 37, p. 207 and Mahimā, V.V., p. 73.
आत्मतायास्तु का संभावना एवंभूता चेयं व्यंग्यता, यदप्रधानभूतापि वाच्यमात्रालंकारेभ्यः उत्कर्षमलंकाराणां वितरति। बालक्रीडायामपि राजत्वमिवेत्यमुमर्थंमनसि कृत्वाह – तत्रेति।—Locana, pp. 117-118.
It must be noted here that Abhinava compares the Suśliṣṭa Alaṅkāra to Kuṁkumālaṅkaraṇa, and raises it above the level of the altogether external jewel worn, the Kaṭaka. Bhoja realised the insufficiency of the comparison with Kaṭaka. Alaṅkāra as ornament of a woman also was understood by Bhoja in a large sense. Bhoja classified Alaṅkāras into those of Śabda, Bāhya, those of Artha, Ābhyantara and those of both Śabda and Artha, Bāhyābhyantara. The first, the most external, the verbal figure of Śabdālańkāra, Bhoja compared to dressing, garlanding and wearing Kaṭaka etc. The third, he compared to bath, treating the hair to fragrant smoke, smearing the body with Kuṁkuma, Candana etc. Beginning from outside, these are more intimate with the body. The second, the purely Ābhyantara Alaṅkāras, the Arthālaṅkāras, Bhoja compared to cleaning the teeth, manicuring, dressing the hair itself etc. These last are most intimate; nothing not forming part at all of the body is here superimposed6.
अलङ्काराश्चत्रिधा,— बाह्याः, आभ्यन्तराः, बाह्याभ्यन्तराश्च। तेषु बाह्याः— वस्त्र-माल्य-विभूषणादयः। आभ्यन्तराः—दन्तपरिकर्म-नखच्छेद-अलककल्पनादयः। बाह्याभ्यन्तराः— स्नान-धूप-(विलेपनादयः) etc.—
Śṛṅgāraprakāśa.
Albeit the importance of form, one should not misunderstand rhetoric as poetry. It is possible to sacrifice poetry at the altar of figure. There is such a thing as Aucitya, appropriateness, harmony and proportion, which is the ultimate beauty in poetry. The final ground of reference for this Aucitya, the thing with reference to which we shall speak ofother things as being appropriate, is the soul of poetry, Rasa. The body becomes a carcass when there is no soul there, when life is absent from it. Of what use are ornaments on a carcass ? Nilakṇṭntha dikṣita says:
अन्योन्यसंसर्गविशेषरम्याप्यलंकृतिः प्रत्युत शोचनीया।
नियंग्यसारे कविसूक्तिबन्धेनिष्क्रान्तजीवे वपुषीव दत्ता॥
—Śivalīlārnava, I, 36.
Kṣemendra, the systematiser of Aucitya, says: ‘Enough with Alaṅkāras; of what use are the Guņas if there is no life there? Ornaments are ornaments; excellences are excellences; but Aucitya is the life of the Rasa-ensouled Kāvya’ :
काव्यस्यालमलंकारैः किं मिथ्यागणितैर्गुणैः।
यस्य जीवितमौचित्यं विचिन्त्यापि न दृश्यते॥
अलङ्कारास्त्वलंकाराः गुणा एव गुणास्सदा।
औचित्यं रससिद्धस्य स्थिरं काव्यस्य जीवितम्॥
— Au. v. C., 4 and 5.
See also the Vṛtti on these; also my Ph. D. thesis, chaper on History of Guṇas, vol. I, Pt. 2, pp. 334-5.
Here Kşemendra has only amplified Abhinava and Ānanda who say :
तथा हि अचेतनं शवशरीरं कुण्डलायुपेतमपि न भाति, अलंकार्यस्याभावात्। यतिशरीरं कटकादियुक्तं हाम्यावहं भवति अलंकार्यस्य अनौचित्यात्। —Locana, p. 75
अनौचित्याहतं नान्यत् रसभङ्गस्य कारणम्।
प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत्परा॥ - Dhva. A., p. 145.
What is this Aucitya? It is the clear statement of the proper place and function Alankāra, as of other elements.
उचितं प्राहुराचार्याः सदृशं किल यस्य यत्।
. . . . . . . . .
उचितस्थान विन्यासादलंकृतिरलंकृतिः।
अलंकृतिः उचितस्थानविन्यासादलंकर्तु क्षमा भवति। अन्यथा तु अलंकृतिव्यपदेशमेव न लभते। … यदाह—
कण्ठे मेखलया नितम्बफलके तारेण हारेण वा
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . नायान्ति के हास्यतां
औचित्यन विना रुचि प्रतनुते नालंकृतिनों गुणः॥¹ — Au. v. c.
Thus Alaṅkāras have their meaning only if they keep to their places :
ध्वन्यात्मभूते शृङ्गारे समीक्ष्य विनिवेशितः।
रूपकादिरलंकारवर्ग एति यथार्थताम्॥— Dhva. Ā., II, 18.
Just as a pearl-garland can beautify only a full bosom, and otherwise cannot be a beautifying factor, only an Alaṅkāra
__________________________
1. Vide below chapter on Aucitya.
औचित्यमेकमेकत्र गुणानां राशिरकतः।
विषायते गुणग्रामः औचित्यपरिवर्जितः॥
—Quoted by Municandrācārya in his Vṛtti on the Dharma binduprakarana, Āgamodaya Series Edn., p. 11a.
appropriate to Artha and through it, to Rasa, can be of any beauty.
अर्थौचित्यवता सूक्तिरलङ्कारेण शोभते।
पीनस्तनस्थितेनेव हारेण हरिणेक्षणा॥—Au. v. c. Ksemendra.
Cf. Bhoja, S.K.A. I. 160:
दीर्घापाङ्गं नयनयुगलं भूपयत्यञ्जनश्रीः
तुङ्गाभोगौ प्रभवति कुचावर्चितुं हारयष्टिः। etc.
Kṣemendra proceeds to show how some poets have observed this rule of Aucitya of Alaṅkāra and how some have not. He points out the conceptual flaws in the latter, going against the main subject and sentiment. The Pratyudāharaṇas are cases of abuses in so far as the authors of those verses have written those figures with an effort, merely because they desired to add figures. When the great poet is concentrating on Rasa, when he is a ‘रससमाहितचेताः’, the sense of harmony and appropriateness attends on him, innate in him like instinct; there is hardly any room for impropriety. But when concentration is on figure, error creeps in. We shall consider two examples: The broken minister of the Nandas, stealing into the enemy’s city over which he hadruled like a king, looking like a serpent stilled by incantation (भोगीव मन्त्रौषधिरुद्धवीर्यः) and consumed by his own inner fire, sees a dilapidated garden and describes it :
विपर्यस्तं सौधं कुलमिव महारंभरचनम्
सरः शुष्कं साधोर्हृदयमिव नाशेन सुहृदाम्।
फलैर्हीनावृक्षा विगुणनृपयोगादिव नयाः
तृणैश्छन्ना भूमिर्मतिरिव कुनीतैरविदुषः॥
— Mudrārāksasa, VI, 11.
The plight of the garden resembles his own pitiable state and with great appropriateness in the conceiving of the similes, Viśākhadatta has drawn a mere description nearer to the context, harnessed it for Rasa and heightened the effect of the situation7.On the contrary, we shall now cite a verse from the Bhoja Campū where the poet has created a figure not only not in harmony with the main idea and the context but also so inappropriate as to make, as Kṣemendra says, the hearts of the Sahṛdayas shrink.
वाणीविलासमपरत्र कृतोपलंभम् अंभोजभूरसहमान इवाविरासीत्।
There is Hetu-Utprekṣāhere: the poet imagines that Brahmā presented himself before the Ādikavi, as if jealous of the appearance of (his spouse) Vāṇī (speech or poesy) in another person. As a matter of fact, it is to bless and give Vālmīki his favour to sing the whole Rāmāyaṇa that the god descended.
One can make Alaṅkāra render the help its name means if he introduces it in such a manner as it will be conducive to the realisation of the chief object, namely Bhāva and Rasa; that is, Alaṅkāra must be Rasabhāvapara. That which is adorned by an Alankāra is the Rasa. Even as the ordinary ornament, the jewels, putting them on or laying them down, suggest to us the mental state of the person, so also does figure suggest the Bhāva.
रसभावादितात्पर्यमाश्रित्य विनिवेशनम्।
अलंकृतीनां सर्वासामलंकारत्वसाधनम्॥- Dhva. Ā., II, 6.
उपमया यद्यपि वाच्योऽर्थोलंक्रियते, तथापि तस्य तदेवालंकरणम्, यद् व्यंग्यार्थाभिव्यञ्जनसामर्थ्याधानमिति। वस्तुतो ध्वन्यात्मैव अलंकार्य_। कटककेयूरादिभिरपि हि शरीरसमवायिभिः आत्मैव तत्तच्चित्तवृत्तिविशेषौ चित्यसूचनात्मतया अलङ्क्रियते।’ —Locana, 74-75. 58
Thus whatever, remaining in a functionary place, aids to embellish and add to the main theme’s beauty is Alaṅkāra. Rasa also can thus be employed as a decorative, as an Alaṅkara, to adorn a Vastu (idea) or Rasa.8
Raymond9expresses a similar opinion on Alaṅkāra : ‘The one truth underlying all the rules laid down for the employment of figures is that nothing is gained by any use of those which does not add to the effect of the thought to which they give expression. Language is to express our thoughts to others and in ordinary conversation, we use both plain and figurative language but when a man wants to give another the description of a scene he has seen, he does not catalogue one and all of the details of that sight, but brings only his own idea of the landscape by adding to such of the details as have struck him many more ideas and emotions that have been aroused in him.’ Thus he transports his mental image to the hearer and if the representation is comparatively plain, we have Svabhāvokti. ‘On the other hand, if he realises that it is hard for the hearer to understand him fully, he gains his end by repeating the statement, or by adding illustrative images to the mere enumeration of facts.’ [Compare Rudrata, VIII, 1.
सम्यक् प्रतिपादयितुं स्वरूपतो वस्तु तत्समानमिति।
वस्त्वन्तरमभिदध्यात् वक्ता यस्मिंस्तदोषम्यम्॥]
‘Thus the poet puts extra force into his language and in order to do so, inasmuch as the force of language consists in its representative character, he will augment the representation by multiplying his comparisons: his language becomesfigurative.’
From the verse of Rudraṭa quoted above, we see that a complex situation or an anxiety for clearer or more effective expression necessitates figures. Similarly a thought that is too simple, too ordinary or too small to impress or get admiration by itself, needs figurative embellishment. We shall consider this view of Ānandavardhana with his rules for the employment of these figures in such secondary and ordinary moods and thoughts. Even as he grants high flights in supreme moments, he grants even the bare Śabdacitra ample provision in Rasābhāsa. Heroic deeds, unselfish love, sacrifice—things great in themselves appeal to us even when directly expressed with minimum figure. But ordinary things must have purple patches.
All these facts about decoration by figure in poetry are realised by Ānanda who has formulated rules for the proper employment of Alaṅkāra. Western writers also have laid similar conditions regarding ornament. Pater says: ‘And above all, there will be no uncharacteristic or tarnished or vulgar decoration, permissible ornament being for the most part structural or necessary10’.He continues: ‘The artist, says Schiller, may be known by rather what he omits and in literature too, the true artist may be best recognised by his tact of omission. For, to the grave reader, words too are grave; and the ornamental word, the figure, the accessory form or colour or reference is rarely content to die to thought precisely at the right moment, but will inevitably be stirring a
long “brain-wave” behind it of perhaps quite alien associations’. ‘As the very word ornament indicates what is in itself non-essential, so the “one beauty” of all literary style is of its very essence and independent of all removable decoration; that it may exist in its fullest lustre in a composition utterly unadorned, with hardly a single suggestion of visibly beautiful things.’ ‘The ornaments are “diversions” —a narcotic spell on the pedestrian intelligence. We cannot attend to that figure—that flower there—just then—surplusage! For, in truth, all art consists in the removal of surplusage.’
Such strictures had to be passed by Ānanda also; for when he was thinking out the essence of poetry, Sanskrit poetry had deteriorated into an artificial stage. A blind tribe—Gaḍḍarikas—was following a beaten path and was hardly proof to errors of taste. Not poetry, but the imitation thereof, was being assiduously produced. (न तन्मुख्यं काव्यं, काव्यानुकारो ह्यसौ11Dhva. Ā., p. 220.) To guide such poets,
not gifted with S’akti enough to possess an innate sense of Aucitya, Ānanda lays down his rules for the employment of Alaṅkāra. As has already been pointed out, “Alaṅkāra is subordinate to Rasa; it has to aid the realisation of Rasa. It shall suit the Bhāva and be such as comes off to the poet along with the tide of the Rasa. It shall not monopolise the poet’s energy nor shall it be so prominent or continued as to monopolise the reader’s mind. Says Ānanda:
रसाक्षिप्ततया यस्य बन्धः शक्यक्रियो भवेत्।
अपृथग्यत्ननिर्वर्त्यः सोऽलंकारो ध्वनौ मतः॥12 and S’r. Pra. (Ch. XI).”)
(i) Alaṅkāra shall be intended to suggest Rasa.
(ii) It shall be born along with the poet’s delineation of Rasa.
(iii) It shall be naturally and easily introduceable.
(iv) The poet shall not stop to take a fresh and extra effort to effect it.
Such a figure is allowed as proper in Dhvani. This is the ‘permissible’‘structural’ figure that Pater speaks of. Such Alaṅkāra is born almost of itself. Such is the poet’s genius that when the figure is actually found there, it is a wonder. (निष्पत्तावाश्चर्यभूतः–Ānanda, p. 86 प्रतिभानुग्रहवशात् स्वयमेव संपत्तौनिष्पादनानपेक्षायामित्यर्थःAbhinava, p. 86, Locana.) This Alaṅkāra properly functions to heighten Rasa. For instance, in the verse: ‘कपोले पत्राली करतलनिरोधेन मृदिता etc. the Śaṭha Nāyaka who entreats the Khaṇḍita Nāyikā describes her Anger as another lover who is dearer to her than himself, though he may even fall at her feet. In the last line here, there are Śleṣa, Rūpaka and Vyatireka Alaṅkāras, which, far from hindering the realisation of the Rasa of Īrṣyāvipralambha, intensify it.
Though a perusal of an Alaṅkāra text-book gives the impression that the Alaṅkāras are artificial, elaborate and intellectual exercises requiring great effort in turning them out precisely,—things that must rather be avoided than handled with all their ‘chidras’, they are not really so difficult of effecting for a masterpoet. With him, as emotion increases, expression swells and figures foam forth.
____________________________
See my Ph.D. Thesis “Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa”, Vol. I, Pt. 2, chapter on Alaṅkāra. Such Alaṅkāras, Bhoja says, cannot be even spoken of as having been introduced or added.
See Dhva. Ā., p. 86.
अलंकारान्तराणि हि निरूप्यमाणदुर्घटान्यपि रससमाहितचेतसः प्रतिभानवतः कवेः अहंपूर्विकया परापतन्ति । यथा कादम्बर्यो कादम्बरीदर्शनावसरे।^(1)
—Dhva. A., pp. 86-87.
We have many instances in the Rāmāyaṇa where we clearly see this connection between emotion and figure, though not as a rule. There is at least a strong tendency to wax figurative in forceful situations. The description of lamenting Ayodhya on Bharata’s return from the forest and Sitā’s condemnation of Rāvaṇa on seeing him out of his guise are two of the striking examples. There is, further, a tendency in the Rāmāyaṇa to employ figures profusely in descriptions. The opening canto of the Sundarakānḍa contains a figure in almost every verse, surcharged as the canto is with Adbhutarasa. To quote only one instance, we shall pick out this description of the broken Visvāmitra from the Bālakāṇda :
दृष्ट्वाविनाशितान्पुत्रान् वलं च सुमहायशाः।
सव्रीडश्चिन्तयाविष्टः विश्वामित्रोऽभवत्तदा॥
समुद्र इव निर्वेगः भग्नदंष्ट्र इवोरगः।
उपरक्त इवादित्यः सद्यो निष्प्रभतां गतः॥
________________________
1. Cf. ‘The more emotions grow upon a man, the more his speech; if he makes any effort to express his emotion, abounds in figures-exclamation, interrogation, anacoluthon, apostrophe, hyperbole (yes, certainly hyperbole !) simile, metaphor. His language is what we sometimes euphemistically describe as ‘picturesque’. Feelings swamp ideas and language is used to express not the reality of things but the state of one’s emotions.’ J. S. Brown, World of Imagery’. Quoted by K. A. Subrahmanya Ayyar in his ‘Imagery of the Rāmāyaṇa’, J.O.R., Madras, Vol. III,pt. 4.
हतपुत्रबलो दीनःलूनपक्ष इव द्विजः।
हतदर्पो हतोत्साहः निर्वेदं समपद्यत॥ —Rā. Bā., 55. 8–10.13
But there are also places in the epic of high strung emotion where figures are not employed at all and the sublimity or pathos of the situation (e.g. Rāma weeping on the loss of Sīta in the closing cantos of the Āraṇyakāṇḍa) is left to itself to appeal to us with its own grandeur and beauty.
In Kālidāsa, we have many instances of figures rushing to the poet’s pen in moments of overflowing Rasa. Every line is a figure in Purūravas’s description of Urvas’ī who has captivated his heart, as he sees her slowly recovering fromstupor:
आविर्भूते शशिनि तमसा मुच्यमानेव रात्रिः
नैशस्यार्चिर्हुतभुज इव च्छिन्नभूयिष्ठधूमा।
मोहेनान्तर्वरतनुरियं दृश्यते मुक्तकल्पा
गङ्गा रोध_पतनकलुषा गृह्णतीवप्रसादम्॥ —V.U., I.
And in the Mudrārākṣasa, we have a similar situation with abundant figures. In the glee of his success, Cāṇakya exclaims as he hears that Rākṣasa has come:
केनोत्तुङ्गशिखाकलापकपिलो बद्धः पटान्ते शिखी
पाशैःकेन सदागतेरगतिता सद्यस्ममासादिता।
केनानेकपदानवासितसटः सिंहोर्पितः पञ्जरे
भीमः केन च नैकनक्रमकरो दोय प्रतीर्णोऽर्णवः॥
—M.R., VII, 6.
But to write such figures, the poet must be lost in Rasa and must have infinite Pratibhā. Those who do not naturally get
these figures in such an appropriate manner can employ figures effectively if they do so with discrimination, Samīkṣā,
ध्वन्यात्मभूते शृंगारे समीक्ष्य विनिवेशितः।
रूपकादिरलंकारवर्ग एति यथार्थताम्॥
—Dhva. A., p. 88, II, 18.
What is this Samīkṣā ?
विवक्षा तत्परत्वेन नाङ्गित्वेन कदाचन।
काले च ग्रहणत्यागौ नातिनिर्वहणैषिता॥
निर्यावपि चाङ्गत्वे यत्नेन प्रत्यवेक्षणम्।
रूपकादेरलंकारवर्गस्याङ्गत्वसाधनम्॥
—Dhva. Ā., p. 88, II, 19-20.
(i) Alaṅkāras must be ancillary, Aṅgabhūta.
(ii) They must never become main, Pradhāna or Aṅgin.
(ii) The main theme shall always be kept in view and the figure in consequence must be taken and thrown away in accordance with the requirements of the main idea.
(iv) They must not be too much elaborated or overworked.
(v) Even if they are worked out, a good poet must take care to give them, on the whole, the position Aṅga only.(i) In the verse from the Śākuntala14चलापाङ्गां दृष्टिं स्पृशसि बहुशोवेयथुमतीम्etc.’, the description of the natural acts of the bee, भ्रमरस्वभावोक्ति is introduced as Aṅga to intensify the chief Rasa of Śrngära. (ii) There are instances in which we see poets drifting along in the world of imagery itself without returning to the point on hand. The poet begins a figure and does it in such a detailed manner that it outgrows its proper limit.
‘नाङ्गित्वेनेति, प्राधान्येनकदाचिद्; रसादितात्पर्येण विवक्षितोऽपि ह्यलंकारः कश्चिदङ्गित्वेन विवक्षितो दृश्यते।’ —Dhva. A., p. 89.
‘यत्प्रकृतस्य पोषणीयस्य स्वरूपतिरस्कारकोऽप्यङ्गभूतोऽलंकारः संपद्यते। ततश्च क्वचिदनौचित्यमागच्छतीति।’ — Locana, p. 90.
The illustration for this given by Ānanda is the verse ‘चक्राभिघात’ etc.’, where the main idea intended to be adorned by the figure is lost in the elaborate reaches of the Prayāyokta, which has overgrown and hid the main idea. (iii) Opportune introduction is illustrated by the verse ‘उद्दामोत्कलिकाम्etc.’ where S’leṣa finds timely introduction; as Abhinava says, this description paves the way for the coming Īrṣyāvipralambha. (iv) In the verseरक्तस्त्वं नवपल्लवैःetc.’, for the sake of the main Rasa, Vipralambha, and for the sake of another Alaṅkāra, namely Vyatireka which is to heighten the Vipralambha, the figure of Śleṣa worked out in the first three lines is abandoned in the last line. This illustrates’ kāletyāga ‘. (v) There are instances where Alaṅkāras are merely touched upon and left there; lesser artists sit to work them out.
In the verse
कोपात्कोमललोलचाहुलतिकापाशेन बद्ध्वा दृढं
नीत्वा वासनिकेतनं etc.
the Rūpaka of Bāhupās’alatikāand Bandha is not worked out in any artificial and tiresome manner. If the poet had worked it out, Abhinava says, it would have been very improper— परम्अनौचित्यं स्यात् . This verse illustrates ‘नातिनिर्वहणौषिता.’ (vi) Such a genius like Kālidāsa can work out a figure in full and can see that the main Rasa is not only not hindered by it, but is actually intensified by it. E.g. 2, Megha. The
Vipralambha Śṛigara of the theme is again brought to the forefront in the last line to be nourished by the Utprekṣā.
When used thus with appropriateness, Alaṅkāras go to enrich the ideas of the poet and add charm to the diction Of these Alankaras, we shall here speak in particular about a few select ones. Figures can be classified into three main classes (i) those based on Similarity, Upamā and all otherfigures involving Upamā; (ii) those based on Difference, Virodha, and (iii) those based on other mental activities like association, contiguity etc. In the third class can be brought all the figures other than those based on Aupamya and Virodha. Of these, figures involving similarity are the most abundant in poetry. ‘The intellectual power called similarity or feeling of agreement is our chief instrument of invention.” ‘Applied literally in the sciences, it leads to unity through induction’. In metaphysics,साधर्म्य वैधर्म्यपरीक्षा is mentioned as means to Tattvajñāna and Nis’śreyasa by Kaṇāda.
The greatness of Upamā is thus put by Appayya dīksita in his Citramīmāmsā:
तदिदं चित्रं विश्वं ब्रह्मज्ञानादिवोपमाज्ञानात्।
ज्ञातं भवतीत्यादौ निरूप्यते निखिलभेदसहिता सा॥
उपमैका शैलूषी संप्राप्ता चित्रभूमिकाभेदान्।
रञ्जयति काव्यरङ्गे नृत्यन्ती तद्विदां चेतः॥
Abhinavagupta also said: उपमाप्रपञ्चश्च सर्वोऽलङ्कार इति विद्वद्भिः प्रतिपन्नमेव” (Abhi. Bhā. p. 321. Gaek. edn. II), referring evidently to Vāmana, IV. iii. 1,
प्रतिवस्तुप्रभृतिरुपमाप्रपञ्चः।
Great artists are said to express an idea; great poets are explained as inculcating a lesson to the times through their work. It is impossible to conceive of such idea and lesson except through the principle of imagery; the great poem being something like a big, deep-laid Anyāpadeśa. In philosophical teachings, simile plays a very large part. Simile, Metaphor, Allegory, Parable— these are often employed to inculcate the profound truths of the incomprehensible. As Rudraṭa points out in his verse, सम्यक् प्रतिपादयितुम्etc., the Simile is for clearer understanding. But poetic imagery, like the variety of life, involves similarity in difference. ‘साधर्म्यमुपमा भेदे।’ The things compared in a figure though differing in kind possess an amount of similarity, rendering the one illustrative of the other.’ Though ultimately, Simile, like any other figure, must heighten the Rasa, there are, comparatively speaking, two kinds of this figure, the intellectual and the emotional. The former appeals to our intellect and is designed for that and the latter is used to
heighten the sentiment. The intellectual simile must have maximum catching power; it must be very striking and at the same time, the point of similarity must be relevant; it must not be accompanied by any further details that may distract or mislead.
अविषयातपो यावत्सूर्यो नातिविराजते।
अमार्गेणागतां लक्ष्मी प्राप्येवान्वयवर्जितः॥
** —Rāmāyaṇa, Araṇya, 8, 8.**
एते हि समुपासीना विहगा जलचारिणः।
नावगाहन्ति सलिलम् अप्रगल्भा इवाहवम्॥
** —Rāmāyaṇa, Āraṇya, 16, 22.**
These beautiful instances from the Rāmāyaṇa have the required novelty and strikingness. As J. S. Brown15says, the pleasure we derive from a comparison— to which we stick, however much we may call it odious— is in the sudden bringing together of two notions which were a moment before unconnected and remote from one another. This element of agreeable surprise falls under intellectual appeal. The following are two more instances:
निद्रा क्वाप्यवमानितेव दयिता सन्त्यज्य दूरं गता।
सत्पात्रप्रतिपादितेव वसुधा न क्षीयते शर्वरी॥
परमातेव निस्नेहाः परकार्याणीव शीतलाः(?)।
सक्तवो भक्षिता राजन् शुद्धाः कुलवधूरिव॥
‘The matters compared here are so different; we are startled by the ingenuity displayed in bringing them together and the effect is an agreeable fillip of the mind.’ In this respect, the danger of abuse lies in the lack of caution in the poet, in obscurity and far-fetchedness and the dwindling down of the similarity to a single and mere matter of fact point. There was a Christmas sales’ advertisement in a card with a dog whose tail had been cut; the dog was looking atn its shortened tail and underneath was printed ‘It will not be long now before Christmas, as the dog said about its tail!’ Such instances are effective means for comedy and humour and typical instances can be gathered from Dickens’s Sam Weller in his Pickwick Papers.
Coming to the other kind of Upamā: Later poets, wherever they might have been, however little their knowledge
of things or imagination might have been, had a Kaviśikṣā to supply them with as many noons and lotuses as they wanted. Though one had not seen the Himālayas, he devoted a canto to its description with all the stock-in-trade and trite
figures, mistaken informations filling verse after verse. The absurdity is seen clearly in the capricious geography of India which Vāmanabhaṭṭabāṇa teaches us in his Vemabhūpāla carita. In Upamā, the necessity for novelty is overlooked and the anxiety to abide by the qualification ‘Sammata’ has been the cause monotony. Anybody could write out a hundred verses any day on the sunrise, with the red sun, the lotus and the bee and the waning moon, their one single feature of looking like lovers being done to exhaustion. Appayya dīkṣita defines Upamāthus:
उपमानोपमेयत्वयोग्ययोरर्थयोर्द्वयोः।
हृद्यं साधर्म्यमुपमेत्युच्यते काव्यवेदिभिः॥
Others also have pointed out the defects in the form and content of Simile. Even as it is not poetic figure to be comparing things by their Padārthatva, it is not poetic figure if it is too trite or too often repeated. Emotional intensity and intellectual delights are derived only from such figures as are ‘Āścaryabhūta’; and when there is not enough ‘Viadagdhya’ in the poet’s Vāk, the repetition is intolerable. As a matter of fact, many Alaṅkāras have lost their force and charm by the one reason of repetition. We do not simply say, even in talks, one is named so, but only ‘नाम्ना भूषित’; so much so, there is almost no effect produced when a poet says मुखाम्बुज, मुकुरकपोल etc.
The inferior poets had ample Vyutpatti, unlit by imagination. As they were great scholars, we can rarely find a
technical flaw in their figures as figures. But the place where they abused is the same16.It is their scholarship that bound them to the rule. When they got an imagery on their mind, they settled down to turn it into one of the Upamāgarbhālakāras of the texts; they chose one that they had not used up to that time; in their construction, they adopted the same manner of expression of that figure as given in the text-book and when there was no ‘Liṅgavacana sāmya’for the Upamā, they artificially worked out by redistributions with the great control over lexicon and grammar they had, the conforming form of the figure. Things that are in pair were often brought into singular number as occasion needed, and to coincide with a feminine stem, ‘Padadvaya’ would become ‘Padadvayī.’ Even Kālidāsa strains to achieve this formal correspondence. He takes the bees in a group in feminine gender to bear comparison with a lady, a single and feminine Upameya.
तं प्राप्य सर्वावयवानवयं व्यावर्ततान्योपगमात्कुमारी।
न हि प्रफुल्लं सहकारमेत्य वृक्षान्तरं कांक्षति षट्पदाली॥17
Let us turn to Rāmāyaṇa where this weight of Lingavacana sāmya does not hang on the poet:
अहं तु हृतदारश्च राज्याच महतश्च्युतः।
नदीकूलमिव क्लिन्नमवसीदामि लक्ष्मण॥
** —Rāmāyaṇa, Kişkindhā, 28, 58.**
पश्य रूपाणि सौमित्रे बनानां पुष्पशालिनाम्।
सृजतां पुष्पवर्षाणि तोयं तोयमुचामिव॥—Kiṣ., I, 10.
नलिनानि प्रकाशन्ते जले तरुणसूर्यवत्॥ " " 61.
A latter-day poet would have certainly stopped to abide by an Ālaṅkārika dictum and by some ‘Piṣṭapeṣana’ and ‘Kliṣṭa Kalpana’ spoil the simple beauty of the idea presented by Vālmīki. Daṇḍin says that there are cases where neither Liṅga-disagreement nor Vacana-disagreement can spoil thenbeauty of an Upamā; the Sahṛdaya’s sense is the judge ; if it is not disturbed, all is right with the figure:
लिंगवचने भिन्ने न हीनाधिकतापि वा।
उपमादूपणायालं यत्रोद्वेगो न धीमताम्॥
स्त्रीव गच्छति षण्डोऽयं वक्त्येषा स्त्री पुमानिव।
प्राणा इव प्रियोऽयं मे विद्या धनमिवार्जिता॥
** —Dandin, K.A., II, 51–3,**
The following verse also is beautiful, despite linga-vacana-vyatyāsa :
परमातेव निस्नेहाः परकार्याणीव शीतलाः(१)।
सक्तवो भक्षिता राजन् शुद्वाः कुलवधूरिव॥
Coming to the manner of expressing the similarity: Daṇḍin and others have given some words expressing similarity, Sādṛśvyavācaka śabdas. But ingenuity and eccentricity have invented other expressions to convey similarity. Śriharṣa employs these words of comparison— स्पृशति तत्कदनं कदलीतरुः। Nai., IV, 8. We have other new and original words to suggest similarity— सब्रह्मचारी, सतीर्थ्य, वैतण्डिक, सयूथ्य, प्रतिद्वन्द्व,
कलहायमानetc.18, another production in imitation of Durvāsas’s Lalitāstavaratna.")These words are in themselves condensed metaphors and it is only after long Rūḍhi that they mean simply similarity’. Till then the reader has to pass through another metaphor to understand the main imagery. While it must be accepted that it is highly diverting to have ever such novel words of comparison, one cannot blind oneself to the growing Aprasiddhi, involvedness and obscurity.
Considering the way in which figures are expressed: Even very appropriate images are abused by strained expression, resorted to with special effort, for the sake of variety as well as metrical needs. If the poet gets a simile and gives it natural expression which is in harmony with Rasa, there is really effect and beauty in its employment. Poetry is after all not an argument to be somehow read and understood; it is something like a Mañjarī, as Bāṇa says. It has to leap to our heart on even the mere hearing of it.Even as their ideas, their expression also has to be beautiful.
अथवा मृदुबस्तु हिंसितुं मृदुनैवारभते प्रजान्तकः।
हिमसेकविपत्तिरत्र में नलिनी पूर्वनिदर्शनं मता॥
** —R.V., VIII, 45.**
The second half here containing the figure is expressed in a way that it is fit only to be in Tarka book. Like certain words, only certain constructions are poetic. Such expressions of Kālidāsa himself— ‘अतिष्ठदेकोनशतक्रतुत्वे’ (R.V., III) and ‘तव कुसुमशरत्वं शीतरश्मित्वमिन्दोर्द्वयमिदमयथार्थंदृश्यते मद्विधेषु (Śāk.) are not happy at all. S’riharṣa often lapses into such wooden
expressions and his Kavya contains many sentences not more poetic than his ‘ह्रीधृतावाङ्मुखत्वैः’ Nai., II, 105.
Next in importance to the simile are Rūpaka and Atiśayokti. ‘Simile is used when there is a moderate degree of excitation. When this is great, the mind naturally flies to the metaphor as a more concentrated form of expression, representing many thoughts in a few words.’ When the emotion is still greater, we resort to Atiśayokti and even Atyukti. These metaphors play an important part in the economy of language, the coining of metaphors being a means to our stock of names.’ Poets create the language of a people. ‘The element of representation, creation on the basis of similarity, is an essential principle of all art and it is a factor in the construction of language itself.’ Thus is language a book of faded metaphors.
‘Just as in the preponderance of the didactic and explanatory tendency, considerations of thought overbalance those of form, those of form overbalance those of thought in the preponderance of the ornate tendency in which there is failure because of an excess of representation. It is simply natural for one who has obtained facility in illustrating his ideas to overdo the matter at times and to carry his art so far as to illustrate that which has been sufficiently illustrated or is itself illustrative.’ As Ananda and Abhinava say, ‘Atinirvāha’ is bad. It is not proper to work out in the following manner Rūpakas fully and often, especially in a situation like this full of Karunarasa :
अवगाढःसुदुप्पारं शोकसागरमब्रवीत्।
रामशोकमहाभोगः सीताविरहपारगः॥
श्वसितोर्मिमहावर्ती बाप्पफेनजलाविलः।
बाहुविक्षेपमीनौघः विकन्दितमहास्वनः॥
प्रकीर्णकेशशैवाःः कैकेयीबडवामुखः।
ममाश्रुवेगप्रभवः कुब्जावाक्यमहाग्रहः॥
बरवेलो नृशंसाया रामप्रव्राजनायतः।
यस्मिन्बत निमग्नोऽहं कौसल्यंराघवं विना।
दुस्तरो जीवता देवि ममायं शोकसागरः॥
**— Rām, Ayo., 59.**
This is all the more inappropriate since it is not Kavivākya but a Pātravākya, words of the dying Daśaratha^(1). A similar artificial verse is found in Sugrīva’s lament over the fallen body of his elder brother:
सौदर्यघातापरगात्रवालःसन्तापहस्ताक्षिशिरोविषाणः।
एनोमयो मामभिहन्ति हस्ती दृप्तो नदीकूलमिव प्रवृद्धः॥
— Kiṣ., 24, 17.
The passion for figures makes a poet introduce them in such irrelevant places. As’vathāman, in deep grief at his father’s death, is made to utter such a complicated expression of his sentiment :
तत्त्वरतेमे तावत् तातपरिभवानलदह्यमानमिदं चेतः प्रतीकारजलावगाय।
And in Act I, Bhaṭṭa Nārayaṇa makes Bhima say :
युप्मच्छासनलंघनाम्भसि मया मग्नेन नाम स्थितम्।
Poetry, being intended for the delight of the imagination, must be effective only through hint and suggestion; and when
__________________________
1. The author of the Imagery of Rāmāyana (J O.R., Madras, referred to above) characterises such instances as ‘Symmetry-figures’, those worked out for symmetry alone. The giving of a name to them does not take away their artificiality.
one makes it a bit of grammar or logic, it ceases to be poetry. It is really surprising how there can be any beauty of figure in such an unpoetic expression as Parisaṁkhyā which can never be a spontaneous utterance. The following Parisaṁkhyā is a description of the rain season in the Rāmāyaṇa :
वहन्ति वर्षन्ति नदन्ति भान्ति ध्यायन्ति नृत्यन्ति समाश्वसन्ति।
नद्यो घना मत्तगजा बनान्ताः प्रियाविहीनाः शिखिनः प्लवंगाः॥
**
—Kis.,18. 27.**
It is proper that Kuntaka should reject this ‘Alaṅkāra ‘.
From mere Rūpaka, the poet’s first move in the world of the image itself produces the Pariṇāmālaṅkāra, which is Rūpaka with Prakṛtopayogitva. This figure has been abused very much. The poet moves on only in the world of imagery, carried away by suggestions of further images from the details of the first imagery. He does not beautify or illustrate the main idea which he has now forgotten.
दोर्दण्डदर्पस्तपनो यदीयस्तमो निरस्यन्नपि लोकवृत्ति।
प्रत्यर्थिपृथ्वीपतिमण्डलस्य निमीलयामास मुखाम्बुजानि॥
**
—Sahṛdayānanda, I.**
The first figure Rūpaka suggests a Pariṇāma and that is further taken up to a Virodha and the last metaphor here— मुखाम्बुजानि-is wholly inappropriate as applied to the faces of enemies.
Such verses often become ununderstandable like puzzles, three or four ideas intervening between the understanding and the Rasa. Mahimā says :
‘त्रिभिरन्तरिता यथा … तदिदमुपायपरंपरोपरोहनिस्सहा न रसास्वादान्तिकमुपगन्तुमलमिति प्रहेलिकाप्रायं काव्यमेतत् … ।’
—V. V., I, T.S.S., pp. 17-18.
The same is the case with Paryāyokta19,Preyān and Rasavadalaṅkāras. The king or God is to be praised; Prīti for them is the main Rasa of the subject, but a minor Rasa is employed to adorn the main one. A far-fetched idea suggesting some great quality of the king or God (which quality is left to hide itself in one small word) is elaborated and the whole verse is burdened with a new picture which is a world by itself. The verse बल्लालक्षोणिपाल त्वदरिनगरे सञ्चरन्ती किराती etc. quoted by Appayya dīkṣita in his Citramīmāmsā as an illustration of Uttarottarapallavitabhrānti aptly shows how poets stray away from the main idea. This tendency is the main feature of the vast mass of court eulogies like the Prataparudriya (the Alankara work), Prāṇābharaṇa, Rājendrakarṇapūra etc. When Kālidāsa writes thus :
क्रियाप्रबन्धेष्वयमध्वरणाम् अजस्रमाहूतसहस्रनेत्रः।
शच्याश्चिरं पाण्डुकपोललंबान् मन्दारशून्यानलकांश्चकार॥
we have the main idea of the king incessantly doing sacrifices given adequate expression, but if we take a verse from the Pratāparudrīya praising the king, we can see the poet rolling in the world of images themselves with little reference to the king’s qualities. Sometimes it seems that court-poetry will praise and pun and work conceits upon Gangā, Kṣīrodadhi and Candra themselves to the exclusion of what they are taken to represent, viz. the king’s white fame.
Coming to Utpreksā, we already saw one instance of a bad Utpreksā from the Rāmāyaṇa Campū, वाणीविलासपमरत्र etc., where the poet has gone contrary to the main theme. This figure especially shall always be closely connected with the main theme and Rasa.
गुरोर्नियोगाद्वनितां बनान्ते साध्वीं सुमित्रातनयो जिहास्यन्।
अवार्यतवोत्थितवीचिहस्तैः जहोर्दुहित्रा स्थितया पुरस्तात्॥
**—R. V., XIV, 51.**
Here is an appropriate Utprekṣã, one in perfect consonance with the sentiment; Kālidāsa has heightened the Rasa by it. But ingenuity and eccentricity formed the endowments of many poets who made conceits far-fetched and irrelevant. Not to mention pleasure, even intellectual satisfaction is not produced by many Utprekṣās of Śrīharṣa. The Rasa is obscured to a single word. As with hyperbole, so with conceits: the departure from truth must not be shocking. Bain says: ‘Tiresome to us at least is the straining of this figure in Eastern Poetry’. He says this of hyperbole and it is true also of conceit. It is mistaken taste and scholarship that revels in these far-fetched figures.
लोकातीत इवात्यर्थमध्यारोप्य विवक्षितः।
योऽर्थस्तेनातितुप्यन्ति विदग्धा नेतरे जनाः॥
** —Dandin, K. Ā., 1.**
Another figure with which Sanskrit composition is cheaply associated is Śleṣa. As Keith points out, the lexicons and the Nānārthavargas did a very bad service in this connection. It became impossible for a latter-day scholar to write except in double entendre and if we take a work like Vedāntadesika’s Subhāṣitanīvi, we can rarely find there a verse which has not got two meanings. Sometimes we are able to set up similarity between both the ideas and sometimes we are left to satisfy ourselves with the mere pleasure of originality and admire the author’s command over the language. Often the puns revolve round silly and trivial
attributes. There are also cases of discord of varying nature between the two ideas: the idea on hand, the Prākaraṇika, is Adhika, the other, Nyūna; the former noble, the latter, base. The author of the Sahṛdayānanda makes a pun upon such a trifle of an attribute as the owl having wings. It was the boast of authors that they could pun at every step; it was the banner of their talents. Subandhu beats his own Paṭaha thus:
प्रत्यक्षरश्लेषमयप्रपञ्चविन्यासवैदग्ध्यनिधिं प्रबन्धम्।
सरस्वतीदत्तवरप्रसादः चक्रे सुबन्धुः सुजनैकबन्धुः॥
So much so that it became not only a possibility or accomplished fact but a practice of great fancy to produce double, triple, and quadruple poems20.
** **But what exactly is the place of this figure? Has it any charm to impart to the diction? It does help Alaṅkāra, all Alaṅkāras except Svabhāvokti :
श्लेषः पुष्णाति सर्वासु प्रायो वक्रोक्तिषु श्रियम्। — Daṇḍin.
Abhinava also points out that it helps Upamāgarbha figures. Used with restraint, it can be charming and effective. The two meanings must be well known; the figure must have come off easily. Bāṇa says: श्लेषोऽक्लिष्टः।Harṣacarita. The following are two instances of simple and beautiful S’leṣa, used with an eye to increase the effect of the situation :
बाप्पेण पिहितं दीनं रामस्सौमित्रिणा सह।
चकर्षेव गुणैर्बद्ध्वाजनंपुरनिवासिनम्॥
** —Rām., Ayo., 41. 12.**
शरत्कालं प्रतीक्षिप्ये स्थितोऽस्मि वचने तव।
सुग्रीवस्य नदीनां च प्रसादमनुपालयन्॥
—Rām., Kiş., 27. 42.
Kālidāsa, who rarely resorts to this figure, gives a similar simple Śleșa in his R. V., III :
न संयतस्तस्य बभूव रक्षितुः विसर्जयेद्यं सुतजन्महर्षितः।
ऋणाभिधानात्स्वयमेव केवलं तदा पितॄणां मुमुचे स बन्धनात्॥
In Bāṇa, we meet with both uses and abuses of this figure. As in his life, so in his writings, Bāṇa was exuberant and was responsible for excess. He often forgot proportion and in Utprekṣā, he became endless sometimes, as in that long and tiring description of the king’s elephant, Darpaśāta, in Ucchvāsa II of the Harṣacarita. He could deal in pointless Ślesas like aHe was a master of Śabdabhaṅgaśleṣa, in which the words have to be differently split for the two meanings. This Bhaṅgaśleṣa is denounced by foreigners; but those who have complete acquaintance and are familiar with all the nooks and corners of a language can understand a Bhaṅgasleṣa very easily. Śleṣa in general is very effective in gnomic utterances where they help to nail the maxim into our head; they are equally catching in Cāṭus or eulogies. In Catus, the Bhaṅgaśleṣaalso is freely employed and in the following Cāṭu, Bhaṅgas’leṣais certainly very striking :
भवान् हि भगवानेव गतो भेदः परस्परम्।
महत्या गदया युक्तः सत्यभामा विराजितः॥
When overdone or when handled by lesser artists, the Padabhaṅgas’leṣa can become one of the obstacles to
understanding and realization of Rasa. Ānandavardhana classes it along with the Duṣkaras, the Yamaka, the Bandhas etc. which have to be avoided during the delineation of Rasas like Śṛṅgāra, Vipralambha and Karuṇa.
—यमकप्रकाराणां निबन्धनं दुष्करशब्दभंगश्लेषादीनां शक्तावपि प्रमादित्वमिति। — Dhva. Ā., p. 85.
As compared with this Bhaṅgaśleṣa of Śabda, Arthaśleṣa is less of an impediment to Rasa; used discriminately, it can help Rasa even. Says Abhinava:
शब्दभंगश्लेषेति। अर्थश्लेषो न दोषाय, यथा रक्तस्त्वमित्यादि। शब्दभंगोऽपि क्लिष्ट एवदुष्टः, न तु अशोक- सशोकादौ ।
Locana, p. 85.
The next prominent figure which had found a place in the Rāmāyaṇa and had become monotonous in later poets is the Samāsokti. Poets see the world shaped in beauty. To them there is music in the spheres. Words in the feminine gender fascinates them.
तथा हि ‘तटी तारं ताम्यति’इत्यत्र तटशब्दस्य पुंस्त्वनपुंसकत्वे अनादृत्य स्त्रीत्वमेव आदृतं सहृदयैः‘स्त्रीनामापि मधुरं’इति कृत्वा।
— Locana, p. 160,
सति लिंगान्तरे यत्र स्त्रीलिंगं च प्रयुज्यते।
शोभानिष्पत्तये यस्मिन् नामैव स्त्रीति पेशलम्॥
—Vakroktijivita, 93.
This employment of Samādhiguṇa‘with which poets, as with magic, give life and motion (emotion ?) to every inanimate part of nature’is praised by Daṇḍin as ‘Kāvya sarvasva.’
तदेतत् काव्यसर्वस्वं समाधिर्नाम यो गुणः।
कविसार्थस्समग्रोऽपि तमेनमनुगच्छति॥ —K, ā.,I.
Samādhiguṇa produces the Samāsokti figure. Vālmīki has two beautiful verses of this class, in the former of which elements of Samāsokti go to beautify the main figure of Upamā.
सेवनाने दृढं सूर्ये दिशमन्तकसेविताम्।
विहीनतिलकेन स्त्री नोत्तरा दिक् प्रकाशते॥
—Āraṇya, 16.8.
चञ्चच्चन्द्रकरस्पर्शसमुन्मीलिततारका।
अहो रागवती सन्ध्या जहाति स्वयमंबरम्॥
—Kiṣkindhā, 30. 46.
There are some very fine verses of this type in Canto XI of the Śiśupālavadha where Māgha gives us a description of dawn. But soon, poets with neither originality nor restraint, began to repeat images; the same three or four objects, the sun, the moon, the Padminī, the Kairaviṇī, the Prācī and the Pratīcīdiks were exploited for many verses together, the points of attraction dwindling to trifles, and with variety almost non-existent. Gradually this figure became intellectual and no wonder, it begot the new subvariety called Śāstrasamāsokti.
In Sanskrit Literature, there are some strange metaphors at which some English critics evince surprise. As for instance, we never have simple Asi (sword), but have only असिलता**.**Among our own critics, Kṣemendra has said— in his Aucityavicāracarcā— that such a delightful object as moon ought not to be conceived as Citācakra. Things repellent and terrible by themselves must never be conceived in images of charm and love. But while describing the death
of enemies, their sufferings etc., the poet does employ such imagery, sometimes in callousness and sometimes in the light vein. The falling warriors are said to embrace Earth; and Kālidāsa describes Tāṭakā passing away into Death’s abode as going to her lover.
Śāstrasamāsokti has given rise to sheer pedantry. In an age of poetry when poets were scholars with Vyutpatti in all the Darśanas and branches of learning, nothing could satisfy the writer or reader but high-flown rapprochement with Śāstraic ideas. Visākhadatta’s claim for dramatic genius will hardly become less if he had not written साध्ये निश्चितमन्वयेन घटितं विभ्रत्सपक्षे स्थितिं etc. The Naiṣadhakāra’s own Diṇḍima is on this point— ग्रन्थग्रन्थिरिह क्वचित्क्वचिदपि न्यास्ति प्रयत्नान्मया. All the Darśanas and the subtleties thereof find a place in his poem. See the Tarka here: ‘अनुमितोऽपि स वाष्पनिरीक्षणात् व्यभिचचार न तापकरोऽनलः’IV. Naiṣadha. Surely, poetry must give Upadeśa; the sublime thoughts, the deep philosophies—all these the poet must give expression to; but this Śāstrasamāsokti is harldly that.
The last Alaṅkāra that we shall consider here specially is that variety of Aprastutapraśamsā or Anyokti called Anyāpadeśa. If poetry is a criticism of life, Anyāpadeśa is poetry above all other types. In it, the poet points out the flaws and failings of men, praises their nobility, bitingly remarks about men’s meanness, and makes fun of and satirises every aspect of human character. Bhaṭṭa Bhallaṭa’s century of Anyāpadeśa has some very fine verses. Nilakaṇṭha dīkṣita’s Anyāpadeśa is unequalled in this branch. In the anthologies, there are some brilliant Anyāpadeśa verses. Most of the other Anyāpadeśa centuries are trash. A few objects like the sea, the sun, the moon, the lotus, the Kokila and the mango in contrast with the crow and the Margosa, the rains and the frogs— these
trite things in some stale ideas were exploited for a hundred and more verses. The poet did not pick out any particular, subtle or prominent defect of humanity to criticize, or good quality to praise. Not feeling anything to write a verse with life, these poets dashed off verse after verse, retailing one triviality after another. Anyāpadeśa is a type of literature that can never be written at a sitting, by Āśukavis, but must be written on occasions, must be made to accumulate into acollection in the course of the varied life of a poet, full with experience. If Bhallaṭa wrote the verse on the ignoble Dust, which, by the kicking up of the fickle wind, got on the very tops of the mountains —ये जात्या लघवः सदैव गणनां याता न ये कुत्रचित्etc., we know Bhallaṭa felt the poignant grief; we know from the Rājataraṅgiņī that in the reign of the mean and wicked Śaṅkaravarman (A.D. 882-902), great men like poet Bhallaṭa had to earn their livelihood by doing all sorts of services, that poets were not given gifts and that peons drew fabulous salaries, holding high authority.¹
But small minds —मन्दाःकवियशःप्रार्थिनः— never thought themselves ‘kṛtārtha’if they had not finished off in their literary career a century of Anyãpadeśa and immediately they made a ‘Parikarabandha’and began exploiting the sun and the moon, the मल्लीवल्ली etc.
____________________________
1 Kalbaṇa, R.T., V, 204, etc.
त्यागभीरुतया तस्मिन् गुणिसंगपराङ्मुखे।
आसेवन्तावरा वृत्तीः कवयो भल्लटादयः॥
निर्वेतनास्सुकत्रयो, भारिको लवटस्त्वभूत्।
प्रसादात्तस्य दीनारसहत्रद्वयवेतनः॥
See also my article on the Bhallata Śataka in the Annals of the Venkatesvara Oriental Institute, Tirupati, Vol. I. No. 1.
We have thus far considered figures of sense. Poetry, as it is required to be sensuous, must be pleasing to the ear also. The form of the form itself must be beautiful, must have a music and flow. The poet must look to harmony, balance, and climax in his sentences. Metre itself owes its origin to this requirement as also to the emotional outburst. Keith grants that the Sanskrit poets have ‘certainly a better ear than themselves (foreigners) to the music of the words’, —the appropriateness of sound to suggest the meaning and sentiment. What a verse did Bhavabhūti write!
वज्रादपि कठोराणि मृदूनि कुसुमादपि।
लोकोत्तराणां चेतांसि को हि विज्ञातुमर्हति॥
It is really a marvel of sound effect that Bāṇa produces with utmost ease :
‘अपराह्नप्रचारप्रचलिते चामरिणि चामीकरतटताडनरणितरदने रदति सुरस्रवन्तीरोधांसि स्वैरमैरावते।’
‘क्रमेण अधोऽधोधावमानधवलपयोधराम्’
‘ग्राहग्रावग्रामस्त्वलनमुखरितस्रोतसम्’— Harṣacarita, I.
‘विरलीभवति वरटानां वेशन्तशायिनीनां मञ्जुनि मञ्जीरशिञ्जितजडे जल्पिते ।’ —Ibid., III.
One cannot pick out in Bāṇa; the reader with keen sensibility hears the metallic sound of Airāvata striking its tusk on a golden pavement, sees the rolling clouds, sees the current stumbling and rushing out of each of the three blocking words, Grāva, Grāha, Grāma; and in the stillness of his mind, he feels the long-drawn silvery voice of female swans, in the ponds on the outskirts of the city, slowly dying. Colour,
smell, sound and touch we are able to directly realize in Kālidāsa’s verse:
दीर्घीकुर्वन्पटुमदकलं कूजितं सारसानां
प्रत्यूषेषु स्फुटितकमलामोदमैत्रीकषायः।
यत्र स्त्रीणां हरति सुरतग्लानिमंगानुकूल-
शिशप्रावातः प्रियतम इव प्रार्थनाचाटुकारः॥
Note especially the onomatopoeic effect of the sibilant ‘Ś’, doubled by the Sandhi, in the expression ‘Śiprāvātaḥ’. When Kālidāsa said of Aja, ‘तल्पमुज्झांचकार’, we see how Aja briskly rose up from his bed, unlike the slothful and sleepy; and the sternness of Nandin’s command to the Gaṇas not to give way to Cãpala, rings in our own ears when we read—
** तच्छासनात्काननमेव सर्वं चित्रार्पितारम्भमिवावतस्थे। —K.S, III.**
Bhavabhūti was as great a master with the words; surely the delicate and charming effects are easy of achievement for him when they are needed; but he discovered the sound effects required for the Raudra and Bîbhatsa Rasas; what he created, others still live upon. In the Śmaśānāṅka of the Mālatīmādhava, he makes one’s flesh creep, hairs stand on end, and feet step back in fright. The owl, the jackal, the water of the river rushing through skeletons, —eeriness gathers round when we read
गुञ्जत्कुञ्जकुटीरकौशिकघटाघूत्कारसंवेल्लित-क्रन्दत्फेरवचण्डघात्कृतिमृतप्राग्भारभीमैस्तटैः।
अन्तः कीर्णकरङ्ककर्परतरत्संरोधिकूलंकष-
स्रोतोनिर्गमधोरघर्घरवा पारेश्मशानं सरित्॥ —M.M.
Take that verse again in his Mahāvīracarita which brings on Tāṭakā, the demoness-—
अन्त्रप्रोतबृहत्कपालनलकक्रूरक्वणत्कंकण etc.21
The concepts of Rīti and Vṛtti in poetics owe their formulation to a study of these sound-effects. These also count for Rasa. It is said that the first gait of the actor on the stage interprets him and his character to the audience; that first impression stands to the last. So also the first effect a verse on its mere reading or hearing produces, holds the mind to the end. For the Rasa to be suggested, even the jingle in the sounds or the clash of words is welcome and appropriate means.
A further carrying out of these ideas gives rise to the Śabdālaṇkāra of Anuprāsa of different varieties. But Yamakas, as Daṇḍin says, are not good— तत्तु नैकान्तमधुरम्.They have least to do with Rasa. Ānandavardhana lays down the following rules for the use of Anuprāsa and Yamaka:
शृङ्गारस्याङ्गिनो यत्नादेकरूपानुवन्धनात्।
सर्वेष्येव प्रभेदेषु नानुप्रासः प्रकाशकः॥
ध्वन्यात्मभूते शृङ्गारे यमकादिनिवन्धनम्।
शक्तावपि प्रमादित्वं विप्रलंभे विशेषतः॥
—Dhva. Ā., p. 85; Kār. 15-16.
In such Rasas as Śṛṅgāra and Karuṇa, the elaborate and artificial figures of sound have no place. Vālmīki has shown that in a mere description, rhymes find a proper place. The famous description of the moonlight night in the Sundarakāṇḍa ‘स तत्र मध्यंगतमंशुमन्तम्etc.’is an example. There is a particular
tendency in the Rāmāyaṇa, which is seen even in the Ṛgveda, to juxtapose similar sound groups, an effect which Kālidāsa and Aśvaghoṣa adopted from the master. Vālmīki writes —‘पद्भ्यां पादवतां वरः’, ‘दक्षिणो दक्षिणां दिशम्’, ‘रावणो लोकरावणः’etc. These do not do violence to the sense and at the same time add to the charm of the diction. Kālidāsa in his Raghuvamśa especially delights in such innocent assonances :
तस्मै सभ्याः सभार्याय गोत्रे गुप्ततमेन्द्रियाः।
अर्हणामर्हते चक्रुः मुनयो नयचक्षुषे॥ —R.V., I.
इत्थं द्विजेन द्विजराजकान्तिः आवेदितो वेदविदां वरेण।
एनोनिवृत्तेन्द्रियवृत्तिरेनं जगाद् भूयो जगदेकनाथः॥
—R.V., V.
ततो मृगेन्द्रस्य मृगेन्द्रगामी etc. R.V., II.
Cf. Śrīharṣa, Naiṣadha, VI, 1.
दूत्याय दैत्यारिपतेः प्रवृत्तः द्विषां निषेद्धा निषधप्रधानः।
स भीमभूमीपतिराजधानीं लक्षीचकाराथ रथस्यदस्य॥
Yamaka differs in that it needs special effort and drags the poet away from his Samādhi in Rasa. Not only that : However much, like a latter-day adept at this Yamaka-craft, a poet may get it easily, it is bad and improper in so far as it distracts and stops our minds from proceeding beyond itself, our minds which must reach the ‘Rasa’ obscured in the inner sanctum. (See Dhva. Ā., p. 85). In the ninth canto of the Raghuvaṁśa however, the theme is only a description of summer and the hunt of the king. In such places, Ānanda allows option in using the Yamaka. But there are descriptions both by Vālmiki and Kālidāsa which do not employ
sound-figures and link every descriptive detail with the context. For example, the Vasanta-description opening the Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa and the Śarad-description in Canto IV of the Raghuvaṁśa. The canonists permit the Yamaka-mad and Duṣkara-mad poets to satisfy themselves in situations of Rasābhāsa. The Bandhas of various types, Ekākṣara, Niroṣṭhya— these have nothing to do with poetry. It is regrettable that after Bhāravi and Māgha, these became part of the definition of Mahākāvya.
A bad ideal for prose was deduced by the latter-day poets from Bāṇa and from such remarks as गद्यं कवीनां निकषं वदन्ति, ओजस्ममासभूयस्त्वमेतद्गद्यस्य जीवितम् etc. Without endless compounds and jingle of sounds, no prose was possible after a time. So much so that as time passed, certain word groups were effected, one word in which would not occur without the other. मल्लीwould not come out without वल्ली and the sound of नूपुर will always be introduced as ‘मञ्जुमञ्जीरशिञ्जा’. All the rivers looked ‘त्वङ्गतुङ्गत्तरङ्गरङ्ग’. In ideas and words, a stock diction had grown and poesy became a mechanical craft. In his book on Poetic Diction, Thomas Quayle says of the 18th century poetry in England: ‘And the same lack of direct observation and individual expression is obvious whenever the classicists have to mention birds or animals**. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . **And it has been well remarked that if we are to judge from their verse, most of the poets of the first quarter of the eighteenth century knew no bird except the gold finch or nightingale and even these probably only by hearsay. For the same generalised diction is usually called upon and birds are merely a “feathered”, “tuneful”, “plumy” ог “warbling”choir **. . . . . .’**How true these remarks are of our Sanskrit poets who produced Mahākāvyas at the shortest notice, who could describe the Himālayas and the Ganges and the
ocean without seeing them and at whose command there were Kośas and stock expressions and stock ideas, white fame of the king like the autumnal moonlight, the blazing sun of his prowess, the Vasanta, the Malaya māruta, the भृंगीसंगीत and soon. To this race of poets apply these lines of Keats:
Beauty was awake I
Why were ye not awake?But ye were dead
To things ye knew not of, —were closely wed
To musty laws lined out with wretched rule
And compass vile; so that ye taught a schoo।
Of dolts to smooth, inlay, and clip, and fit,
Till, like the certain wands of Jacob’s wit,
Their verses tallied. Easy was the task:
A thousand handicraftsmen wore the mask
Of Poesy.
—Sleep and Poetry.
To conclude, poetry is neither pure emotion and thought nor mere manner. A beautiful idea must appropriately incarnate itself in a beautiful expression. This defines Alaṅkāra and its place and function. The function of Alaṅkāra is to heighten the effect; it is to aid the poet to say more pointedly. Whether the poet exalts or does the opposite, Alaṅkāra is to help him. Says Mahimabhaṭṭa :
विनोत्कर्षापकर्षाभ्यां स्वदन्तेऽर्था न जातुचित्।
तदर्थमेव कवयोऽलंकारान्पर्युपासते॥
—V.V., T.S.S., P. 53.
As such, these Alaṅkāras should flow out of Rasa. Even as emotion is depicted, these must come off, without the poet consciously striving after them. They must be ‘irremovable’,
structural, organic : Rasākṣipta, Apṛthag yatna nirvartya. These words of Mahimabhaṭṭa are pertinent here:
किञ्च सौन्दर्यातिरेकनिष्पत्तयेऽर्थस्य काव्यक्रियारंभः कवेः, न तु अलंकारनिष्पत्तये तेषां नान्तरीयकतयैव तत्सिद्धेः, भङ्गिभणितिभेदानामेव अलंकारत्वोपगमात्।
न चालंकारनिष्पत्त्यै रसबन्धोद्यतः कविः।
यतते, ते हि तत्सिद्धिनान्तरीयकसिद्धयः॥22
V.V., II., T.S.S., p. 87.
Figures are thus legitimate, though a proper use of them is a gift which only the greater among the poets are endowed with. Be it a Śabda-alaṅkāra or an Artha-alaṅkāra, be it a sound-effect or a striking turn of the idea, it is not ‘Bahiraṅga’for Rasa, so long as it is useful for Rasa. Effective expression, the embodiment of the poet’s idea, is Alaṅkāra. It is not as if it were in some separate place, like jewels in a box, to be taken and added. As has been explained in the opening part of this chapter, it is the several ways of expressing ideas which are to convey the Rasa that are called Alaṅkāras.
—युक्तं चैतत्। यतो रसा वाच्यविशेषैरेव आक्षेप्तव्याः, तत्प्रतिपादकैश्च शब्दैः, तत्प्रकाशिनो वाच्यविशेषा एवं रूपकादयोऽलंकाराः। तस्मान्न तेषां बहिरंगत्वं रसाभिव्यक्तौ। —Ānanda, p. 87.
रसस्याङ्गं विभावाद्याः साक्षान्निप्पादकत्वतः।
तद्वैचित्र्योक्तिवपुषोऽलंकारास्तु तदाश्रयाः॥
—Mahimā., p. 87.
From Rasa to the musical sound which aids its realisation, poetry is one unity, one complex of rich experience.
The purposiveness of Alaṅkāra is inevitable like the purposiveness of poetry. But this does not mean that one should judge Alaṅkara and poetry from a purely utilitarian point of view. There is simply beautiful poetry, which is nothing but the poet’s desire to express taken shape. ‘These very decorations carry the emotional motive of the poet which says “I find joy in my creations; it is good”23‘When in some pure moments of ecstasy we realise this in the world around us, we see the world not as merely existing but as decorated in its forms, sounds, colours, and lines, we feel in our hearts that there is one who through all things proclaims “I have joy in my creation ”**.**Nature is the creation of God’s Līlā, Poetry, of the poet’s Līlā.
THE HISTORY OF SVABHĀVOKTI IN SANSKRIT POETICS
जातिमिव अलङ्कृतीनां …अधिकमुद्भासमानाम्॥
—Dhanapāla’s Tilakamañjari, p. 130.
IT is a proper emphasis on both the content, Emotion and Thought, and the form, the Poetic Expression,^(1) that is contained in the dictum of the Sanskrit critics that poetry is Ukti pradhāna or Abhidhā pradhāna. As Tauta says in the well-known passage quoted by Hemacandra (K.A., p. 316), one may have the vision, Darśana, and be only a seer, Ṛṣi, but he becomes a poet, Kavi, only when he renders that vision into beautiful language, Varṇanā. The poetic expression is, generally speaking, heightened or made striking by an out-of-the-way-ness, which is called Vakrokti or Alaṅkāra. This figurative strikingness is pervasive of the whole range of the form and helps to detect poetry When the figurative deviation from the ordinary mode of speaking is scrutinized, it is found that, in some cases, the deviation is more than in other cases. Indeed, there are cases which do not show any determinable and definable deviation, cases which we call ‘natural description’. Such ‘natural description’, when it is of an emotional situation is called a case of Rasa, or Rasa-ukti according to Bhoja; and when it is of anything else or of an
______________________________
1 Says Oscar Wilde in his Picture of Dorian Gray, p. 159:
‘For, canons of good society are, or should be, the same as canons of art. Form is absolutely essential to it.
object of Nature, it is called Svabhāvokti. To a survey of the history of this concept, Svabhāvoktı, is this chapter devoted.
We first catch sight of Svabhāvokti in the introductory verses in Bāṇa’s Harṣacarita:
नवोऽर्थो जातिरग्राम्या श्लेषोऽक्लिष्टः स्फुटो रसः।
विकटाक्षरबन्धश्च कृत्स्नमेकत्र दुर्लभम्॥
Jāti is the old name of Svabhāvokti. Bāṇa says that Jāti or Svabhāvokti must not be Grāmya, ordinary, vulgar, insipid or stale. Jāti is the statement of things as they are. That is what the ordinary speaker and writer make; poverty of poetic power, absence of a wizard-force with words, a sense of bare necessity, parsimony in expression, a sense of sufficiency, an anxiety to state the bare truth with absolute fidelity to facts— these produce a kind of expression which is a bare statement of things as they are. Ordinary talk, legal expressions, and scientific writings are examples. These two, ordinary bald talk and the technical jargon of science, Laukika and Śāstrīya expressions, are both excluded from the scope of Jāti. Jāti is a poet’s statement of the natural state of things. Hence does Bāṇa say that Jāti has to be Agrāmya.¹
__________________________________
1 Vidyānātha qualifies Svabhāvokti by the word Cāru :
स्वभावोक्तिरसौ चारु यथावद्वस्तुवर्णनम्।
And Kumarasvāmin explains that Cāru means Agrāmya : only a beautiful statement of things as they are, is Svabhāvokti:
यत्र चारु सम्यगग्नाम्यम्। … अत एवेदं ग्राम्यं नालङ्कारः इत्युक्तं दोषप्रकरणे।
Pra. rud. Bãla m. Edn., p. 297.
This Cārutva and Agrāmyatāare involved in the very conception of the Svabhāvokti Alankāra and hence, Kuntaka’s fear that the cart-driver’s talk also will become Svabhāvokti is unfounded.
स्वभावयुक्तमेव सर्वथा अभिधेयपदवीमवतरतीति शाकटिकवाक्यानामपि सालङ्कारता प्राप्नोति, स्वभावयुक्तत्वेन। V.J. I, p. 24.
How this ‘natural description’ came to be called Jāti is a question worth investigating. Perhaps Jāti refers to its origin from the root ‘Jan’ and means the presence or presentation of things as they arise or are. Or Jāti refers to the general characteristics that go to mark out a thing or a class of things.^(1)Objects like trees, birds and deer are described, delineating graphically the attributes and actions of their class. This would form a description of Jāti and perhaps this was the earliest variety of natural description to be recognized and christened, among Alaňkāras. As a matter of fact, we find Daṇḍin giving four classes of Svabhāvokti, — Jāti, Dravya, Guṇa and Kriyā. It is reasonable to believe that the first and earliest variety, Jāti, was extended as name to the rest also. Says Daṇḍin:
स्वभावोक्तिश्च जातिश्चेत्याद्या सालङ्कृतिर्यथा।II. 8.
जाति-क्रियागुणद्रव्य-स्वभावाख्यानमीदृशम्॥II. 13.
And he illustrates Jāti-svabhāvokti by a description of the class-attributes of the species of birds called parrots:
शुण्डैराताम्रकुटिलैः पक्षैर्हरितकोमलैः।
त्रिवर्णराजिभिः कण्ठैः एते मञ्जुगिरः शुकाः॥lI. 9.
We miss the word Jāti in Bhāmaha but not the concept of ‘natural description’. In the introductory paragraph, it was pointed out that the proper cloak of poetic idea is a stricking form, emphatic by virtue of its heightened nature; but that within its realm, there are varying degrees of striking-
____________________________________
1 Compare the discussion in Śāstras about Jāti as a Padārtha, along with Vyakti and Ākṛti. The view that ‘Jāti’is Padārtha was held by Vājapyāyana and also by the Mimāmsakas.
ness and deviations from the normal mode of expression; and that, comparatively speaking, there are cases in which such deviation is least and which, as a consequence, are called Svabhāva-ukti, ‘natural expression’.^(1) Now, Bhāmaha proceeded with his treatment of poetry thus: Flaws must be avoided in expression and though a flawless piece by itself may be lovely, because of its natural beauty, yet embellishments beautify it, as ornaments beautify even the naturally lovely face of a woman.
रूपकादिरलङ्कारः तस्यान्यैर्बहुधोदितः।
न कान्तमपि निर्भूषं विभाति वनितामुखम्॥ I. 13.
When Bhāmaha says thus that a lovely face does not shine without ornaments, he seems to contradict himself. The conclusion we can draw from this verse is that though Bhāmaha emphasizes ornament very much, he is aware of a beauty which is natural to a piece of poetry, and which is not born of ornament. This ornament or Alankāra is a certain striking deviation in expression for Bhāmaha. When no such striking deviation is recognizable, the expression is no Alaṅkāra. This is clear when Bhāmaha refutes Hetu, Sūkṣma and Lesa as Alaṅkāras, since, according to him, the expression as a whole in these cases does not show any Vakrokti.
हेतुः सूक्ष्मोऽथ लेशश्च नालङ्कारतया मतः।
समुदायाभिधानस्य वक्रोक्त्यनभिधानतः॥II. 86.
_________________________________
1 Rudraṭa made such an analysis of figures and his first class of Alaṅkāras forming the Vāstava group involves the least figurative Vaicitrya. Of the many in this group, the Vāstava figure par excellence, as Namisādhu specially points out, is Jāti. And it is because Jāti concerns itself directly with the thing as it is, without any great s’abda vaicitrya, that Bhoja counts Jāti as an Arthālaṅkāra and that, the first.
If this Vakratva is not to be found, the expression is mere ‘news’, mere information-giving; it is Vārtā. Following the above quoted verse, Bhāmaha says:
गतोऽस्तमर्को भातीन्दुः यान्ति वासाय पक्षिणः।
इत्येवमादि किं काव्यं ? वार्तामेनां प्रचक्षते॥ II. 87.
The first line here is an instance of an utterance which as a whole, Samudāya abhidhāna, is bereft of any Vakrokti; and this is what is called Vārtā, news. Thus as against poetry, there is set this Vārtā, which may be insipid Loka Vārtā or technical Śastra Vārtā. Vārtā, however, differs from Jāti or Svabhāvokti; for Vārtā is, to adopt Bāṅa’s language, Grāmyā Jātiḥ. Thus, we have ordinary expression which is Vārtā; then natural poetic expression called Jāti or Svabhāvokti and then Vakrokti.
If these meanings are not settled thus, there will arise a loose use of Vārtā or Jāti. Daṇḍin uses the word Svabhāvokti or Jāti loosely when he says: शास्त्रेष्वस्यैव साम्राज्यम्; he refers here to Vārtāonly. Similarly Vārtāalso has been loosely used as a synonym of Jāti. Just after Atisayokti, Yathāsaṁkhya and Utprekṣā, we find Bhaṭṭi illustrating a figure called Vārtā, by a verse describing the mountain Mahendra.
वार्ता—विषधरनिलये निविष्टमूलं शिखरशतैः परिमृष्टदेवलोकम्।
घनविपुलनितम्बपूरिताशं फलकुसुमाचितवृक्षरम्यकुञ्जम्॥
X. 45.
This shows that Vārtā is meant as a synonym of Jāti or Svabhāvokti and that in the pre-Bhāmaha literature, Svabhāvokti was recognized by some, some called it Svabhāvokti, others Jāti and still others Vārtā. Bhaṭṭi must be taken to call it
Vārtā. The Viṣṇudharmottara, in its small section on Alaṅkāra, calls it Vārtā :
यथास्वरूपकथनं वार्तेति परिकीर्तितम्।
In Bhāmaha, we find Vārtā used separately from Svabhāvokti; he restricts Vārtā to non-poetic utterances in which there is no Vakrokti. Daṇḍin does not mention the word Vārtā, (amidst Alaṅkāras) but uses the words Jāti and Svabhāvokti as synonyms.
The Jayamaṅgalā^(1)on Bhaṭti has an original explanation to offer on Vārtā, not found elsewhere. It says:
वार्तति तत्त्वार्थकथनात्। सा विशिष्टा, निर्विशिष्टा च। तत्र या पूर्वा सा स्वभावोक्तिरुदिता, यथेयमेव। तथाचोक्तम्—
स्वभावोक्तिरलङ्कारः इति केचित्प्रचक्षते।
अर्थस्य तादवस्थ्ये च स्वभावोऽभिहितो यथा॥
(Bhāmaha, II, 93.)
निर्विशिष्टा वार्ता नामालङ्कारः। यथोक्तं—
गतोऽम्तमर्कोभातीन्दुः यान्ति वासाय पक्षिणः।
इत्येवमादिकं काव्यं वार्तामेनां प्रचक्षते॥ इति
Under X, 46, N.S. Edn.
In Bhaṭṭi, the word Svabhāvokti is absent. There is only Vārtā, which is illustrated by a natural description of a
__________________________________
1 There is a good amount of difference between the Jayamaṅgalā and Mallinātha’s gloss on Bhaṭṭi on the question, which Alaṅkāra is illustrated in which verse by Bhaṭṭi अथ लक्ष्मण etc. X.42 or 43 is an illustration of Svabhāvokti for Mallinātha and of Atıs’ayokti (what a difference !) for the Jayamaṅgalā. If the Jayamaṅgalā sees Vārtā in X 45 or 46 Mallinātha sees Atiśayokti there. In the case of some verses, Mallinātha does not point out any figure. And this difference between the commentators on Bhaṭṭi does not seem to have been pointed out by scholars.
mountain. From this we concluded that Bhaṭṭı must be understood to hold according to writers whom Bhāmaha did not follow, that Vārtā was synonymous with Jāti and Svabhāvokti. But the Jayamaṅgalā is a close follower of Bhāmaha whose text alone it quotes. It explains Bhaṭṭi by Bhāmaha and naturally there is some difficulty. The Jayamangalā starts with two definite ideas: (1) that Bhāmaha accepts an Alaṅkāra called Svabhāvokti and (2) that the verse on Vārtā is a verse on an Alaṅkāra called Vārtā, with an illustration in the first line. Hence, the Jayamaṅgalā reads the verse on Vārtā differently:
इत्येवमादिकं काव्यं वार्तामेनां प्रचक्षते।
for
इत्येवमादि किं काव्यं वार्तामेनां प्रचक्षते।
Having started with these two ideas, the Jayamangalā has to indicate the difference between Vārtã and Svabhāvokti. It says ingeniously that there is one major Alaṅkāra called Vārtā which is the stating of things in strict accordance to their natural state and that it has two subdivisions, Viśiṣṭa and Nirviśiṣṭa. The Viśiṣṭa Vārtā is called Svabhāvokti and the Nirviśiṣta vārtā is simply Vārtā. Bhaṭṭi’s verse is an illustration of the former. From the Jayamangalā’s remarks, we see that by ‘Viśiṣṭa’, it means the description of one particular object with its attributes, and by ‘Nirviśisṭa’, the description of a composite view of Nature; the former is illustrated by Bhaṭṭi’s description of Mt. Mahendra with its attributes, and the latter by ‘गतोऽस्तमर्कः etc.’¹
_________________________
1 Dr. S. K De says (Skr. Poe., I, p. 53) that Bhatti does not recognize Svabhāvokti. We do not know that, for as Dr. De himself points out (p. 52), the Jayamaṅgalā is the guide to know what Bhaṭṭirecognized and illustrated. According to
But Bhāmaha kept Vārtā and Svabhāvokti separate. The latter, he refers to as an Alaṅkāra and illustrates. The former, he refers to with derision, as a name for insipid detailing of some facts, for expressions devoid of striking deviation. Closely following, as it does, his rejection of Hetu, Sūkṣma and Lesa which do not show any Vakratva, the verse does not seem to yield itself to the different reading and consequent different meaning which the Jayamaṅgalā gives it. That the verse mentioning Hetu, Sūkṣma and Leśa and the next verse speaking of ‘गतोऽस्तमर्कः’etc.’as mere Vārtā, go together is proved by a reference to Daṇḍin where Bhāmaha, II, 86-87 are taken together. Daṇḍin, in the Hetucakra, speaks of ‘गतोऽस्तमर्कः’etc.’as Jñāpaka Hetu Alankāra and considers it as ‘Uttamabhūṣaṇa’as if to spite him who referred to Hetu together with Sūkṣma and Leśa as no Alaṅkāra at all.¹
Thus I am of opinion that the word Vārtāin Bhāmaha is no name of an Alaṅkāra. Dr. De is of opinion that there is an Alaṅkāra called Vārtā which Bhāmaha mentions and rejects in the passage discussed above. On p. 36 of Vol. II of his Poetics, he says that in the second stage of the development of Alaṅkāras was added ‘a seventh figure Vārtāwhich is referred to by Daṇḍin in I. 85 but which is not accepted by Bhāmaha’. On p. 109, ibid., he says: ‘With Bhāmaha, he (Daṇḍin) alludes to Vārtā (I. 85) which is illustrated by Bhaṭti, but which disappears from later poetics, being included perhaps in the scope of Svabhāvokti’. Mr. P. V. Kane also opines that in the passage discussed above, an Alańkāra called
_______________________________________
Mallinātha, X, 42 (or 43) etc. is Bhaṭṭi’s illustration of Svabhāvoktı; and in X, 45 (or 46) where the Jayamaṅgalā sees Vārtā, Mallinātha sees Atiśayokti
1 From this we have to infer that some predecessor of Bhāmaha whom Bhāmaha criticises but whom Daṇḍin follows, gave the instance ‘गतोऽस्तमर्कः’etc. and held it as an Alaṅkāra called Hetu.
Vārtāis rejected by Bhāmaha. Such a view does not seem to be tenable. The Jayamaṅgalā which speaks of a Vārtālankāra has a curious reading for the second line of Bhāmaha’s verse. This reading itself does not agree with the context in Bhāmaha. If Bhāmaha is refuting an Alankāra of some predecessor called Vārtā in that verse, the verse must have been written otherwise. As it is, it must be taken as closely connected with the previous verse refuting Hetu, Sūkṣma and Lesa and must be taken to give an instance of an ‘Abhidhāna samudāya‘, an expression as a whole, which has no Vakrokti (Vakroktyanabhidhāna); and hence a case of no Kāvya (इत्येवमादि किं काव्यम् ?) but only a bald communication of facts (वार्तामेनां प्रचक्षते). It is clearthat in Bhāmaha, Vārtā is not used as the name of an Alaṅkāra. Nor has Vārtā the Alaṅkāra anything to do with the word Vārtāin Daṇḍin, I. 85, but of which more in the section on Daṇḍin.
Soon, finishing a few Alaṅkāras, Bhāmaha comes to Svabhāvokti:
स्वभावोक्तिरलङ्कार इति केचित्प्रचक्षते।
अर्थस्य तदवस्थत्वं स्वभावोऽभिहितो यथा॥
आक्रोशन्नाह्वयन्नन्यान् आधावन्मण्डलै रुदन् (or र्नुदन्)।
गा वारयति दण्डेन गोपः सस्यावतारिणीः॥ II. 93-94.
There is a discussion among scholars on the question: Did Bhāmaha accept Svabhāvokti as an Alaṅkāra? Some say that the somewhat indifferent reference to it in the words‘इति केचित्प्रचक्षते’shows that Bhāmaha did not accept it as an Alaṅkāra. As regards Bhāmaha’s attitude towards Svabhāvokti, one Pūrvapakṣa is completely ruled out namely that it is not mentioned by him. Bhāmaha mentions, defines and
illustrates it. In this respect, it resembles Āśis, III, 55-56. To begin with, that Bhāmaha defines and illustrates Svabhāvokti is some proof of his acceptance of it as figure. The figures which Bhāmaha does not accept are not referred to by him in such terms. If he does not accept a figure, he says नालङ्कारतया मतः।Witness the case of Hetu, Sūkṣma and Leśa. The words ‘इति केचित्प्रचक्षते’is no argument for taking that Bhāmaha did not accept Svabhāvokti. Many Alaṅkāras are introduced in these terms. These words cannot serve as an argument even for the view that Svabhāvokti has a dubious existence in Bhāmaha. Dr. De sometimes speaks of Svabhāvokti as having a dubious existence in Bhāmaha though in Vol. II of his Poetics and in his Introduction to his edition of the Vakrokti jīvita, he views that Bhāmaha does not accept this figure. Dr. A. Sankaran opines in his Theories of Rasa and Dhvani (p. 22) that Bhāmaha does not accept this figure. Mr. D. T. Tatacharya Siromaní examines these views and replies to them in his M.O.L. Essay on the Definition of Poetry, published in the J.O.R., Madras. Udbhaṭa and Kuntaka considered Bhāmaha as accepting Svabhāvokti. Udbhaṭa has enumerated and defined Svabhāvokti in the same order and place as in Bhāmaha. The ‘ancients’, cirantanas. who figure in Kuntaka’s Pūrvapakṣa as accepting Svabhāvokti, include Bhāmaha. Bhoja who digests completely Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Rudraṭa gives Bhāmaha’s illustration of Svabhā- vokti in his treatment of that figure which shows that, according to Bhoja, Bhāmaha accepted that figure. If Kuntaka had the slightest hint that Bhāmaha did not accept this figure, he would have reinforced his critique against Svabhāvokti with a reference to Bhāmaha’s text to that effect.
On P. 61 of Vol. II of his Poetics, Dr. De says: ‘When words are used in the ordinary manner of common parlance,
as people without a poetic turn of mind use them, there is no special charm or strikingness. Such Svabhāvokti or"natural"mode of speech to which Daṇḍin is so partial but which he also distinguishes from Vakrokti, is not acceptable to Bhāmaha and Kuntaka, who refuse to acknowledge it as a poetic figure at all’.One cannot point out any passage in Bhāmaha which refutes Svabhāvokti and it is wrong to club Bhāmaha with Kuntaka who elaborately argues against Svabhāvokti, as can be seen in a further section. And there is nothing like partiality for Svabhāvokti in Daṇḍin. If one views Bhāmaha as being inimical to this figure, he imagines Daṇḍin to be overfond of it. Nor is the attribute ‘आद्या अलङ्कृतिः’applied by Daṇḍin to Svabhāvokti a sign of his partiality for it. The attribute only means that in the field of poetic expression where Vakrokti rises gradually, Svabhāvokti stands first or at the bottom involving least Vakratā; it is the starting point; the ground for Vakrokti to come into further play.
Mr. Tatacharya has, it seems, committed an excess while trying to prove that Bhāmaha accepted Svabhāvokti.He saysthat when Bhāmaha said—
युक्तं वक्रस्वभावोक्त्या सर्वमेवैतदिप्यते। I. 39.
he meant like Daṇḍin to divide poetic expression into two realms, Vakrokti and Svabhāvokti; and Mr. Tatacharya puts a forced interpretation on ‘Vakrasvabhāvoktyā’which does not mean वक्रोक्त्या and स्वभावोक्त्या but means only वक्रस्वरूप उक्त्या,the word Svabhāva here meaning ‘of the nature of’. Consequently Mr. Tatacharya views that Bhāmaha also, like Daṇḍin, classified Vāṅmaya into two classes, Svabhāvokti and Vakrokti. Mr. Tatacharya says: ‘As is shown above, in Bhāmaha’s view, all the Alaṅkāras other than the one
Svabhāvokti, are governed by the Vakrokti principle.’This is Danḍin’s view,24 not Bhāmaha’s. To Bhāmaha, the absence of Vakratāor Vakroktı eliminates an expression from the fold of Alaṅkāra : it will not be Svabhāvokti but Vārtā,— not like आक्रोशन्नाह्वयन् etc. but like गतोऽस्तमर्कःetc. For Bhāmaha Vakrokti is Alankāra, and Svabhāvokti also which has got its own degree of Vakratāmarking it off from mere Vārtā is comprised in Vakrokti. Daṇdin examined the realm of poetic speech with greater scrutiny and said that since in Svabhāvokti, the Vakratā is least, let it stand apart. And even to this Daṇḍin, the expression of Rasa, Rasa-ukti, is still part of Vakrokti, and Bhoja therefore analyzed poetic expression into three parts, Svabhāvokti, Rasokti and Vakrokti.
Just as Bāṇa said that a Jāti should be Agrāmyā, Daṇḍin says that it should bring before our eyes the picture vividly. नानावस्थं पदार्थानां रूपं साक्षाद् विवृण्वती। II. 8. ‘प्रत्यक्षमिव दर्शयन्ती’ says Taruṇavācaspati, while the Hṛdayaṁgamã which says ‘साक्षादव्याजेन विवृण्वती’ emphasizes that no artificial aid of a figurative flourish shall be used here. As previously indicated, Daṇḍin gives four classes of Svabhāvokti— Jāti, Kriyā, Guṇa and Dravya, II. 13. Bhoja (S.K.Ā., III, 6-8) multiplies the classes,— Svarūpa, Samsthāna, Avasthāna, Veṣa, Vyāpāra etc.; child, maiden, animal; time, place etc.,— elaborations borrowed by him from Rudrata.¹
____________________________
1 The anonymous gloss on the Kāvyādarśa in the N.S. Edn. has a strange comment on ‘नानावस्थं’ Daṇḍin’s definition of the Svabhāvokti. It says that, according to some who base themselves on this condition of ‘Nānāvastha’, only a description of an object in several states or of several objects in several states, constitutes a Svabhāvokti, and not the description of an object in a single state! This too literal an interpretation of Daṇḍin is not justifiable.
What about Vārtāin Daṇḍin? It is not found in the context of Svabhāvokti nor anywhere in Ch. II. We find it in Ch. I in Daṇḍin’s treatment of the Guṇa called Kānti, I, 85-87.
कान्तं सर्वजगत्कान्तं लौकिकार्थानतिक्रमात्।
तच्च वार्ताभिधानेषु वर्णनास्वपि दृश्यते॥
Kānti has a certain amount of kinship with Svabhāvokti, since in both, there is no perceptible stepping out of the normal mode of saying, Laukikārtha-anatikrama. Such Kānti, Daṇḍin says, is found in Vārtābhidhāna and Varṇanāand illustrates Vārtābhidhāna with the following verse:
गृहाणि नाम तान्येव तपोराशिर्भवादृशः।
सम्भावयति यान्येवं पावनैः पादपांसुभिः॥ I. 86.
The Gauḍīstyle which would not be content with this expiession with Kānti, would say: देवधिष्पयमिवाराध्यम् etc. This Vārtā is a sweet complement or word of welcome or enquiry on the occasion of the arrival of a worthy guest. It is thus clear that Vārtā here is not any Alaṅkāra, nor the Alaṅkāra which the Jayamangalā says Baṭṭi is illustrating. Such is the view of the commentators and later writers also, none of whom sees reference to any Alaṅkāra in the Vārtā here.“वार्ता नाम अन्योन्यकतनम्”says the Hṛdayaṅgamā. Hemacandra, while reviewing the old Guṇas in his gloss on his own K. Anuśāsana, refers to Daṇḍin’s Kānti in Vārtā and Varṇanāand interprets Vārtā as a ‘complement’“तत्र उपचारवचनं वार्ता। प्रशंसावचनं वर्णना ।”p. 200, K. A. S’ingabhūpāla also says that Vārtā is a welfare-enquiry : वार्ता नाम कुशलप्रश्नपूर्विका सङ्कथा।
p. 67, T.S.S. Edn. Ratneśvara’s gloss on S.K.Ā., I, p. 114:‘अनामये प्रियालापे वार्तंवार्ता च कीर्त्यते ।’ ¹
Rudraṭa classifies the Arthālaṅkāras into four classes, Vāstava, Aupamya, Atiśaya and Ślesa. All the three here except the first involve an embellishment by a simile or an ex-aggeration or a play on the words. In Vāstava, we have the bare idea as it is, untwisted, Aviparīta; but even as Bāṇa said ‘Agrāmya’, Rudraṭa says, ‘Puṣṭārtha’. Apusṭa, the bald statement, comes under the Doṣas.
वास्तवमिति तज्ज्ञेयं क्रियते वस्तुस्वरूपकथनं यत।
पुष्टार्थम् अविपरीतं निरुपमम् अनतिशयम् अश्लेषम्॥
K. A. VIII, 10,
Namisādhu: पुष्टार्थग्रहणम् अपुष्टार्थनिवृत्त्यर्थम्। तेन—
‘गोरपत्यं बलीवर्दः तृणान्यत्ति मुखन सः।
मूत्रं मुञ्चति शिश्नेन अपानेन तु गोमयम्॥’
अस्य वास्तवत्वं न भवति।
To this class of Vāstava figures, Rudrata assigns Sahokti,. Samuccaya, Jāti, Yathāsaṁkhya, Bhāva, Paryāya, Viṣama, Anumāna, Dīpaka, Parikara, Parivṛtti, Parisamkhyā, Hetu, Kāraṇamālā, Vyatireka, Anyonya, Uttara, Sāra, Sūkṣma, Leśa, Avasara, Mīlita and Ekāvalī. Of these Jāti is Vāstava par excellence. In VII. 30-31, Rudraṭa speaks of the several varieties of Jāti, Form, Pose etc., and subjects for Jāti like children, maidens etc., as already mentioned. There is one
___________________________________
1 Cf. Jivānanda Vidyāsāgar’s gloss on the Kāvyādars’a : “वार्ता अनामयप्रियालापः। ‘अनामयप्रियालापः वृत्तिः वार्ता च कथ्यते’इति वचनात्।” Here is mentioned another meaning also of Vārtā as ‘इतिहासवर्णन’ which is not satisfactory. But none has taken Daṇḍin’s Vārtā. here as the name of Alaṅkāra.
point in Namisādhu’s gloss on Jāti in Rudraṭa which is worth noting. He says that whereas Vāstava means only a statement of a thing as it is, Jāti implies a vivid picture that can create an experience, an Anubbava, of the thing in the mind. जातिस्तु अनुभवं जनयति। यत्र परस्थं स्वरूपं वर्ण्यमानमेव अनुभवमित्रैतीति स्थितम्। This is the significance of the qualification to Jāti which writers add, Agrāmya, Cāru, Puṣṭa and so on.
Udbhaṭa recognizes Svabhāvokti and gives it with a definition and illustration in the third Varga:
क्रियायां संप्रवृत्तस्य हेवाकानां निबन्धनम्।
कस्यचिन्मृगडिम्भादेः स्वभावोक्तिरुदाहृता॥
क्षणं नष्टार्धवलितः शृङ्गेणाग्रे क्षणं नुदन्।
लोलीकरोति प्रणयाद् इमामेष मृगार्भकः॥ III. 89.
What must be noted in Udbhaṭa’s treatment of Svabhāvokti is his unwarranted restriction of the scope of Svabhāvokti to the Hevāka, eagerness or fondness, in their respective activities of young ones of animals and the like. Neither to one class of beings like young ones of animals nor to one aspect only viz., action, Kriyā, can Svabhāvokti be restricted. The commentary on Udbhaṭa’s K.A.S.S. published in the GOS. as Tilaka’s, definitely says that a description of the nature of things as such is not Svabhāvokti but only the ‘Hevāka’ of Bālamṛga and the like in their activities: व्यापारप्रवृत्तस्य बालमृगादेःसमुचितहेवाकनिवन्धनं स्वभावोक्तिः। न तु स्वभावमात्रकथनम्। But, fortunately, Pratīhārendurāja liberally interprets Hevāka and enlarges the scope of this figure to its normal extent.
Bhoja’s treatment of Svabhāvokti has something noteworthy, both in his Sarasvatīkanṭhābharaṇa (S.K.Ā.) and
the Śṛngāra Prakāśa (Śr. Pra.). The S. K.Ā. says in III. 4-5 :
नानावस्थासु जायन्ते यानि रूपाणि वस्तुनः।
स्वेभ्यः स्वेभ्यो निसर्गेभ्यः तानि जातिं प्रचक्षते॥
अर्थव्यक्तेरियं भेदम् इयता प्रतिपद्यते।
जायमानप्रि(नभि)25यं वक्ति रूपं सा सार्वकालिकम्॥
Characteristics which are born in things in their several states and which, by nature, pertain to them form the subject of Jāti. By the second qualification that the characteristics shall pertain to the things by nature, —‘स्वेभ्यःस्वेभ्यो निसर्गेभ्यः’— Bhoja, as explained by Ratneśvara, excludes external associations like reminiscences, reflections etc., on seeing the objects.26The first qualification is fully explained in the second verse from which we learn that it is intended to keep distinct the Alaṅkāra Svabhāvokti and the Guṇa Arthavyakti. This question takes us to Vāmana’s Arthaguṇa Arthavyakti in the definition of which Vāmana uses the word Vastusvabhāva and whose two illustrations are simply two cases of Svabhāvokti. (K.A. Sū. III. ii. 13). वस्तुस्वभावस्फुटत्वमर्थव्यक्तिः। वस्तूनां भावानां स्वभावस्य स्फुटत्वं यत्, असौ अर्धव्यक्तिः।It is clear from this that either Arthavyakti or Svabhāvokti does not obviate the need for the other; nor is there any need to point out how the two do not overlap. It is rather illogical to distinguish two things of two different classes, one a Guṇa and another an Alaṅkāra.This Arthavyakti of Vāmana is a quality pertaining to the
Alaṅkāra called Svabhāvokti, and to other kinds of expressions also.^(1) Still Bhoja tries to show us the difference between Arthavyakti and Svabhāvokti. He says that in Arthavyakti only those aspects of an object are presented which form its permanent distinguishing attributes, Sārvakālikam rūpam, whereas in Svabhāvokti those aspects which are manifest as a result of a particular mood or situation, Avasthāsu jāyamānam rūpam, are presented. This latter is, as contrasted with the Sārvakālika svarūpa, an Āgantuka svarūpa. Says Ratneśvara. ‘वस्तुस्वरूपोल्लेखनार्थं(र्थ) व्यक्तिः अर्थगुणेषु उक्ता। तत्र सार्वकालिकं रूपम् उपजनापायान्तरालव्यापकमित्यर्थः। अत्र तु जायमानमागन्तुकनिमित्तं समवधानप्रभवं व्यभिचरितमित्यर्थः’।This is an unnecessary distinction which brings in its train an unwarranted restriction of the scope of Svabhāvokti to ‘special states’. Bhoja here resembles those who dragged down the Prabandha Guna Bhāvika to the state of Vākyālaṅkāra and then began propounding its difference from Svabhāvokti. ²
The Agnipuraṇa which draws upon Bhoja to a great extent,^(3)borrows this classification of the nature of a thing into Sārvakālika and Āgantuka or Jāyamāna. The Agnipurāṇa
____________________________________
1 Mammaṭa rightly realises Arthavyaktı to be a quality preeminently necessary for all good poetry and gives its scope as embracing not only Svabhāvokti but cases of Rasadhvanietc. also. See Ch. 8, p. 187. T.S.S. Edn. of the Kāvyaprakās’a. When Hemacandra says that Vāmana’s Arthavyaktiguṇa is needless, because it is nothing but the Alaṅkāra named Jāti, he is not making a proper criticism. (अपि च जातिर्नामयमलङ्कार इति p. 199). Cf. Bhaṭṭa Gopāla— वामनमर्यादया तु अर्थव्यक्त्या स्वभावोक्त्ययपलापः ।p. 187, T.S.S. Edn.
2 See also Ch. on Bhoja and Svabhāvokti in my Ph. D. Thesis on Bhoja’s Śṛ. Pra. Vol. I. pt. 1. pp. 139-144.
3 For other ideas in the Agnipurāṇa taken from Bhoja, see thepresent writer’s Rīti and Guṇa in the Agnipurāṇa in the IHQ. Vol. X, pp. 767-779.
calls Svabhāvokti by the name Svarūpālankāra. (Ch. 344), स्वरूपमथ सादृश्यम् उत्प्रेक्षातिशयावपि। It defines the figure thus :
स्वभाव एव भावानां स्वरूपमभिधीयते।
निजमागन्तुकं चेति द्विविधं तदुदाहृतम्॥
सांसिद्धिकं निजं नैमित्तिकमागन्तुकं तथा।
From its stopping with this and saying no more, we have to conclude that the Agnipurāṇa would have Svabhāvokti in both cases unlike Bhoja who would have Arthavyakti in the former case.
Besides reproducing what he said in the S. K. Ā. on Svabhāvokti or Jāti, Bhoja gives an additional idea in his ŚṛPrakāśa. As indicated once previously, he carries out to its scientific length the classification in Daṇḍin of poetic expression into Svabhāvokti and Vakrokti. He separates the Rasas from Vakrokti’s fold and constitutes them into the third class called Rasokti. While doing so, he defines each of these three as expression dominated respectively by Guṇa, Upamāand other Alaṅkāras, and Rasa.
“तत्र उपमाद्यलङ्कारप्राधान्ये वक्रोक्तिः। सोऽपि गुणप्राधान्ये स्वभावोक्तिः। विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोगाद् रसनिष्पत्तौ रसोक्तिरिति।”Śy. Pa., Madras MS., Vol. II, ch. xi, p. 372. This is just hinted in the fifth ch. of the S.K. Ā. where Bhoja says:
वक्रोक्तिश्च रसोक्तिश्च स्वभावोक्तिश्च वाङ्मयम्।
सर्वासु ग्राहिणीं तासु रसोक्तिं प्रतिजानते॥ v. 8.
The idea in defining in the Śṛ. Pra. Svabhāvokti as expression dominated by the Guṇas is that when there is none of the figures beginning with Upamā, the only thing the expression possesses is the Guṇas. This has been explained at length in my thesis on Bhoja’s Śr. Pra., Vol. I. pt. 1. pp. 143-4.
Bahurūpamiśra accepts this three-fold classification of poetic expression in his commentary on the Daśarūpaka which I have reviewed in detail in J.O.R., Vol. VIII, p. 325.
The anonymous Sāhityamīmāmsã, now edited in a very unsatisfactory manner in the T.S.S. (No. 114), is a work based on Bhoja’s S’ṛ. Pra. which it reproduces extensively. It gives Bhoja’s classification of Kāvya-ukti into these three classes of Svabhāva, Vakra and Rasa Uktis; only it calls Svabhāvokti, Ṛjūkti (p. 99). It reproduces also the S.K.Ā. verse on the difference between Svabhāvoktı and Arthavyaktı.
In connection with Mammaṭa’s treatment of Svabhāvokti, the only interesting point to which attention can be drawn is Vidyācakravarttin’s rather incorrect understanding and consequent needless criticism of the Sāndhivigrahika i.e., Vis’vanātha, a point which I have set forth at some length in a note in the Annals of the B.O.R.I., Vol. XIV. pp. 251 and 254.
In the history of the concept of Svabhāvokti, the names of Kuntaka and Mahimabhaṭṭa stand out prominently. The former denies that it is an Alaṅkāra and the latter comes out with an eloquent defence of it as an Alaṅkāra. Kuntaka must be put down as a follower of Bhāmaha with this difference that while for Bhāmaha, Svabhāvokti is comprehended as a variety of Alaṅkāra in Vakrokti, for Kuntaka, Svabhāvokti is not to be called an Alaṅkāra or a pecies of Vakrokti because it is the very nature of the idea which forms the material for the further employment of Vakrokti. That is, Kuntaka considers Svabhāvokti as the Alaṅkārya, i.e., the Kāvya Śarīra and if it is itself called Alaṅkāra, it will be an impossible case of Alaṅkāra decorating itself, as impossible as one mounting one’s own shoulders. Kuntaka is not behind anybody in his appreciation of verses of unembellished grace,
but in all those cases he would say that the subject or idea itself, the Vastu, has an innate Saundarya or Vakratā. Cases which are Svabhāvokti for others would be cases of Vastu vakratāfor Kuntaka. But Vastu which has Vakratā is different from ordinary Vastu devoid of Vakratā, as in ordinary talk. Does not this distinguishing Vakratā which separates Loka vastu and Kāvya vastu amount to Alaṅkāra ? It may not be so much Vicchitti as is found in other species of Vakrokti but yet it is some Vicchitti and as such is Alaṅkāra; and it does not pertain ordinarily to all instances; only poets are able to say things with that Vastu vakratā. And Vakratā is Vakrokti. To this Kuntaka would reply that as far as poetry is concerned, only such Vastu as has beauty is relevant; the bald Vastu is out of the scope of the discussion. But, if on the score of this Vakratã, one would call a Svabhāvākhyāna as Svabhāvokti Alaṅkāra, Kuntaka would seem to yield a little that there is after all only a dispute in names.
यदि वा प्रस्तुतौचित्यमाहात्म्यान्मुख्यतया भावस्वभावः सातिशयत्वेन वर्ण्यमानः स्वमहिम्ना भूषणान्तरासहिष्णुः स्वयमेव शोभातिशयशालित्वात् अलङ्कार्योऽपि अलङ्करणमित्यभिधीयते27:‘वपुषा चाप्यलङ्कृता’. Sundara. 17-25.”),तदयमस्माकीन एव पक्षः।^(1)V. J., p. 139.
In the second Vimarśa of his Vyaktiviveka, Mahimabhaṭṭa speaks of five flaws the last of which is Vācya-avacana under which he treats of a closely related flaw, Avācya-vacana,
___________________________________
1 Some other minor objections are also pointed out by Kuntaka. He asks that if Vastusvabhāva itself is Alaṅkāra, what then shall an Alaṅkāra adorn and adds that if Vastusvabhāva itself is one Alaṅkāra, every case of another Alaṅkāra will be a case of Saṅkara or Samsṛṣṭi (V.J., pp. 24-25).
the putting in of what ought not to be put in. Attributes which do not add to the significance or words which do not heighten or aspects of things which are commonplace and are devoid of any charm— these if expressed form the flaw of Avācya-vacana. Sometimes when a poet nods, when lesser writers have got to fill in parts of the metrical line, such things get in. These Mahimācalls ‘Apratibhodbhava’, born of a mind lacking Imagination and Inspiration. These are the ‘dust’that must be swept out of poetry, ‘Avakara’as Mahimā calls them.
स्वरूपानुवादैकफलं फल्गु विशेषणम्।
अप्रत्यक्षायमाणार्थं स्मृतमप्रतिभोद्भवम्॥
तदवाच्यमिति ज्ञेयं वचनं तस्य दूषणम्।
तद् वृत्तपूरणायैव न कवित्वाय कल्पते॥
II. P. 107. V. V. T.S.S. Edn.
This topic directly leads Mahimabhaṭta to an examination of Svabhāvokti Alaṅkāra. When a poet describes a thing as it is he must not present us with the well-known and common-place aspects of things, a description of which does not make the picture live before our eyes, अप्रत्यक्षायमाणार्थ.Thus a case of Svabhāvokti is most liable to the flaw of Avācya-vacana described in the terms स्वरूपानुवादैकफल, फल्गु and अप्रत्यक्षायमाणार्थ. Hence did Bāṇa qualify Jāti by Agrāmyatva and Rudraṭa by Puṣṭārthatva.^(1) One must be a poet of imagination and in-spiration to write a real Svabhāvokti with power to live before
________________________________
1 A bald statement comes under an Arthadoṣa called Apuṣṭa, Niralaṅkāra and so on.
वस्तुमात्रानुवादस्तु पूरणैकफलो मतः। अर्थदोषस्स दोषज्ञैः अपुष्ट इति गीयते॥
V.V, p. 109. See also Bhoja’s S.K.Ā., pp. 30, 37 and 38 and Ratnes’vara’s com. there.
our mind’s eye. In I. 12, p. 23, Kuntaka said that nothing can be talked of without reference to its Svabhāva or nature, and that there can be no case of expression devoid of Svabhāva- delineation; for no object is conceivable without its nature and attributes.
स्वभावव्यतिरेकेण वक्तुमेव न युज्यते।
वस्तु तद्रहितं यस्मान् निरुपाख्यं प्रसज्यते॥V. J. I, 12.
A statement of this unavoidable Svabhāva cannot be an Alaṅkāra. With reference to this Mahimāsays:
कथं तर्हि स्वभावोक्तेरलङ्कारत्वमिष्यते।
न हि स्वभावमात्रोक्तौविशेषः कश्चनानयोः॥
उच्यते वस्तुनस्तावद् द्वैरूप्यमिह विद्यते।
तत्रैकमत्र(स्य)28सामान्यं यद्विकल्पैकगोचरः॥
स एव सर्वशब्दानां विषयः परिकीर्तितः।
अत एवाभिधेयं ते श्या(ध्या)29 मलं बोधयन्त्यलम्॥
विशिष्टमस्य यद्रूपं तत् प्रत्यक्षस्य गोचरः।
स एव सत्कविगिरां गोचरः प्रतिभाभुवाम्॥
यता—रसानुगुणशब्दार्थचिन्तास्तिमितचेतसः।
क्षणं स्वरूपस्पर्शोत्था (orचिन्तोत्था) प्रज्ञैव प्रतिभा कवेः॥
सा हि चक्षुर्भगवतः तृतीयमिति गीयते।
येन साक्षात्करोत्येषभावांस्त्रैकाल्यवर्तिनः॥
इत्यादि प्रतिभातत्त्वमस्माभिरुपपादितम्।
शास्त्रे तत्त्वोक्तिकोशाख्ये इति नेह प्रपश्चितम॥
अर्थ (अस्य)30 स्वभावस्योक्तिर्या सालङ्कारतया मता।
यतः साक्षादिवाभान्ति तत्रार्थाः प्रतिभार्पिताःII p. 108.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
सामान्यस्तु स्वभावो यः सोऽन्यालङ्कार(सोऽनलङ्कार)31गोचरः।
म्लिष्टमर्थमलङ्कर्तुमन्यथा को हि शक्नुयात्॥
वस्तुमात्रानुवादस्तु पूरणैकफलो मतः।
अर्थदोषस्स32 दोषज्ञैरपुष्ट इति गीयते॥
p. 109, V.V. T.S.S. Edn.
The commentary on the V. V. does not extend to this section but the following extracts will serve to show how Hemacandra and Māṇikyacandra understood the above verses of Mahimabhaṭṭa :
कविप्रतिभया निर्विकल्पकप्रत्यक्षकल्पया विषयीकृता वस्तुस्वभावा यत्रोपवर्ण्यन्ते स जातेर्विषयः। एवं च—
‘अलङ्कारकृतां येषां स्वभावोक्तिरलङ्कृतिः।
अलङ्कार्यतया तेषां किमन्यदवशिष्यते॥’(Kuntaka)
इति यत्कैश्चित्प्रतिपादितं, तन्निरस्तमेव। वस्तुनो हि सामान्यस्वभावो लौकिकोऽर्थोऽलङ्कार्यः। कविप्रतिभासंरंभविशेषविषयस्तु लोकोत्तरार्थोऽलङ्करणमिति। तथा चाह—(quotation of the above verses from Mahimā)’. Hemacandra, p. 275, com.—
इह वस्तुस्वभाववर्णनमात्रं नालङ्कारः।तत्त्वे सर्वं काव्यमलङ्कारः स्यात्। तस्मात् सामान्यस्वभावो लौकिकोऽर्थोऽलङ्कार्यः। कविप्रतिभागोचरस्यतु अतएवतन्निमित्तस्य स्वभावम्य उक्तिःअलङ्कारः। p. 403, Mysore Edn. Māṇikyacandra’s gloss on the K. Prakāśa.
It is accepted by logicians that in one’s apprehension of an object there are really two kinds of awareness, one of the object itself as such and another of the object as possessing a name and as belonging to a class. Perception is thus indeterminate and determinate, Nirvikalpaka and Savikalpaka. Somewhat similar to this, there are the two apprehensions of an object by a poet endowed with penetrating imagination and by an ordinary man. The latter sees what is but the common nature, Sāmānyarūpa, of an object : the expression which he uses in communicating about that object communicates only the ordinary nature of the object. But the imaginative eye of the poet which is like a Yogin’s vision or a divine third eye, sees a special aspect of the thing, not with reference to its common nature, but details whose presentation reveal a wondrous picture of it. If we understand Mahimabhaṭṭa’s Sāmānya and Viśeṣa Svabhāvas in such a general manner, his verses do not offer any problem for interpretation. The commonplace Svabhāva of thing will be the scientific facts about an object, its attributes as pertaining to a class; a bald statement of these as in गोरपत्यं बलीवर्दःetc. would not constitute Svabhāvokti Alaṅkāra; this ordinary nature of the thing is the fact available in the world and forms the material for the play of the poet’s imagination and fancy; it is the Alaṅkārya. The striking and special aspect of the thing, its Viśiṣṭa Svabhāva, which the poet’s eye alone sees and his imagination alone embodies in words of poetry, is the object of
Svabhāvokti Alaṅkaraṇa. In as much as this Viśiṣṭa Svabhāva is not ‘Siddha’, but is ‘Sādhyamāna’through the play of the poet’s Pratibhā, it is Alaṅkāra. The drab matter of fact Svabhāva is out of the scope of any Alaṅkāra. Hence did the previous writers also insist on Jāti being Agrāmya, Puṣta33 in the Doṣa prakaraṇa of the books.”),Cāru and so on. Ruyyaka calls this Sūksma svabhāva and Vidyādhara, Uccais svabhāva. Kuntaka would, however, reply that he is still unanswered; for, to him, it is the Viśiṣṭa svabhāva that forms the Kāvya śarīra and the other Svabhāva is out of account in a discussion in poetics.
अनुत्कृष्टधर्मयुक्तस्य वर्णनीयस्य अलङ्करणमप्यसमुचितभित्तिभागोल्लिखितालेख्यवन् न शोभातिशयकारितामावहति। यस्मादत्यन्तरमणीयस्वाभाविकधर्मयुक्तं वर्णनीयवस्तु परिग्रहणीयम्।V. J. III, p. 135.
Artha in Kāvya is, by necessity, Sundara: अर्थः सहृदयाहलादकारिस्वस्पन्दसुन्दरः।I. 6, V.J. The Viśiṣṭa Svabhāva varṇanā is a case of the Vastu itself having the requisite Vakratā. But to others, as has already been said, this Vakratā which is surely a result of the poet’s power and is not something existing there already, is reason enough to call the case an Alaṅkāra.
Ruyyaka has something special to contribute to the study of Svabhāvokti. He has touched an aspect of the question not dealt with by others. It is his distinction of Svabhāvokti from Bhāvika. It is, however, a question which cannot be gone into fully except after a survey of the history of the concept of Bhāvika from the beginning and for this reason is reserved for the next chapter.
BHĀMAHA says at the end of his Alaṅkāras:
भाविकत्वमिति प्राहुः प्रबन्धविषयं गुणम्।
प्रत्यक्षा इव दृश्यन्तेयत्रार्था भूतभाविनः॥
चित्रोदात्ताद्भुतार्थत्वं कथायाः स्वभि(or वि)नीतता।
शब्दानाकुलता चेति तस्य हेतुं प्रचक्षते॥III.52-53.
Bhāmaha here speaks of a concept which he calls a Guṇa, not of Vākya, but of the Prabandha as a whole. As it has been treated of at the end of Alaṅkāras, we have to suppose that Bhāmaha considered this also as an Alaṅkāra, with this difference, that while the rest were restricted to a Vākya, this was pervasive of a whole part of a poetic composition or of the whole composition itself. As a matter of fact, Bhāmaha calls this Bhāvikatva an Alaṅkāra in the beginning of the third chapter :
भाविकत्वं च निजगुरलङ्कारं सुमेधसः।III. 4.
That Bhāmaha considered this Bhāvikatva described as a Prabandha guṇa as an Alaṅkāra is confirmed by the words of the Jayamaṅgalā on Bhaṭṭi also:
भाविकत्वमलङ्कारः प्रबन्धविषय उक्तः।
What is this Bhāvikatva? Bhāmaha defines this as the quality which pertains to that part of a composition where the
ideas of the past and the future presented by the poet are so vivid as to look like belonging to the present. The term ‘Prabandha’may be rendered here as ‘that part of the poem’ on the force of the word ‘yatra’and on the basis of the Jayamaṅgalā which points out only one canto in illustration of this Bhāvikatva. But it seems that Bhāvikatva is really a quality of prime necessity which all great and good poetry should, from beginning to and, possess. The poet is like the Ṛsi who brings through the power of his vision the past and future into the present.
अविद्याबीजविध्वंसादयमार्पेण चक्षुषा।
कालौभूतभविष्यन्तौ वर्तमानभवीविशत्॥
Anargharāghava, II. 34.
As one reads the poem, it should begin to live before his eyes: that is, it should appear before the mind’s eye of the reader that the story is happening in his very presence. It is this ‘pratyakṣāyamaṇatva’which the Ārṣa-Sahṛdayas who listened to the inaugural recitation of Välmiki’s epic said that the Ādikāvya possessed:
चिरनिर्वृत्तमप्येतत् प्रत्यक्षमिव दर्शितम्। I. 4. 17.
Such a ‘reality’ called forth by ‘imagination’seems to be called by some word derived from bhāva: bhāva itself or bhāvanā or bhāvika or bhavita, or udbhāvana. In this connection it should be pointed out here that the twelfth aṅga of the Lāsya is called bhava and bhāvita and that it is defined as an ‘imaginary vision’, in which, having seen her lover in a dream, the beloved supposes him to be present with her and begins to give expression to consequent emotions:
उक्तप्रयुक्तभावं (वे) च लास्याङ्गानि विदुर्बुधाः।
Ch. XX, śl. 139, KāśīEdn.
दृष्ट्वा स्वप्ने प्रियं यत्र मदनानलतापिता।
करोति विविधान् भावान् तद्वै भावितमुच्यते॥ śl. 152. ibid
Abhinava, who does not accept more than ten Lāsyāngas, refers to others who proposed two more Lāsyāṅgas and here, he gives the Bhāvita as Bhāvika.
अन्ये चित्रपदं भाविकं चेत्यङ्गद्वयमाहुः, पठन्ति च etc.
p. 510, vol. II, Abhi. Bhã. Madras MS.
In the Bhā. Pra., Śāradātanaya also gives it as Bhāvika.
To return to Bhāmaha,— the means to achieve this Bhāvikatva are mentioned by Bhāmaha in the second verse. They are three: citrodāttādbhutārthatvaṃ, kathāyāḥ svabhi (or vi) nītatā, and śabdānākulatā. Of these three, it seems the second should be taken first. There does not seem to be any reference to drama or Abhinaya here, in the expression ‘Kathāyāḥ Svabhinītatā.’ There is a reading ‘svavinītatā’which the Jayamaṅgalā supports. It simply means that the story should progress very smoothly and with gripping interest, there being no hitch, no vagueness and nothing mystifying. Then comes the first means which applies to the ideas with which the story is worked out; the Arthas should be striking and exalted enough to capture the imagination. Then comes the third means, which refers to the verbal expression which should not be ‘involved’or such as to prevent a quick grasp of the ideas or the story.¹
_________________________________________
1 In the Sāmānyābhinaya chapter (24th, Kāśi Edn.), Bharata refers to two kinds of drama and its presentation (Prayoga),— Ābhyantara and Bāhya. In the definition of the Ābhyantara Nāṭya prayoga, we find ideas similar to those by which Bhāmaha defines Bhāvikatva.
सुविभक्तकथालापम् अनिष्टुरमनाकुलम्।
यदीदृशं भवेन्नाट्यं ज्ञेयमाभ्यन्तरं तु तत्॥ ŚI.71.
Bhaṭṭi, as interpreted by the Jayamaṅgalā, considered that primarily poetry must have Prasāda; hence, when after illustrating grammar he comes to the illustration of poetics, he calls the section Prasanna kāṇḍa. Next to Prasāda are the Alaṅkāras; then comes Mādhurya guṇa illustrated by a description of dawn ; next appears a canto, the 12th, which is said to illustrate Bhāvikatva. The Jayamaṅgalā here says that Bhāvikatva is an Alaṅkāra mentioned as pertaining to a whole composition and not to a sentence; and it results from the ideas being ‘wonderful’and so on. It then quotes Bhāmaha’s two verses on Bhāvikatva and concludes that in that canto of Mantranirṇaya deliberation in Rāvaṇa’s court, Bhāvikatva must be held to have been illustrated.
भाविकत्वमलङ्कारः प्रबन्धविषय उक्तः। नैकदेशिकं(प्रबन्धविषय उक्तो नैकदेशिकः।) तस्य चित्रादयोऽर्थाः प्रवृत्तिहेतवः। तथा चोक्तम् (the two verses of Bhāmaha quoted above) इति। तत्सर्वंमन्त्रनिर्णयप्रबन्धे द्रष्टव्यमिति दर्शयन्नाह॥
To begin with, this canto has 5 verses addressed to Vibhīṣaṇa by his mother, śls. 2-6. These five verses are said to illustrate Udāttārthatva. In the discussion and counsel that follow, one must look for the other features, कथायाः स्वविनीतता, शब्दानाकुलता and चित्राद्भुतार्थत्व. Says the Jayamaṅgalā : (p. 307, N. S. edn.)
इयता प्रबन्धेन उदात्तार्थाभिधानादुदात्तार्थत्वमुक्तम्। इत उत्तरं प्रहस्तरावणविभीषणमातामहकुम्भकर्णादीनां वचनप्रबन्धेषु चित्राद्भुतार्थत्वं द्रष्टव्यम्। स्वविनीतता सुबोधता शब्दानाकुलता चेत्येतदुभयं कथायामेव मन्त्रनिर्णयाख्यायां द्रष्टव्यम्॥
The Jayamaṅgalāsays here only one definite thing: that the svavinītatã of kathā means ‘subodhatā’, easy understandability of the story. Beyond this, we are not able to know what exactly in this canto answer to the conditions Udāttārtha, Citrārtha, Adbhutārtha, Kathāyaḥ svavinītatā, and Śabdānākulatā; nor are we able to see how in this particular canto, things of past and future are made to appear as present ones. It is needless to add that Mallinātha is of less help here.
Daṇḍin also, like Bhāmaha, calls Bhāvikatva or Bhāvika, a Prabandha guna. He has three verses on it, at the end of his Alankāras and in these verses, there are ideas not found in Bhāmaha.
भाविकं त (कत्व) मिति प्राहुः प्रवन्धविषयं गुणम्।
(1)भावःकवेरभिप्रायःकाव्येष्वस्य व्यवस्थितिः or
काव्येप्वासिद्धि संस्थितः॥
(2)परम्परोपकारित्वं सर्वेषां वस्तुपर्वणाम्।
विशेषणानां व्यर्थानामक्रिया (3) स्थानवर्णना (4)॥
(5)व्यक्तिरुक्तिक्रमबलाद्गम्भीरस्यापि वस्तुनः।
भावायत्तमिदं सर्वमिति तद्भाविकं विदुः॥
If we leave the initial agreement in calling it a Prabandha guṇa, we find that there is nothing of what Bhāmaha said in Daṇḍin’s description of the Bhāvika. Perhaps, the fifth idea, the clear appearance of even a deep lying idea by the force or the sequence of the expression, contains a faint echo of Bhāmaha’s idea of past and future being as alive as present, प्रत्यक्षा इव दृश्यन्ते यत्रार्था भूतभाविनः।All the other ideas in Daṇḍin numbering four turn on the derivation of Bhāvikatva from Bhāva, so clearly stated in idea number one. The several
parts or sections of a composition being mutually helpful, avoidance of the needless details, descriptions only at places proper for them— all these are ideas of Aucitya, common in later days but striking in an early writer. All these ideas of Aucitya, flow out of the idea of the poet (kavibhāva) and Dr. De finds here a मनाक्स्पर्श (asĀnanda would say)of the aesthetical problemof poetry being the expression of the poet’s mind, with which, he adds, western poetics is so much concerned and Sanskrit poetics so little34.But what Daṇḍin actually meant by Kavi-abhiprāya can only be conjectured; and the commentators are of little help. It is however clear that Bhāvikatva was in vogue among critics in the pre-Bhāmaha days and that when we come to Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, already guess-work had started. Daṇḍin’s Bhāvika as Kavi-abhiprāya, the mutual helpfulness of parts etc., died with him. No later writer revived it. For the later writers, the Bhāvika was what Bhāmaha gave them through Udbhaṭa.
Ubdhaṭa made it a definite Alaṅkāra casting of the adjunct, Prabandha guṇa. He defines it towards the close of the sixth varga, in a single verse :
प्रत्यक्षा इव यत्रार्था दृश्यन्ते भूतभाविनः।
अत्यद्भुताः स्यात्तद्वाचामनाकुल्येन भाविकम्॥K.A.S.S.
Bhāvikatva has now definitely become bhāvika. Udbhaṭa felt that in the expression, Citrodāttādbhutārtha, there is much redundance; he satisfied himself with a single qualification of artha, Atyadbhuta. He left off Bhāmaha’s second condition, ‘kathāyāḥ svabhinītatā.’Perhaps honesty is responsible for Udbhaṭa’s omission of this un-understandable bit.
‘*Śabdānākulatā’*recurs here as ‘vācām anākulya.’ The main definition of Bhāvikā given by Bhāmaha, the present-like appearance of the past and future, is retained by Udbhaṭa.
Pratīhārendurāja occupies an important place in the history of Bhāvika. At his hands the concept reached its widest interpretation. While commenting on Udbhaṭa, he quotes and explains Bhāmaha’s two verses on Bhāvikatva; and Daṇḍin’s explanation— bhāvaḥ kaveḥabhiprāyaḥ— is also found absorbed in Pratīhārendurāja’s imaginative exposition of Bhāvika. *‘Vācām anākulya’*in Udbhaṭa and ‘*Śabdānākulatā’*in Bhāmaha are interpreted by him as the quick delivery of the meaning, a quality of the words allied to Prasāda and Arthavyakti; Prasāda and Arthavyakti are to be included here in this Bhāvika and not vice versa, as Ruyyaka adds.
तत्र वाचामनाकुलता व्यस्तसंबन्धरहितलोकप्रसिद्धशब्दोपनिबन्धनात् झगित्यर्थप्रतीतिकारिता। Pratīhārendu, p. 7935.
[नाप्ययं शब्दानाकुलत्वहेतुकात् झगित्यर्थसमर्पणात् प्रसादाख्यो गुणःRuyyaka, A.S.]
Pratīhārendurāja makes Bhāvika the very essence of Rasa-realisation. It has been pointed out by Ānanda (Dhva. Ā.,II, xi, p. 82) that Prasāda is pre-eminently necessary for rasa-realisation. The second condition कथायाः स्वभिनीतताis directly related by Pratihārendurāja to Rasa-realisation by inter-preting ‘svabhinītatā’as referring to the clear presentation (abhinaya) of the Rasas.
स्वभिनीततेत्यभिनयादिद्वारेण शृङ्गारादिरससंबलितत्वं चतुर्वर्गोपायस्य उक्तम्। p.80.
The other condition of Artha being Citra, Udātta and and Adbhuta is emphasised by Pratīhārendu as a feature of Artha corresponding to the feature of Śabda called Śabda anākulatā.
यथा चात्र शब्दगतमनाकुलत्वमनन्तरोक्तेन प्रकारेण हेतुः, तथा अर्थगतमपि चित्रोदात्तार्थोप निवन्धहेतुकमत्यद्भुतत्वं द्रष्टव्यम्।p. 80.
Ideas should be exalted, expression transparent and emotion graphically presented. When these are there, the Sahṛdaya’s mind realises completely the poet’s mind mirrored in his poetry. Thus Pratīhārendurāja touches Daṇḍin’s भावः कवेरविप्रायः and Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s भावनाव्यापार. It appears Pratīhārendurāja’s idea of Bhāvika has affinities with the concept of Imagination. lying at the basis of not only poetic creation but also of the critic’s aesthetic re-creation of poetry in his enjoyment of it. Pratīhārendurāja actually says that Bhāvika refers both to the poet and to the Sahṛdaya between whom a circuit of experience is completed.
—झगित्यर्थप्रतीतिकारिता। तस्यां हि सत्यां कवेः संबन्धी यो भावः आशयः शृंगारादिरससंवलितचतुर्वर्गोपायभूतविशिष्टार्थोल्लेखी स कविनेव सहृदयैः श्रोतृभिः स्वाभिप्रायाभेदेन नत्तत्काव्यप्रतिबिम्बितरूपतया साक्षात्क्रियने। श्रोतॄणामपि हि तथाविधस्वच्छशब्दानुभवद्भावितान्तरात्मनां सहृदयानां स्वाभिप्रायप्रतिमुद्रा तत्र संक्रामति। अतः कवेर्योऽसावभिप्रायःतद्गोचरीकृता भूता भाविनोऽपि पदार्थास्तत्र सहृदयैः श्रोतृभिः स्वाभिप्रायाभेदेन प्रत्यक्षा इव दृश्यन्ते । **. . . . . . . . . . . . .**तदेवमेवंविधहेतुनिवन्धनं कविश्रोतृभावद्वितयसंमी (मि)लनात्मकं भाविकं द्रष्टव्यम्। अत एव चात्र कविसंबन्धिनौ भावस्य श्रोतृभावाभेदाध्यवसितस्य
पुरस्स्फुरद्रुपस्य विद्यमानत्वाद् भाविकव्यपदेशः।भावोऽस्मिन्विद्यत इति भाविकम्। तदाहुः—
रसोल्लासी कवेरात्मा स्वच्छे शब्दार्थदर्पणे।
माधुर्यौजोयुतप्रौढे प्रतिबिन्द्य प्रकाशते॥
संपीतस्वच्छशब्दार्थद्राविताभ्यन्तरस्ततः।
श्रोता तत्साम्यतः पुष्टिं चतुर्वर्गे परां व्रजेत्॥
. . . . . . . . . . ॥ PP. 79-80.
Udbhaṭa’s illustration is a verse in which reference is made to a damsel having had (bhūta) collyrium in her eye, and to her future (bhāvi) wearing of ornaments! Pratīhārendu no doubt offers some comments on the illustration but what a far cry from the great concept of aesthetics that Bhāvika is to him and to what is said to be illustrated in this verse!
Mammaṭa36takes his idea of Bhāvika from Udbhaṭa, but in his definition, he omits two ideas: first, the qualification of things by the attribute अत्यद्भुताःand second, the means, वाचाम् अनुकुल्य. Marmaṭa’s illustration is much the same as Udbhaṭa’s: the lover says that he can see that there was collyrium in the lady’s eyes and he can imagine also how she will look when she is adorned with ornaments .It is however not the mention in so many ideas and words of the past and future that is meant by Bhāmaha when he says that Bhāvika is the quality which makes the past and future event so vivid as to appear like happening before our very eyes. But through Udbhata, and Mammaṭa also, a great concept of aesthetics fell to the place of a narrow rhetorical figure of a Vākya.
When Bhāvika was reduced to this state, trouble arose and writers had to show that it did not overlap two others, viz., Svabhāvokti on one side and Rasokti on the other. Mammaṭa’s commentator, Vidyācakravarttin, explains why Mammaṭa omitted from his definition of the Bhāvika the statement of the means, Śabdānākulya: When things of the past and future are visualised, there are two possibilities: The things by themselves may possess a power and beauty where-by their mere mention may make them look like being actually present before us; or this quality of their becoming vivid enough to appear like things of the present may be wrought in them through the extraordinary gifts of expression in the poet, ‘śabdānākulya’ etc. To Bhāmaha and Udbhaṭa, only the latter cases were Bhāvika; for to become an Alaṅkāra, a poet’s powers must have added something.^(1)Mammaṭa however thinks that both cases are Bhāvika; though it is true that for an Alaṅkāra there has to be something wrought by the poet, we have ‘Svabhāvokti’where the beauty is more or less ‘siddha’; even so, a presentation of such past and future things as possess an innate beauty and power is also a case of ‘Bhāvikālaṅkāra’; otherwise, we will have to commit the flaw of logical gaurava by creating a new name for this variety. Ruyyaka, in his Alaṅkārā Sarvasva, first follows the older writers, but in the end quotes and reconciles Mammaṭa to the older position, by accepting two varieties of Bhāvika. Vidyācakravarttin here takes Viśvanātha to task for not understanding Ruyyaka properly and this has been set forth by me at some length in a note in the Annals
____________________________________________
1 This statement of Bhāmaha’s and Udbhaṭa’s view of Bhāvika by Vidyācakravarttın does not seem to be wholly correct; for, by the adjuncts चित्रोदात्ताद्भुतार्थत्व and अद्भुताः(भावाः), both Bhāmaha and Udbhata mean that the things, by themselves also, must have something striking and gripping.
of the BORI., vol. XIV, pp. 251-2, 254. It is needless to quote Vidyācakravarttin’s text here. (T.S.S. edn. of the K. Pra., pt. II, 346.7).
It was seen in Pratīhārendurāja’s exposition of the Bhāvika how this concept became, at his hands, the very soul of Rasa-realisation and how, on reading it, our minds went to Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s Bhāvanā, and the concept of Imagination. See Ruyyaka :
—कविगतो भाव आशयः श्रोतरि प्रतिबिम्बत्वेनास्तीति भावो भावना पुनःपुनश्चेतसि विनिवेशनं, सोऽत्रास्तीति।
—केवलं वस्तुप्रत्यक्षत्वे प्रतिपत्तुः सामग्र्युपयुज्यते। सा च लोकयात्रायां चक्षुरादीन्द्रियस्वभावा। योगिनामतीन्द्रियार्थदर्शने भावनारूपा। स काव्यार्थविदां च भावनास्वभावैव। सा च भावना वस्तुगतात्यद्भुतत्वप्रयुक्ता, अत्यद्भुतानां वस्तूनामादरप्रत्ययेन हृदि सन्धार्यमाणत्वात्।
Pp. 221-223. T.S.S. Edn. A.S.
which Bhaṭṭa Gopāla reproduces thus in his gloss on the K. pra.—
भावश्च भावना पुनःपुनश्चेतसि विनिवेशनमादरप्रत्ययेन हृदये धार्यमाणत्वं यत्र योगिनामिव काव्यवेदिनामभियोगः।
p. 347. T.S.S. Edn. II.
This relates Bhāva or Bhāvanāmore definitely to the reader also, even as Pratīhārendurāja did.
To begin with, Ruyyaka also defined (in the Sūtra) Bhāvika as simply as Mammaṭa, as the ‘Pratyakṣāyamāṇatva.’ of ‘bhūta’and ‘bhāvi’, without mention of the means Śabdānākulatā. But, in the Vṛtti, he mentioned the ‘Adbhhutatva’ of the ‘Artha’and the ‘Anākulatā’ of the ‘śabda’.Ruyyaka
then points out that this Bhāvika cannot be mistaken for or included in Bhrāntinān, Atiśayokti, Pratīyamāna Utprekṣā, Kāvyaliṅga, Rasavān and Svabhāvokti. Among these, we shall concern ourselves only with Ruyyaka’s distinction of Bhāvika from the last two, Rasavadalankāra and Svabhāvokti37.
The gloss on Udbhaṭa published as Tilaka’s in the GOS. points out how the Bhāvika would collide with Svabhāvokti and Rasavadalaikāra.
भूतभाविशब्दस्य परोक्षत्वोपलक्षणे परोक्षाणां पुरःस्फुरदूपत्वहेतुत्वमिति व्याख्याने स्वभावोक्तिः। सहृदयहृदयप्रवेशक्षमत्वमिति व्याख्यायां रसवदाद्यलङ्कारतापत्तिः। p. 51, GOS. Edn.
Svabhāvokti and Rasavad (i.e., Rasokti as Bhoja would say) are easily distinguished. They are both direct and graphic presentation, the former of objects and the latter of emotions. The former creates a Vastu-samvāda in our mind; it rouses a mental image. The latter creates a Cittavṛtti-saṃvāda, an emotional image.
न च हृदयसंवादमात्रेण स्वभावोक्तिरसवदलङ्कारयोरभेदः। वस्तुसंवादरूपत्वात् स्वभावोक्तेः, चित्तवृत्तिसमाधिरूपत्वाच्चरसवदलङ्कारस्य।
A.S. Ruyyaka, N.S. Edn. with Jayaratha’s gloss, p. 181.
हृदयसंवादो हि वस्तुचित्तवृत्तिगतत्वेन द्विविधः। तत्र स्वभावोक्तौ वस्तुसंवादःप्रदर्शितः।Jayaratha’s Vimarśinī on the A.S., p. 181.
From Mammaṭa as explained by Vidyācakravarttin, we understand that the difference between Bhāvika and Svabhāvokti is firstly, in point of time, i.e., things in Bhāvika
are either past or future; and secondly, in the restricted scope of Svabhāvokti, which can describe only an object’s own natural form and action, (Svakriyārūpa varṇanā). But Ruyyaka says that Bhāvika differs from both Rasavad and Svabhāvokti in being an objective realisation in which the reader sees a thing as a yogin (bhinna sarvajña) sees the past and future; in Svabhāvokti and Rasokti, the limiting contextual references get sunk; subject-object duality merges and not only is there a generalised or universalised experience (Sādhāraṇīkṛta) with reference to the characters presented in the poem or drama, but there is also, for the time, a loss or forgetting of the individuality of the reader or the spectator.
नाप्ययं परिस्फुरद्रुपतया सचमत्कारप्रतिपत्ते रसवदलंकारः। रत्यादिचित्तवृत्तीनां तदनुषक्ततया विभावादीनामपि साधारण्येन हृदयसंवादितया परमाद्वैतज्ञानिवत् प्रतीतौ तस्य भावात्। इह तु ताटस्थ्येन भूतभाविनां स्फुटतया भिन्नसर्वज्ञवत् प्रतीतेः। **. . . . . . . . . . . .**नापीयं सूक्ष्मवस्तुस्वभाववर्णनात् स्वभावोक्तिः। तस्यां लौकिकवस्तुगतसूक्ष्मधर्मवर्णने साधारण्येन हृदयसंवादसंभवात्। इह लोकत्तराणां वस्तूनां स्फुटतया ताटस्थ्येन च प्रतीतेः। p. 224, A.S, T.S.S. Edn.
Ruyyaka adds another difference between Bhāvika and Svabhāvokti: in the former, only a miraculous (adbhuta and lokottara: see his illustration मुनिर्जयतिetc.) incident figures, whereas in the latter any ordinary idea. But this difference he casts off at once by saying that there may be cases of vivid realisation of even ordinary things of this world, but then it would be a Bhāvika with an element of Svabhāvokti. Surely Ruyyaka does not mean that स्फुटत्व alone: in such a case makes
up the Bhāvika and the Vastu being laukika makes up the Svabhāvokti38.
क्वचित्तु लौकिकानामपि वस्तूनां स्फुटत्वेन प्रतीतौ भाविकस्वभावोक्त्योः समावेशः स्यात्।pp. 224-5 Ruyyaka, A.S., T.S.S. Edn.
So, the main difference by which Ruyyaka would distinguish Bhāvika from Svabhāvokti and Rasavad is that in the two latter cases, the Pratīti is Sãdhāraṇa. But this again is a thin prop, to be given up. What kind of realisation in poetry can there be without Sādhāraṇīkaraṇa? This universalisation has to come about, even in the case of Bhāvika. Ruyyaka no doubt knows this but he adds, that when this Sādhāraṇīkaraṇa floods the heart of the reader, the Bhāvika becomes Rasavad.
स्फुटप्रतिपत्त्युत्तरकालं तु साधारण्यप्रतीतौ स्फुटप्रतिपत्तिनिमित्तक औत्तरकालिको रसवदलङ्कारः स्यात्^(1)।P. 224, A.S., T.S.S. Edn.
______________________________________
1 (a) Māṇikyacandra adopts Ruyyaka’s distinction of Bhāvika from Svabhāvokti and Rasavad. See p. 408. Mysore Edn. of the K. Pra.
(b) Hemacandra says that Bhāvika is either Svabhāvokti or some feature pertaining purely to drama; that if it is pointed out to be present in Muktakas, it is not found to be delectable! p. 293, K. A. Vyā.
(c) Since Bhāvika is said to present pictures separated by time, the Candrāloka adds a kin-alaṅkāra called Bhāvikacchavi for presentation of things separated by space.
देशात्मविप्रकृष्टस्य दर्शनं भाविकच्छविः।
त्वं वसन् हृदये तस्याः साक्षात्पुष्पेषुरीक्ष्यसे।V. 114.
(d) For the connection Bhāvika bears to the clear presentation and realisation of rasa, see the following verse of Śri Harṣa in his Naiṣadhiya carita:
श्रुतिमधुपदस्रग्वैदग्धीविभावितभाविक-
स्फुटरसभृशाभ्यक्ता वैतालिकैर्जगिरे गिरः॥ XIX, 1,
RĪTI
THE history of the concept of Rīti has three stages: first, when it was a living geographical mode of literary criticism; second, when it lost the geographical association and came to be stereotyped and standardised with reference to subject; and third, its re-interpretation by Kuntaka, the only Sanskrit Ālaṁkārika, who with his fine literary instinct and originality as evidenced on many other lines also, related the Rīti to the character of the poet and displaced the old Rītis by new ones.
Like national characteristics, there are also provincial characteristics in manners. These are studied by Bharata in the concept of Pravṛtti as part of the complete understanding of the world in its infinite variety, of which Nāṭya is an Anukāra39.The concept of Pravṛtti in manners is Rīti in speech, in literature. Rīti is literary manner40.We first hear of it in Bāṇa. In the introductory verses at the beginning of his Harṣacarita, Bāṇa remarks that certain parts of the country produce literature marked by certain characteristics.
श्लेषप्रायमुदीच्येषु प्रतीच्येष्वर्थमात्रकम्।
उत्प्रेक्षा दाक्षिणात्येपु गौडेष्वक्षरडम्बरः॥
There is no absurdity in such a geographical study; it is natural. With the Orient and India in particular, the western writers associate opulence, extravagance, colour and exaggeration. These strike them as the eastern manner in life and literature. So also, Bāna, speaking of the different parts of this country, remarks that the northerners write nothing but double entendre, the westerners, the bare idea ; the southerners roll in imaginative conceits while the Gauḍas (easterners) make a display of wordy tumult.^(1)But immediately
_______________________________
1 Bāṇa says in this verse that it is the westerners who write the bare idea with the least flourish. The bare idea, Arthamātra, has its opposite in Pallava. Bald idea is the flaw called Apuṣṭa and similarly, too much Pallava is a flaw at the other extreme. Beautiful Pallava, says Ratneśvara in his commentary on the Sarasvatikaṇṭhābharaṇa (S. K. A.) II. p.157, is the essence of poetry. He quotes here two anonymous verses, according to which it is not the westerners (as said by Bāṇa) but the Northerners, Udicyas, as contrasted with the Dākṣiṇātyas or Vaidarbhas, that give the bare idea.
“पल्लवप्रतिष्ठेव हि सरस्वती सहृदयानावर्जयति।
वाक्यप्रतीतिमात्रार्थम् उपात्तेषु पेदेषु यः।
उपस्कारः पदैरन्यैः पल्लवं तं प्रचक्षते॥
अपल्लवं तु यद्वाक्यं कविभ्यस्तन्न रोचते।
प्रयुज्यते तथाभूतमुदीच्यैः कविगर्हितम्॥”
The Vaidarbhas or Dākṣiṇātyas enrich their expressions. Excess of Pallava would however merit criticism at Bhāmaha’s hands in the words विरुद्धपदमस्वर्थंबहुपूरणमाकुलम् and Mahimā would condemn it as Avakara. Ratneśvara refers only to the beautiful Pallava which keeps within limits as in the Vaidarbhas’ expression. Ratneśvara considers the Vaidarbhas as experts fit to sit in judgment on this subject. दाक्षिणात्या वैदर्भीमाहुः। पारावरीणास्ते हि विशिष्टरीतिस्वरूपमवधारयितु क्षमा इति ।p. 28. S. K. Ā. Vyā. It is the vicious Pallava which has prolix words and little idea that Śriharsa describes as the poison of speech. Fewest words for the greatest effect is, in Śriharṣa’s view, the climax of style.
गरौ गिरः पल्लवन-अर्थलाघवे, मितं च सारं च वचो हि वाग्मिता।
Naiṣadha, IX, 8.
Bāṇa thinks that the best writer combines all these four qualities in the best manner.
नवोऽर्थो जातिरग्राम्या श्लेषोऽक्लिष्टः स्फुटो रसः।
विकटाक्षरबन्धश्च कृत्स्रमेकत्र दुर्लभम्॥
The bare idea is stale but a novel turn given to the idea makes it striking Navo’rthaḥ. The natural description of things as they are, Jāti, can be effective, if the discription is not bald and ordinary, Grāmya. The Śleṣa of the Udīcyas is welcome but it should be ‘Akliṣṭa’, not forced. The Akṣaraḍambara of the Gauḍas has its own beauty but, all this has any beauty only if Rasa is transparent in the piece, sphuṭo rasah. It is very difficult to combine these virtues; but when achieves it, he is a great writer indeed. In these verses, Bāṇa has spoken of four different styles, each definite and distinct, with its own emphasis on one particular feature, but has voted for casting away an over-emphasis on each of these four characteristics and for moderately and appropriately combining them into one good style which looks like the Niṣyanda of the four.
When we first have some record of the habits of literary criticism, we find two names, Vaidarbhīand Gauḍī, characterising two styles of composition. The north and the west of the verse of Bāṇa are lost. Two main distinguishable styles had stayed, the other two having lost their individuality. The Dākṣiṇātyas of Bāṇa are the representatives of the Vaidarbhīand his Gauḍas represent the Gauḍīstyle. We have it as a tradition in Sanskrit literature that the Vidarbha country is the home of grace and beauty. Bharata speaks of the beauty, Saukumārya, of the southerners in his Dākṣinātya
Pravṛtti.^(1) Though most of the provinces in the south are included by Bharata under Dākṣiṇātya, the chief place of the Kaiśikī vṛtti and the Dakṣiṇātya pravṛttı is Vidarbha. The conception of the Dākṣinātya composition as abounding in Utprekṣās found in Bāṇa had changed and the Vaidarbhas had developed a graceful style. The Gauḍas who were playing with sonorous sound in Bāṇa’s time developed their style on the same lines, with their love for Akṣaraḍambara embracing high-wrought ornate figures also. Thus in course of time, circles of literary critics, Kāvya Goṣṭhīs, discussed poems and writings in terms of the two Rītis, the Vaidarbhīand the Gauḍī. There was prevalent a dislike for the latter, since it abounded in excesses of sound effects and figure effects. In this time appear Bhāmaha’s views on the two Rītis, disapproving of the method of criticism based on the two Rītis which called the Vaidarbhagood and the Gauḍīya, bad. It must be accepted that the Vaidarbha had many graceful features, was simple and sweet, with restraint in adornment, while the Gauḍīya which began as a style distinguished by ornament, overdid it and deteriorated. Bhãmaha said: one need not condemn the Gauḍī, nor praise the Vaidarbhī. They are two styles of writing, each characterised by certain distinguishing features. Provided the writings in either style have well developed thought expressed in fine turns, not vulgar or insipid, and uninvolved, both are acceptable. Without these general features of good poetry, it will not be acceptable even if it is Vaidarbhī. If
_____________________________________
1 तत्र दाक्षिणात्या भवेद् बहुगीतनृत्यवाद्या कैशिकीप्राया चतुरमधुरललिताङ्गाभिनया Bharata, N. Ś. p. 147. K. M. Edn.
Kuntaka refers to the natural sweetness of southern music.
न च दाक्षिणात्यगीतविषयसुस्वरतादिध्वनिरामणीयकवत् तस्य स्वाभाविकत्वं वक्तुं पार्यते।
p. 46. De’s Edn. V. J.
Cf. also the Vaidarbha-vivāha-nepathya referred to by Kālidāsa at the end of the Mālavikāgnimitra.
these good features are present, it is acceptable, no matter if it is Gauḍī. That is, Bhāmaha wants to end indiscreet literary criticism led as if by the nose by these two names, Vaidarbha and Gauḍīya. Both styles have features which can be over-done; consequently both have their vicious counterparts. Thus the sweetness, simplicity and the unadornedness of the Vaidarbhīcan easily deteriorate into cloying liquids and nasals, and bare idea of insipid ordinariness. This is what Bhāmaha says and it is but a sane view :
अपुष्टार्थमवक्रोक्ति प्रसन्नमृजु कोमलम्।
भिन्नं गेयमिवेदं (वेदर्भं) तु केवलं श्रुतिपेशलम्॥
अलङ्कारवदग्राम्यम् अर्थ्यंन्याय्यमनाकुलम्।
गौडीयमपि साधीयः,वैदर्भमिति(मपि) नान्यथा॥I. 34-35.
The Vaidarbha need not adorn itself very much; but a minimum of Vakratāis needed to avoid Grāmyatā. When one has to praise a thing, it is neither enough nor beautiful to simply say, without adopting telling turns of expressions, ‘very much’etc. Says Bhāmaha :
न नितान्तादिमात्रेण जायते चारुता गिराम्¹।
वक्राभिधेयशब्दोक्तिरिष्टा वाचामलङ्कृतिः॥ I. 36.
Thus, accepting the current habit of distinguishing writing into two styles, Bhāmaha would argue that both are acceptable, if they do not overdo their distinguishing features and possess the more general and necessary virtues of all good composition. He points out the possibility of a good handling of the
________________________________
1 न नितान्तादिमात्रेण is not understood by D. T. Tatacharya Śiromaṇi, in his Sanskrit gloss on Bhāmaha called Udyānavṛtti. See p. 17 किमिदं नितान्तादिमात्रेणेति। तत्रबुध्यामहे।पाठान्तरेण तु भाव्यम् ! Then he tries to give some explanation.
Gauḍīand similarly the possibility of a bad Vaidarbhī. He would not stress these two catchwords very much but would emphasise more the other features of greater importance which all good composition! should have, viz, अलङ्कारवत्त्वम्, अग्राम्यत्वम्, अर्थ्यत्वम्, न्यायत्वम् and अनाकुलत्वम्. From this, we can now pass to consider the final position of Bhāmaha. As one whoemphasises the above given features of all good poetry, Bhāmaha does not propose to accept unthinkingly the differentiation of writing into Vaidarbha and Gauḍa at all. His is a double protest. First, it is against the partiality for the Vaidarbhīand the aversion for the Gauḍī. He says: a lay and blind world repeats what one has said, praises the Vaidarbhī and condemns the Gauḍī, even when the Gauḍī is good and has good idea, sadartham api. Thus pleading for the possibility of a good Gauḍīwith the auxiliary argument of the possibility of a bad Vaidarbhī, Bhāmaha says that, personally, he would not attach much importance to the two names Vaidarbhīand Gauḍī. As one who cares for the greater virtues of good poetry in general, he says that he accepts such composition as possesses those good qualities. He says that he cannot distinguish two styles and that such a thing is non-existent. But his opponents point out that, as for instance, the Kāvya (lost) called the Aśmakavamśa is Vaidarbhī. His reply is, “All right, call it whatever you please; one gives names as he pleases and that does not matter much. There is no special kind of poetry called Vaidarbhī. All poetic writing is accepted because it is adorned by Vakroktı.
युक्तं वक्रस्वभावोक्त्या सर्वमेवैतदिष्यते॥
वैदर्भमन्यदस्तीति मन्यन्ते सुधियोऽपरे।
तदेव च किल ज्यायः सदर्थमपि नापरम्॥
गौडीयमिदमेतत्तु वैदर्भमिति किं पृथक्।
गतानुगतिकन्यायात् नानाख्येयममेधसाम्॥
ननु चाश्मकवंशादि वैदर्भमिति कथ्यते।
कामं तथास्तु प्रायेण संज्ञेच्छातो विधीयते॥
I. 30-33.
From these verses of Bhãmaha on the two styles, we can gather that in his time, some writers had held the Vaidarbhī as the better style and the Gauḍī as the worse. Of the Vai- darbhī also we glean that अनतिपोष, अनतिवक्रोक्ति, प्रसाद, आर्जव, कोमलत्व and श्रुतिपलेशलत्व were considered by those writers as the distinguishing features. Vide śl. 34. If these ideas are stuck to too much, Vaidarbhīdeteriorates: If the Artha is entirely Apuṣṭa, Avakra and Prasanna, it is insipid as ordinary talk. If it is very much addicted to the habit of giving a sense of sweetness to the ear alone, it is only like some song, heardand forgotten.
कर्णे गतं शुष्यति कर्ण एव सङ्गीतकं सैकतवारिरीत्या॥
Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita in his Śivalīlārṇava, Canto I. 17.
गायन्ति वीणा अपि वेणवोऽपि जानन्ति बालाः पशवोऽपि चेदम्॥
Ibid., Canto I. 14.
In a similar manner we can also glean from Bhāmaha’s remarks what features were attributed by writers of his time to the Gauḍī, by writers who condemned it. These features. can be gathered from verse 35 and they are Atyalamkāra, Ākulatva etc. The Gauḍí they condemned had too much Akṣaraḍambara and was Ākula, at the sacrifice of idea, Anarthya. This current of criticism against the Gauḍīcontinued to flow, despite Bhāmaha’s efforts to stop it. The good Gauḍī envisaged by Bhāmaha was however not demonstrated, in all
probability, by the representatives of the Gauḍīand so the Gauḍīcame to mean a bad style, with excess of Śabda and Artha Alaṁkāra, poor in idea, hyperbolic and involved in ex-pression. It is this Gauḍīthat is the antithesis in the first pariccheda of the Kāvyādars’a of Daṇḍīn. By this time, the names had not yet become non-geographical; for Daṇḍin often refers only to the people of the east and the south, while referring to the two styles and not, like later writers, to the stereotyped modes of style without any geographical significance.
It is often said that Daṇḍin represents a school called the ‘Guṇa school.’In Bhāmaha, at the beginning of chapter II, we find three Guṇas, Prasāda, Mādhurya and Ojās, the former two going together as features of an Asamāsa-saṅghaṭanāand the third, standing against both Prasāda and Mādhurya, as the Guṇa of Dīrgha-samāsa-saṁghatana. While speaking of the two Mārgas, Bhāmaha mentions Komalatva, Śruti peśalatva, and Prasannatva regarding the Vaidarbhī; and while commending the good Gauḍī, he says that it must be Anākula, which means that there must not be very long compounds. Besides this implied and traceable connection between the Guṇas and the two Mārgas, there is no definite mention, in Bhāmaha, of Guṇas as the constituting elements of a Mārga. Daṇḍin ex-pounds in the first chapter the Vaidarbha Mārga which was considered the best style. It was so considered because of the presence in it of ten Guṇas which constitute its life. Daṇḍin generally says that the reverses of these ten Guṇas are seen in the Gauḍīwhich means bad poetry. A critical examination of these ten Guṇas has been made elsewhere by the present writer.41Suffice it here to point out that some
Guṇas are given by Daṇḍin himself as excellences of both Mārgas42.
Daṇḍin mentions the ten Guṇas as the life not of poetry as such, but of the style called Vaidarbhī. If, on the basis of Daṇḍin’s formulation of Guṇas, one says that he belongs to the Guṇa school, one can as well say that Daṇḍin belongs to the Rīti school. Really Daṇḍin belongs to the Alaṁkāra school, much more than Bhāmaha. For, to Daṇḍin, Guṇas, Rasas, Sandhyaṅga, Vṛttyaṅga, Lakṣaṇa,— all are Alaṁkāra. Apart from the word poetry, there is only one word for Daṇḍin, viz., Alaṁkāra. The full development of Daṇḍin, as well as of Bhāmaha, is seen in two directions in Bhoja and Kuntaka43.
In poetic expression there is always a finally analysable scheme of two definite styles, the simple and the grandiloquent, the plain and the elevated, the unadorned and the figurative. In the former, natural description of emotion, men and things is given with minimum artificial decoration. Svabhāvokti and Rasokti, to borrow Bhoja’s classification, predominate in it. Colour, ornament,— Vakrokti dominates the latter. These two correspond to Daṇḍin’s two styles; only the Gauḍī is Vakrokti run riot. Kuntaka’s Sukumāra Mārga, which emphasises Vakrokti less, belongs to the former class. Kuntaka’s Vicitra mārga marks an emphasis on the Vaicitrya that Vakrokti imparts. Aristotle also gives only two styles, the good and the bad, the good being so by any sort of virtue, i.e., good not only because of virtues of simplicity, elegance etc., but by virtues of vigour etc., also. His bad
style is the frigid style, resembling exactly Daṇḍin’s Gauḍī, a style which overshoots its mark. The plain and elegant style of Demetrius corresponds to the Vaidarbhīof Daṇḍin and the Sukumāra of Kuntaka. The elevated and the forcible of Demetrius resembles the Vicitra Mārga of Kuntaka and the good Gauḍīenvisaged by Bhāmaha.
It is said that what we call Rīti is not anything similar to what is called in English ‘style.’Dr. S. K. De says in his Skr. Poetics, II, p. 115: “It should be observed that the term Rīti is hardly equivalent to the English word style, by which it is often rendered, but in which there is always a distinct subjective valuation.”Again on p. 116: “But, at the same time, the Rīti is not, like the style, the expression of poetic individuality as is generally understood by western criticism, but it is merely the outward esentation of its beauty called forth by a harmonious combination of more or less fixed ‘literary excellences’.”The word ‘style’ in English is not easily felt to be equivalent to the Sanskrit Rīti mainly on two grounds: (i) It is said that while the English Style in all-comprehensive, the Sanskrit Rīti comprises only a fixed set of Guṇas. (ii) Rītis as expounded by Sanskrit are only two or three or four or six, and are related to certain kinds of subjects or themes whereas the English Style is related to the author’s character. It is proposed to make plain in the course of this study of Rīti that it is neither impossible nor incorrect to render Rīti by the English word Style, that Rīti comprehends not only Guṇas, but Alaṅkāras and Rasas also, that Rītis are not so few as two or six but really as infinite as poets and that at least one or two Ālaṅkarikas and poets have related Rīti to the poet. It shall also be shown that there are always two conceptions of Rīti, a higher and a larger one and a lower and a narrower one, a subjective
one and an objective one, in relation to the poet and in relation to theme; and that this is true of the English Style also, as can be seen from its history in western literary criticism from Aristotle downwards. Actually, certain western writers find it not only possible but quite sensible and useful too, not only to classify style into a certain number of styles but also to relate these classified and standardized styles to subject or theme.
As observed above, though Bhāmaha does not definitely give in so many words the relation of Guṇas and Rīti, we can clearly see that his verses imply the theory of Rīti as based on the Guṇas. For he speaks of Komalatva, Prasannatva and Śrutipeśalatva regarding the Vaidarbhī. But Bhāmaha does not stop here. He speaks further of Arthapoṣa, Vakrokti, Arthyatva, Nyāyyatva and Anākulatva as features of a style of acceptable poetry. Certainly these are comprehensive features and stand for the very complete manner of writing. When we analyse Daṇḍin, we see that not only Guṇas but Alaṅkaras also go to distinguish the Rītis. He says that the Gauḍa mārga is characterised by Anuprāsa which is a Śabdālaṁkāra. The flaw of Śaithilya, the reverse44of the Śleṣa of the Vaidarbhī, is a result of Anuprāsa.
अनुप्रासघिया गौडैस्तदिष्टं बन्धगौरवात्। I. 44.
Again, speaking of the reverse of the Guṇa called Samatā, in Gauḍa mārga, Daṇḍin says:
इत्यनालोच्य वैषम्यमर्थालङ्कारडम्बरम्।
अवेक्षमाणा ववृधे पौरस्त्या काव्यपद्धतिः॥ I.50.
Mādhurya involves Śrutyanuprāsa.
तद्रूपा हि पदासत्तिः सानुप्रासा रसावहा। I. 52.
Anuprāsa in its Ulbaṇa varieties is specialised in by the Gauḍas.
इतीदं नादृतं गौडैरनुप्रासस्तु तत्प्रियः।I. 54.
As a matter of fact, Daṇḍin treats of the Śabdālaṅkāras only here. He treats of the Anuprāsa here and keeps over the Yamaka for the third chapter. The only difference is that the Anuprāsas of the Vaidarbhas are mild while those of the Gauaḍs are wild.
इत्यनुप्रासमिच्छन्ति नातिदूरान्तरश्रुतिम्।
न तु रामामुखाम्भोजसदृशश्चन्द्रमा इति॥ I 58.
. . . . . . . .
इत्यादि बन्धपारुष्यंशैथिल्यं च नियच्छति।
अतो नैनमनुप्रासं दाक्षिणात्याः प्रयुञ्जते॥ I. 60.
The Guṇa called Udāra is no feature of the collocation like Śleṣa. It relates to thought and the mode of its expression. When a noble and exalted description suggests a noble and exalted quality of the person or object described, it is called Udāra Guṇa. This way of saying, so as to make the thing intended to be said deliver itself by implication or suggestion—
उत्कर्षवान् गुणः कश्चिद्यस्मिन्नुक्ते प्रतीयते।
is something beyond Guṇa and Alaṁkāra. Nor is the second variety of Udāra— Ślāghyaviśeṣaṇa, —on a par with Śleṣa. The Guṇa of Kānti is similarly of a superior nature. It refers to that method of expression wherein the author shows restraint and moderation and avoids hyperboles. The Gauḍas, on the other hand, love hyperboles.
इदमत्युक्तिरित्युक्तमेतद्गौडोपलालितम्।I. 92.
Similarly Samādhi Guṇa brings in its train Samāsokti Alaṁkāra. Thus, an examination of Daṇḍin shows that the Mārgas are characterised not merely by a set of fixed features which pertain to collocation alone. The Guṇas mean much more than what they seem to. The Guṇas themselves must be clearly understood. Rīti cannot be demeaned by simply saying that it is called forth by a set of more or less fixed literary excellences.
Vāmana began grandiy by declaring Rīti as the soul of poetry. He however defined Rīti as Padaracanã, but qualified it with the word Viśiṣṭa. Vāmana is the first writer to give a classification of Guṇas into those of Śabda and those of Artha. The mere excellences of Bandha are Śabda guṇas; Rīti there is at its lower level. The Arthaguṇas lift up Rīti to the higher position. The Arthaguṇas are comprehensive and reach up to Rasa. The Arthaguṇa Ojas, Prauḍhi of various kinds, Mādhurya which is Uktivaicitrya, Śleṣa which is Ghaṭanāof various kinds, Kānti which is brilliancy of Rasas— these comprehend poetic ex-pression in all aspects. Vāmana himself emphasises the Arthaguņas:
तस्यां अर्थगुणसंपदास्वाद्या।सापीयमर्थगुणसंपद् वैदर्भीत्युच्यते॥
I. 2. 20, 22.
Thus these so-called Guṇas comprehend Bandhaguṇas, Alaṁkāras and Rasas. Demetrius, while describing each style, gave each certain Bandhaguṇas, certain kinds of Alaṁkāras and certain emotional features also.
Vāmana defined his Guṇas in such a way as to enable us to take them as characteristics of the best style of poetry. Guṇas
which would pertain only to another Mārga were not brought in by him. So, he could define the Vaidarbhī as the best style by reason of the fullness of all these Guṇas in it, Guṇa sākalya. So it is that he says that Pāka or maturity of expression in Kāvya is the clear and full presence, Sphutatva and Sākalya, of these Guṇas.
This view Vāmana could hold by changing the meaning of some Guṇas. To the two Rītis, Vaidarbhī and Gauḍī, Vāmana first added a third, the Pāñcālī, another intriguing geographical name. The Gauḍīin Vāmana is not the bad style in Daṇḍin. It is a gooḍstyle in which all the Guṇas of the Vaidarbhīare present; only it sheds some sweetness and delicateness and attains vigour and forcefulness. The Madhurya and Saukumārya of the Vaidarbhī are replaced by Samāsabāhulya and Ulbaṇapadas, with a greater degree of Ojas and Kānti. The Pāñcālī is the Vaidarbhīdevoid of Ojas and Kānti.^(1)Of these three, Vāmana asks poets to practise and achieve the Vaidarbhīstyle of poetry.
तासां पूर्वा ग्राह्या, गुणसाकल्यात्, न पुनरितरे स्तोकगुणत्वात्।
I. 2, 14-18.
From the three Rītis in Vāmana, we pass to the four in Rudraṭa. Rudraṭa mentions the Vaidarbhīand the Pāñcālī with a certain kinship which is found even in Vāmana. Rudraṭa however adds a fourth style to go along with the Gauḍīya. This new fourth Rīti is the Lāṭīya, another geographical name. The four are thus given in two sets and are, for the first time definitely dissociated from any poets of
__________________________________
1 It is noteworthy how the Alaṅkāraḍambara of the Gauḍas mentioned by Bāṇa has not changed at all.समस्त्यात्युद्भटपदां . . . गौडीयामपि गायन्ति। —Vāmana. For the contradiction here on the concept of Ojas and a full examination of Vāmana’s Guṇas, see my Śṛigāra Prakāśa, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 293-299.
any parts of the country which their names refer to. Rudraṭa relates them to the theme:
वैदर्भीपाञ्चाल्यौ प्रेयसि करुणे भयानकाद्भुतयोः।
लाटीयागौडीये रौद्रे कुर्याद्यथौचित्यम्॥
While tracing the history of Rīti, we can clearly see how no writer ever missed the idea that the Vaidarbhīstood for a certain sweetness while the Gauḍīwas characterised by force and vigour. When the geographical significance of the Vaidarbhas alone favouring sweetness and its allied Guṇas and the Gauḍas alone practising Akṣaraḍambara, Ojas etc., was lost, and all the Rītis were practised by all poets of all places, the sweetness of the one and the vigour of the other were thought of in connection with the theme by the same poet who commanded both ways of writing. Visaya-aucitya began to regulate the nature of Rīti in the several parts of a poem. The Rasas and the Arthas pertaining thereto have their own quality of sweetness, vigour etc. These were studied by Bharata, and by others following him, in the concept of Vṛtti.The Vṛtti was applied from Drama to poetry45.Kaiśikī is the Vṛtti of Śṛṅgāra and Ārabhaṭī of Raudra, Vīra, Bhayānaka and Bībhatsa Rasas. To this Vṛtti, the Rīti came to be related. The sweetness and delicateness associated with the Vaidarbhī made it possible to link it to the Kasikī Vṛtti and the Śṛngāra Rasa. Śṛṅgāra, Kaśikī Vṛtti and the Vaidarbhī Rīti went together always. The Gauḍīeasily linked itself to Ārabhaṭī Vṛtti and Rasas like Raudra. The Pāñcāli and the Lāṭīya occupied middling positions, the former leaning more to the Vaidarbhīand the latter more to the Gauḍī. Thus the emotional situation came to determine the mode of expression. Hence
Bhoja treats of Rītis and Vittis under Anubhāva. The Vṛtti differs from Rīti as more intimately connected with Rasa and its ideas. To the Rasa, Rīti was related on the basis of the verbal expression, the Śabadsaṅghaṭanā. In this stage, the Guṇas, Mādhurya etc., which were still the constituents of Rīti, become mere Saṅghaṭanādharmas. We find the Locana saying while stating the Pūrvapakṣa :
“तच्छब्देनात्र माधुर्यादयो गुणाः। तेषां च समुचितवृत्त्यर्पणे यदन्योन्यमेलनक्षमत्वेन पानक इव गुडमरीचादिरसानां सङ्घातरूपतागमनं दीप्त-ललित-मध्य-वर्णनीयविषयं गौडीय-वैदर्भ-पाञ्चालदेशहेवाकप्राचुर्यदृशा तदेव त्रिविधं रीतिरित्युक्तम्।”P. 6.
As Ānandavardhana says, expression appropriate to Rasa is Vṛtti; the expression of Artha is the Vṛtti of Kaiśikī etc.; the expression of Śabda is the Vṛtti of Upanāgarikā etc. These Śabda Vṛttis Upanāgarikā etc. are the Rītis.
रसाद्यनुगुणत्वेन व्यवहारोऽर्थशब्दयोः।
औचित्यवान्यस्ता एव वृत्तयो द्विविधासिस्थताः॥ III. 33.
“तत्र रसानुगुणः औचित्यवान् वाच्याश्रयो व्यवहारः, ता एवं कैशिक्याद्या वृत्तयः।वाचकाश्रयाश्च उपनागरिकाद्याः।”ibid., vṛtti.
शब्दतत्त्वाश्रयाः कश्चित् अर्थतत्त्वयुजोऽपराः।
वृत्तयोऽपि प्रकाशन्ते ज्ञातेऽस्मिन्काव्यलक्षणे॥III. 53.
Mammata says under Anuprāsa jātis:
माधुर्यव्यञ्जकैर्वर्णैःउपनागरिकेष्यते।
ओजःप्रकाशकैस्तैस्तु परुषा, कोमला परैः।IX. 3. K. Pra.
एतास्तिस्रोवृत्तयः (उपनागरिका, परुषा,कोमला च) बामनादीनां मने वैदर्भीगौडीयापाञ्चाल्याख्या रीतय उच्यन्ते। ibid., vṛtti.
Śiṅgabhūpāla defines Rīti as Pada-vinyāsa-bhaṅgī, and has three Rītis Komalā, Kaṭhināand Miśrā,— other names of Vaidarbhī, Gauḍīand Pāñcālī. A late work called Śṛṅgārasāra (MadrasMS.) follows Śiṅgaphūpāla completely, defines Rīti as Pada-vinyāsabhaṅgī, accepts three varieties of it, Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī and Pāñcālī, which it calls Komalā, Kathinā and Miśrā.
Rājaśekhara’s main chapter, the third, on Rīti, called Rītinirṇaya, is lost. Still we gather some of his ideas on Rīti in his description of the legendary Kāvyapuruṣa’s Avatāra in the beginning of his Kāvya mīmāmsā, as also from his dramas. In his Kāvyamīmāmsā, Rājaśekhara speaks of three Rītis in the description of which he introduces a new distinguishing feature, viz., the use of Yogavṛtti in abundance, the same to a less extent, and the use of Upacāra. These are the features Rājaśekhara attributes to the three46 :
| Gauḍī | Pāñcāli | Vaidarbhī |
| समास | ईषदसमास | असमास |
| अनुप्रास | ईषदनुप्रास | स्थानानुप्रास |
| योगवृत्तिपरंपरा | उपचार | योगवृत्ति |
These three Rītis, Rājaśekhara relates to the Deśas whose names they bear. He considers the Vaidarbhīas the best form of poetic style. For he says that when the spouse of Sāhityavidyā spoke to the Kāvyapuruṣa in the Gauḍa style, he was absolutely indifferent; when she talked in the Pāñcālī style, he was
captivated only to a small extent, İṣadvaśamvadīkṛta; but when both reached the Dakṣiṇadeśa and she spoke in the Vaidarbhî, he became ‘Atyartham vaśamvada’. Rājaśekhara pays his tribute to Vaidarbhīpoetry by making the Kāvya-puruṣa and Sāhityavidyā celebrate their nuptials in the capital of the Vidarbhas, Vatsagulma.
तत्रास्ति मनोजन्मनो देवस्य क्रीडावासो विदर्भेषु वत्सगुल्मं नाम नगरम्। तत्र सारस्वतेयस्तामौमेयीं गन्धर्ववत्परिणिनाय।P. 10.
In the maṅgalaśloka to his Karpūramañjarī, Rājaśekhara speaks of three Rītis, Vacchomī, Māgadhīand Pañcālī. This Vacchomīis the Prākṛt form¹ of Vātsagulmī, a name for Vaidarbhīgiven after the capital of the Vidarbhas, Vatsagulma. Why the Gauḍi has been substituted here by the Māgadhīis not known.
In his Bālarāmāyaṇa, Rājaśekhara speaks of the Vaidarbhītwice. In Act III, he says that the quality of Mādhurya is supreme in the Vaidarbhī and in Act X, that the Vaidarbhī is characterised by Mādhurya and Prasāda and that Rasa is dominant in it.
(a) वाम्बैदर्भी मधुरिमगुणं स्वन्दते श्रोत्रलेह्यम्।III. 14.
(b) कथमयं क्रथकैशिकाधिपतिः—
वाग्देवता वसति यत्र रसप्रसूतिः
लीलापदं भगवतो मदनस्य यच्च।
_________________________________
1 Instead of thus deriving Vacchomi meaning Vaidarbhīfrom Vātsagulmī, Vāsudeva, author of the commentary on the Karpūramañjarīsays:
छइच्छवच्छोमीशब्दौ ‘दाढादयो बहुलम्’इति विदग्धवैदर्भीशब्दयोस्साधू।
P. 3. K. M. Edn.
प्रेङ्खद्विदग्धवनिताञ्चितराजमार्गं
तत्कुण्डिनं नगरमेष विभुर्विभर्ति॥III. 50.
(c) यत्क्षेमं त्रिदिवाय वर्त्म, निगमस्याङ्गं च यत्सप्तमं,
स्वादिष्ठं च यदैक्षवादपि रसात्, चक्षुश्च यद्वाङ्मयम्।
तद्यस्मिन्मधुरं प्रसादि रसवत् कान्तं47 च काव्यामृतं
सोऽयं सुभ्रुपुरो विदर्भविषयःसारस्वतीजन्मभूः॥ X. 74.
Dhanapāla (first half of the 11th cent.) says in the Tilakamāñjarī
वैदर्भीमिव रीतीनां … अधिकमुद्भासमानाम्।
K. M. edn. p. 130.
Śrīharṣa says in his Naiṣadha :
धन्याऽसि वैदर्भि गुणैरुदारैः। III. 116.
and again :
गुणानामास्थानीं नृपतिलकनारीति विदितां
रसस्फीतामन्तः तवच तव वृत्ते च कवितुः।
भवित्री वैदर्भीमधिकमधिकण्ठं रचयितुं
परीरम्भक्रीडाचरणशरणमन्वहमयम्॥ XIV, 91.
Nīlakaṇṭhadīkṣıta waxes eloquent upon Vaidarbhīand its country in his Nalacarita nāṭaka, Act III:
सरस्वती— सन्त्वज्ञाः सन्तु बुधाः सन्तु पुमांसः स्त्रियश्च वा सन्तु।
स स रसिकः कविरधुना जज्ञे यो यो जनो विदर्भेषु॥
सावित्री— प्रागेव खलु ने विदर्भा इत्येव हृदयं प्रकृष्टनुत्कण्ठते। किं पुनःअनुमताया इव भगवतापि। यत्र सा वैदर्भी रीतिः।
आदिस्स्वादुषु यापरा कवयतां काष्ठा यदारोहणं
या तेनिश्श्वसितं, नवापि च रसा यत्र स्वदन्तेतराम्।
पाञ्चालीति परंपरापरिचितो बादःकबीनं परं
वैदर्भी यदि सैव वाचि किमितः स्वर्गेऽपर्गेऽपि वा॥
To return to Rājaśekhara, he has the following additional remarks about the literary habits of the poets of different places :
तत्र दयितसुब्वृत्तयो विदर्भाः। वल्लभसमासवृत्तयो गौडाः। प्रियतद्धिता दाक्षिणात्याः।कृत्प्रयोगरुचय उदीच्याः।अभीष्टतिव्वृत्तयस्सर्वेऽपि सन्तः।
Kāvyamīmāmsā, p. 22.
The basis of each of these statements is not exactly known. We know only, from Daṇḍin, that the Gauḍas loved Samāsa and that the remark about the Dāksinātyas’ love for Taddhita is borrowed from Patañjali. Further, we do not exactly know whatRājaśekhara means by mentioning separately Vaidarbhas and Dākṣiṇātyas. Perhaps, the latter are people further south or those in the south other than the Vaidarbhas.
In a verse on poet Bāṇa and poetess Śīlābhaṭṭārikā, Rājaśekhara gives a new definition of the Pāñcalī, the basis for which is also not known. He says in it that the Pāñcali is the style in which Śabda and Artha are evenly matched.
शब्दार्थयोस्समो गुंफ पाञ्चाली रीतिरिष्यते।
शीलाभट्टारिकावाचि वाणोक्तिषुच सा यदि॥
In Act X of the Bālarāmāyaṇa, Rājaśekhara ascribes a peculiar style to Mithilã. Thus he speaks of a Maithilīstyle:
(i) यत्रार्थातिशयोऽपि सूत्रितजगन्मर्यादया मोदते
(ii) सन्दर्भश्च समासमासलवदप्रस्तारविस्तारितः।
(iii) उक्तिर्योगपरंपगपरिचिता काव्येषु चक्षुष्मतां
सा रम्या नवचंपकांगि भवतु त्वन्नेत्रयोः प्रीतये॥ śl. 95.
The Maithilī is here said to be characterised by three qualities :
(i) अर्थातिशयेऽपि जगन्मर्यादानतिक्रमणम् i. e., avoiding Atyuktis or flat hyperboles. This is Daṇḍin’s and Bhoja’s Kānti of the Vaidarbhī: कान्तं सर्वजगत्कान्तं लौकिकार्थानतिक्रमात्।
(ii) This seems to be sparse use of compounds.
(iii) Yogaparamparā¹ which is given in his K. M. as characterising the Gauḍī.
The country of Mithila is nowhere mentioned in connection with the Rītis, except perhaps by one writer, Śrīpāda, quoted by Keśava in Alaṅkāraśekhara, who says that the Maithilī has, like the Vaidarbhī, few compounds.
तदेतत्पल्लवयन्ति श्रीपादाः—
गौडी समासंभूयस्त्वात् बैदर्भी च तदल्पतः।
अनयोस्संकरो यस्तु मागधी सा (ना ?) तिविस्तरा॥
गौडीयैः प्रथमा, मध्या वैदर्भैः मैथिलैस्तथा।
अन्यैस्तु चरमा रीतिः स्वभावादेव सेव्यते॥ p. 6. K. M. 50.
________________________________
1 Vide Appendix on Rīti in the Agnipurāṇa. The use of the feature Yogavṛtti, Upacāra etc. in distinguishing styles is found in Rājaśekhara, Bhoja, Agnipurāṇa and Bahurūpamiśra. The last says in his commentary on the Daśarūpaka (Mad, MS.) : “एतासां चतसृणां च रीतीनां (1) समासतारतम्यात् (2) उपचारतारतम्यात् (3) बन्धसौकुमार्यादितारतम्यात् (4) अनुप्रासभेदात् (5) योगादिभेदाच्च परस्परभेद इत्यनुसन्धातव्यमिति।” The Sāhitya mimāmsā (TSS. 114) refers to the distinction of the Rītis on the basis of these four features, but rejecting these, accepts only the feature of Samāsa, the first, as the basis of the distinction, a view which follows Rudraṭa (p. 87). The work notes also that Bhāmaha has no fancy for the Rītis.
From this remark of Śrīpāda, we understand that the Maithilī is the Māgadhī48,the Māgadhīwhich, along with the Pāñcālī and the Vaidarbhī(Vacchomī), is mentioned by Rājaśekhara in his maṅgalaśloka to the Karpūramañjarī. Bhoja’s Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa gives an absurd definition of Māgadhī as a Khaṇḍarīti, formed when the Rīti begun is left off! पूर्वरीतेःअनिर्वाहः खण्डरीतिस्तु मागधी।This Māghadhīmay or may not have been mentioned in the lost Rīti chapter of the Kāvyamīmāmsā. But in the available portion, Rājaśekhara accepts only three Rītis and they are the Vaidarbhī, Gauḍīyā and Pāñcālī. He says again on p. 31, of his K. M.:
तन्मानुषमिति व्यपदिशन्ति। तच्च त्रिधा रीतित्रयभेदेन । तदाहुः—
वैदर्भी गौडीया पाञ्चाली चेति रीतयस्तिस्रः।
आसु च साक्षान्निवसति सरस्वती तेन लक्ष्यन्ते॥
Bhoja added two more Rītis to Rudraṭa’s four, the Āvantikā and the Māgadhī. The latter, as found in Rājaśekhara, Śrīpāda and Bhoja, has been noticed already. It is only the Āvantī that is absolutely new. The classification and description of these in Bhoja (S. K. Ā.) are very mechanical, arbitrary and unreal. It seems to be idle to examine Bhoja’s Lātīyā, Māgadhīand Āvantī. Why this complacent creation of geographical names was in fashion amongst these writers cannot be guessed.^(1)
________________________________
1 The following is a summary of the views of other minor writers on Rīti. The older Vāgbhaṭa accepts only the Vaidarbhī and the Gauḍī, one without any compounds and the other with compounds (K. M. Edn. p. 61). The younger Vāgbhaṭa recognises the three Rītis, Vaidarbhī, Gauḍīyāand Pāñcāli and defines them as dominated respectively by the three Guṇas, Mādhurya, Ojas and Prasāda (p. 31). Śiṅgabhūpāla (R. A. S.) accepts the Vai., the Gau.,
The treatment of style on the basis of theme is not absent from western criticism. Aristotle says that style should vary and thus be in accordance with emotion. “But the style expressive of feeling suppose the case be one of assault in the style of a man in passion;—” “A style of exultation for praise; a style
_________________________
and the Pāñ. He borrows from Daṇḍin for defining the Vaidarbhī; the two differences here are that he makes the ‘Rasa’ inDaṇḍin’s मधुरं रसबद्वाचि,the 9 Rasas and takes the first case of Udāra as Dhvani. He calls the Vaidarbhī, Komalā; Gauḍī, Kaṭhinā; and the Pāñcali, Miśra. Leaving the Miśra, he contrasts the other two; Komalā X Kaṭhinā; Asamāsa X Dirghasamāsa; Prasāda X Asphuṭabandha; Anisthurākṣara X Niṣṭhurākṣara ; Pṛthakpadatva X Granthilatva. Under Miśra Rītis, he recognises a Rīti for every province, Āndhrā, Lāṭī, Saurāṣṭri etc. (p. 69). The Camatkāra-candrikāof Viśveśvara (Mad. MS.), who wrote in Śinga’s court, casts away the old names, defines Rīti as Padaghaṭanā and gives four kinds of it, the only feature of differentiation accepted being Samāsa-Asamās, Madhyasamāsa, Atidirghasamasa and Miśra (p. 61. Mad. MS.). This position corresponds to Rudraṭa’s which distinguishes Rītis on Samāsa only, gives Vaidarbhīas the Rīti of the collocation free from compounds and gives three Rītis, Pāñcāli, Lāṭiya and Gauḍīyā for the collocations with Laghu, Madhya and Ayata Samāsas. (II, 3-6). Vidyānātha considers Rītias‘आत्मोत्कर्षाबहस्वभाव’ of the Kāvya. See also Sāhītyakaumudi of Arkasūri, Mad. MS. R. 2391, p. 11, स्वभावैरिव रीतिभिः ।Tippabhūpāla, at the end of his commentary on Vāmana, considers Rīti as the life-breath of poetry : erat : p. 193. V. V. Edn. The only later writer, who still called Rīti the Ātman of poetry following Vāmana, even when Rasa and Dhvani were ruling for long, is Amṛtānandayogin who says. रीतिरात्माऽत्र ch. 5. Alaṁkāra Samgraba. This author treats of Rasa and Dhvani also. Keilhorn’s Central Provinces’ Catalogue, p. 104, mentions a work called “Rīti vṛtti lakṣaṇa”by Viṭṭhaleśvara or Viṭṭhaladikṣita, which would be the only post-Ananda work of its kind, if it is a complete work by itself and is devoted exclusively to a consideration of Rīti along with the allied Vṛtti. Even then this tract must have dealt with Rīti and Vṛtti only as accepted in the scheme of Rasa and Dhvani.
Simhadevagani, commentator on the Vāgbhaṭālamkāra, speaks, in three verses at the end of his commentary, of Lāṭi (Hāsya), Pāñcāli (Karuṇa and Bhayānaka), Māgadhi (Śānta), Gauḍī(Vira and Raudra), Vacchomi (Bibhatsa and Adbhuta) and Vaidarbhī
with submission if in pity.”“But compound words and plurality of epithets and foreign idioms are appropriate chiefly to one who speaks under the excitement of some passion—”. This style of a man in passion and a situation of assault, in which Aristotle mentions compound words as proper is an Ojas-dominated Rīti, like Daṇḍin’s Gauḍī, Samāsabhūyiṣṭha. Aristotle says elsewhere that “of various kinds of words, the compounds are best adapted to dithyrambs,”which are hymns to Bacchus, the wine-god, enthusiastic, wild and boisterous. Samāsa gives the necessary Ojas to such a style.
Speaking of the style called ‘the Elevated’, Demetrius says that there are certain subjects with the quality of elevation to which that style is thence suited. Such are subjects like scenes of battle. Surely these cannot be treated in the styles called ‘the Plain’and ‘the Elegant’. They must be rendered in the styles called ’the Elevated’ and ’the Forcible’. Demetrius speaks of the Varṇadhvani of Ānanda in this connection, of how Śrutiduṣṭa, Śa, Ṣa, Ra etc., is promotive of Raudra rasa. Demetrius remarks that though violence (Śrutidusṭa) is a fault of composition, it is a necessary feature of the
_______________________________
(Śṛṅgāra). We do not know how Vacchomi is different from Vaidarbhi and how Vacchomī is suited to Bibhatsa and Adbhuta. In the next verse he gives, following Rudraṭa, the Pāñcāli as having two or three words in a compound, Lāṭi five or seven and Gauḍi as many words as possible in a compound. The last verse is very puzzling :—प्रथमपदा वत्सोमी त्रिसमपा च मागधी भवति। उभयोरपि वैदर्भी मुहुर्मुहुः भाषणं कुरुते॥Hamsamiṭṭhu’s Hamsa vilāsa (Geak edn. lxxxi) speaks of the Lāṭi(Hāsya), Pāñcālī (Karuṇa and Bhayānaka), Māgadhī(Śānta), Gauḍi (Vira and Bhayānaka), Vātsoma deśodbhavā(Bibhatsa and Adbhuta) and Vaidarbhi (Śṛṅgāra). (ch. 46, p. 269). The expression Vatsoma-deśodbhavāis quite correct and the editor need not have added a query here, it means the Vacchomi which Rājaśekhara’sKarpūramañjari mentions; but the Hamsa vilāsa is wrong when it speaks of a Vaidarbhīin addition, for the Vacchomi is the same as the Vaidarbhī; and it is also wrong to assign to the Vacchomi the Rasas Bibhatsa and Adbhuta.
Forcible style, since “words hard to pronounce are forcible as uneven roads are forcible.” Even as the Sanskrit Ālaṁkārikas speak of the Vaidarbhīfor Śṛṅgāra rasa, Demetrius gives the Elegant as the style for elegant and graceful subjects like Śṛṅgāra. He says: “The materials of grace are the gardens of nymphs etc., etc.” One of the two deciding factors in ‘the Grand style’, M. Murry says, is the theme, the other factor being vocabulary. In connection with the theme, “the nature of the plot or muthos”, he observes that the Grand style is adopted if superhuman or majestic figures are involved. “If the characters of the plot are superhuman and majestic, it seems more or less necessary that their manner of speech should differ from that of ordinary dramatic poetry by being more dignified—.” (p. 140, Problem of Style.) “The poet heightens the speech of his superhuman characters in order that they may appear truly superhuman.” (p. 141). This is clearly a case of theme being a Niyāmaka of style, a case of standardised style, “a technical poetic device for a particular end” as Murry says of the Grand style. Thus, the linking of style to theme is not absent from western criticism.
It is remarkable that there should be many points of similarity between western writers on the subject of style and Sanskrit Ālaṁkārikas. M. Murry says in his Problem of Style: “In the course of the approach, I examined two qualities of style which are not infrequently put forward as essential, namely, the musical suggestion of the rhythm and the visual suggestion of the imagery, and I tried to show that these were subordinate. On the positive side, I tried to show that the essential quality of style was precision: that this precision was not intellectual, not a precision of definition, but of emotional suggestion**…**” p. 95. The musical qualities of rhythm etc., in the word-structure come under Śabdaguṇa and
Śabdālaṁkāra and the visual suggestion of imagery is Arthaguṇa and Arthālamkāra. These two, of the realm of Vācya vācaka, are but the means, the vehicle, i.e., subordinate as Murry says. The emotional suggestion of Murry is Rasadhvani and precision thereof is served by Rasaucitya. The second Madhurya of Daṇḍin, viz., Anuprāsa— वर्णावृत्तिरनुप्रासः पादेषु च पदेषु च।I, 55. यया कयाचिच्छ्रुत्या यत् ॥etc. corresponds to the fourth point mentioned by R. L. Stevenson in his essay on the Technical Elements of Style, viz., ‘contents of the phrase.’He makes a detailed study and analysis and tabulates the consonantal sound effects of many passages. He gives this as a quality of a master of style. Daṇḍin says that when this Śrutyanuprāsa is left and Ulbaṇānuprāsa is resorted to by the Gauḍas, harshness, Bandhapārusya and another flaw, Śaithilya, result. The concatenation becomes hardly pronounceable— Kṛcchrodya.
शिथिलं मालतीमाला लोलालिकलिला यथा॥
अनुप्रासधिया गौडैस्तदिष्टं बन्धगौरवात्॥
वैदर्भैर्मालतीदाम लङ्घितं भ्रमरैरिति। I, 43-44.
इत्यादिबन्धपारुष्यंशैथिल्यं च नियच्छति।
अतो नैनमनुप्रासं दाक्षिणात्याः प्रयुञ्जते॥ibid., 60.
दीप्तमित्यपरैर्भूम्ना कृच्छ्रोद्यमपि बध्यते।
न्यक्षेण क्षपितः पक्षः क्षत्रियाणां क्षणादिति॥ ibid., 72.
Stevenson thus concludes his section on ‘contents of the phrase’: “To understand how constant is this pre-occupation of good writers, even where its results are least obstrusive, it is only necessary to turn to the bad. There indeed you will find cacaphony supreme, the rattle of incongruous consonants
only relieved by jaw-breaking hiatus, and whole phrases not to be articulated by the powers of man.” R. L. Stevenson speaks in this essay of his, of Samatā, Vaiṣamya, Prasāda and Caville,i.e., the Anarthakapadas or Aprayojāka padas of Vāmana which hinder Prasāda (अर्थस्य वैमल्यं प्रयोजकमात्रपदपरिग्रहे प्रसादःIII, iii, 3.) and Mahiman’s Avakara. Ideas found in Pater’s exposition of style also have correspondences with ideas on Guṇa, Alaṁkāra and Alaṁkāraucitya found in Sanskrit works. Schopenhauer has an essay on Authorship and Style, where, while dealing with the latter subject, he gives certain concrete good features of a good style of writing, judged to be good by reason of the presence of those features. According to him thoughts must get their clearest, finest and most powerful expression; thus, three qualities are emphasised by him, clarity and beauty, the sum total of these two, the power. In clarity is comprehended chiefly the virtue of simplicity which means the expression of thoughts “as purely, clearly, definitely and concisely as ever possible.”This is secured by the use of words which are precise and which mean neither more nor less, which neither mean the thing vaguely nor mean something different. Grammatical precision and enough words are necessary. Clarity and grammar must not be sacrificed for the sake of brevity. Says Schopenhauer: “On the other hand one should never sacrifice clearness, to say nothing of grammar, for the sake of being brief …And this is precisely what false brevity nowadays in vogue is trying to do, for writers not only leave out words that are to the purpose, but even grammatical and logical essentials.” Compare Daṇḍin’s Guṇa, Arthavyakti, which he defines as Aneyārthatva. It is a grammatical and logical necessity. In its absence, in the absence of words grammatically and logically essential, we have the Doṣa called Neyārthatva.
अर्थव्यक्तिरनेयत्वमर्थस्य हरिणोद्धृता।
भूः क्षुरक्षुण्णनागासृग्लोहितादुदधेरिति॥
नेदृशंबहुमन्यन्ते मार्गयोरुभयोरपि।
न हि प्रतीतिस्सुभगा शब्दन्यायविलंघिनी॥K. Ā. I, 73-75.
Not saying what must be said, out of a mistaken sense of brevity, is a kind of ‘Vācyāvacana’according to Mahimabhaṭṭa. Similarly, simplicity and precision are lost by adding things and words which are unnecessary. This is Mahiman’s Avācyavacana.
इत्यत्र समासान्तर्गतेन बदनशब्देन एकेनैव वदने वाच्ये यद् बहुभिः शब्दैः तस्य वचनं, सोऽवाच्यवचनं दोषः।p.je7 TSS. edn.
These words are surplusage and are due to proverty of thought or an ambition to write a grand style. These merely fill so much of space still vacant in a verse, Pādapūraṇa. Schopenhauer says; “If words are piled up beyond this point they make the thought that is being communicated more and more obscure. To hit that point is the problem of style and a matter of discernment; for every superfluous word prevents its purpose being carried out.” This is exactly what Vāmana means by his Arthaguṇa Prasãda which is the use of words exactly sufficient for conveying the idea.
अर्थवैमल्यं प्रसादः। अर्थस्य वैमल्यं प्रयोजकमात्रपदपरिग्रहे प्रसादः।यथा—‘सवर्णा कन्यका रूपयौवनारम्भशालिनी।’विपर्ययस्तु ‘उपास्तां हस्तो मे विमलमणिकाञ्चीपदमिदम्’। काञ्चीपदमित्यनेनैव नितंवस्य लक्षितत्वात् विशेषणस्य अप्रयोजकत्वमिति। III, ii, 3.
Other Sanskrit writers also have dealt with Aprayojaka epithets and words which do not nourish the idea but are
mere verbiage affected for attaining a grandiose style and adopted to cover one’s poverty of idea and imagination. For, these words, Mahiman calls अप्रतिभोद्भव and अवकर. To Mahiman, these out-of-place words are the literary Apaśabdas. “अस्मान् प्रति पुनः अविषये प्रयुज्यमानः शब्दः अपशब्द एव”p. 121. TSS. edn. Schopenhauer condemns indefiniteness, vague words and enveloping trivial ideas in the most outlandish, artificial and rarest phrases. ‘व्युत्पन्नमिति गौडीयैर्नातिरूढमपीष्यते’says Daṇḍin ; that Prasāda is the use of well-known words which easily give their sense; that as against this, certain writers think that they must look learned and, in the words of Schopenhauer, ‘resent the idea of their work looking too simple and resort to lexico-graphical rarities. Schopenhauer speaks of two styles, one good and the other bad, the former being characterised mainly by simplicity, clarity and precision, and the latter by prolixity, vagueness and word-pomp. He seems to describe only Daṇḍin’s Vaidarbhīand Gauḍī. Of those who favour the latter, Schopenhauer says that they ‘delight in bombast’, that their writing is generally ‘in a grand puffed up (Dīpta of Daṇḍin), unreal, hyperbolic (Daṇḍin’s Atyukti, the reverse of the Saukumārya Guṇa) and acrobatic style.’(Prahelikāprāya says Bhāmaha). Daṇḍin condemns not only Ulbaṇa Anuprāsa (Śabdālaṁkāra) and Yamaka which is Duṣkara and ‘Naikānta madhura’, but also Arthālaṁkāra ḍambara. He prefers delicateness, fineness and natural grace which give poetry a power which no rhetorical ornament can ever impart to it.
इत्यनूर्जित एवार्थः नालङ्कारोऽपि तादृशः।
सुकुमारतयैवैतद् आरोहति सतां मनः॥
Compare Schopenhauer: “An author should guard against using all unnecessary rhetorical adornment, all useless amplification,
and in general, just as in architecture. he should guard against an excess of decoration, all superfluity of expression,— in other words, he should aim at chastity of style. Everything redundant has a harmful effect. The law of simplicity and naivete applies to all fine art, for it is compatible with what is most sublime.”
It shall be considered now whether the linking of Rīti to the poet and his character and the idea of the infinity of Rīti is or is not present in Sanskrit Alaṁkāra literature. Aristotle described only one good style and its qualities and contrasted it with a bad style called the Frigid which overdid ornamentation. He refuted also others who spoke of different styles such as the Agreeable. He argued that there was no end when one began attributing to styles all sorts of ethical qualities like restraint etc. An emphasis on the relation of style to the author makes it impossible to speak of style in general or define its features. Only a few concrete qualities related to the actual Śabdas, the Sanghaṭanã, Padas and Varṇas, and to the theme can be considered while defining or classifying style. Thus, previous to Aristotle, some had spoken of the Agreeable style. After Aristotle, some were speaking of three styles, Grave, Medium and Attenuate, to suit the threefold purpose of oratory, moving, pleasing and pleading. Just before Demetrius wrote, some held styles to be two, the Plain and the Elevated. Demetrius added two more, the Elegant and the Forcible. Plainness stood against elevation. A style is specially decorated for effect or is plain. From another point of view, styles can be classified into two, the Elegant (or graceful) and the Forcible. It is not one principle of classification that gives us these four styles. The Plain may be elegant or forcible; the elevation given to a style may be elegant or forcible. But naturally, plainness and elegance go
together and so also elevation and force. The Plain and the Elegant of Demetrius are represented by Vaidarbhīin Sanskrit. The Elevated and the Forcible correspond to the good Gauḍī found envisaged in Bhāmaha, the Frigid and the Affected styles in Demetrius being the bad Gauḍī in Daṇḍin. The two correspond to Sukumāra and the Vicitra Mārgas in Kuntaka. Saukumārya and Ojas— Plainness and Elegance, Elevation and Force— these finally give us two Rītis. Bhatṭa Nṛsimha, a commentator on Bhoja’s Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa (Madras MS.) says that of the Guṇas of Daṇḍin, two are important, Saukumārya and Ojas, as being the Asādhāraṇa guṇas of the two Mārgas. “तेषु (गुणेषु) अत्र सौकुमार्यम् ओजश्च द्वयोरप्यसाधारणःगुणः। इतरे तु प्रायशः साधारणः”।p. 11. Mad. MS. This final analysis of style into two is neither impossible nor absurd. While treating of the Formal Element in Literature in Ch. IV of his work ‘Some Principles of Literary Criticism’, Winchester has the following: “But while individuality is not to be classified, it may be said that there are, in general, two opposite tendencies in personal ex-pression on the one hand to clearness and precision; on the other to largeness and profusion. The difference between the two may be seen by comparing such poetry as that of Mathew Arnold with that of Tennyson or such prose as that of Newman with that of Jeremy Taylor. Minds of one class insist on sharply divided ideas, on clearness of image, on temperance, and precision of epithet. Their style we characterise as chaste or classic. The other class have a great volume of thought, but less well-defined; more fervour and less temperance of feeling, more abundant and vivid imagery, more wealth of colour, but less sharpness of definition. Their thoughts seem to move through a haze of emotion and often through a lush growth of imagery. They tend to be ornate and profuse in manner, eager in temper; they often produce larger anddeeper effects, but they lack restraint and suavity. It is a contrast not peculiar to literature, but running through all
forms of art**…The one makes upon you the impression of greater delicacy, temperance, charm: the other, the impression of greater mass, complexity, power. We are not called upon to pronounce either manner absolutely better than the other;… ”**The last sentence here echoes Bhāmaha’s attitude towards the distinction of style into Vaidarbhīand Gauḍīand the claim of superiority for the former. From this passage, it is also seen that despite the infinite variety of writers’ personality, it is yet possible and sensible too to find two broad divisions, one favouring virtues of subdued beauty and the other, exhuberance; that a subjective and personal basing of style does not preclude the possibility of a classification or definition of style. In this passage of Winchester again, it seems as if Kālidāsa’s style is described and contrasted with that of Bhavabhūti and Bāṇa; it looks as if good Vaidarbhīand a good handling of the Gauḍīare considered here; we are clearly reminded of Kuntaka’s two Mārgas, the Sukumāra and the Vicitra, the one dominated by beauty that is mainly natural, Sahajaśobhā, and the other by ornamentation, Āhāryaśobhā, the one in Svabhāva-ukti and Rasa-ukti, and the other in Vakrokti, the one displaying greater Śakti and the other, greater Vyutpatti. While the former style is a rare gift, it is very difficult to be successful in the latter; for the path of ornamentation and elevation has many pitfalls, and frigidity, artıficiality and ornateness are easily committed. Says Kuntaka:
सोऽतिदुस्सञ्चरो येन विदग्धकवयो गताः।
खड्गधारापथेनेव सुभटानां मनोरथाः॥¹ V. J., I. 43.
____________________________
1 Strangely enough, Padmagupta calls the Vaidarbhīthe ‘sword-edge-path,’निस्त्रिशधारापथ—
तत्त्वस्पृशस्ते कवयःपुराणाःश्रीभर्तृमेण्ठप्रमुखा जयन्ति।
निस्त्रिशधारासदृशेन येषां वैदर्भमार्गेण गिरः प्रवृताः॥Navasābasāṅkacarita, I. 5.
Vide Vṛtti also p. 58. Hence it is that critics do not favour it. It is the deterioration of Vicitramārga that is Daṇḍin’s Gauḍī. It is because of this difficulty that Demetrius’s Elevated and Forceful styles become, in the hands of lesser artists, the Frigid and the Affected styles. Hence it is that the critics always prefer the former. Says Winchester: “But it would seem that, in literature at least, the classic manner is the culmination of art. Precision, in the wide sense, must be the highest virtue of expression; and it is this precision, combined with perfect ease, that constitutes the classic manner.”“Individual tastes may justly differ; but the ultimate verdict of approval will be given to that style in which there is no overcolouring of phrase, no straining of sentiment; which knows how to be beautiful without being lavish, how to be exact without being bald; in which you never find a thicket of vague epithet.”It is of this style, called by him Sukumāra, that Kuntaka says:
सुकुमाराभिधस्सोऽयं येन सत्कवयो गताः।
मार्गेणोत्फुल्लकुसुमकाननेनेव षट्पदाः॥ V. J., I. 29,
Kuntaka is the greatest exponent of the Rīti. That it comprehends all aspects of expression has been well realised by him. He casts off the old names which have geographical associations, dead for a long time, and forges new nomenclature on the basis of a fundamental classification of the manners of expression, on the basis of the more prevailing tendencies among masters in Sanskrit literature. He also shows how each Mārga or Rīti or style is characterised not by certain Bandhaguṇas only, but by a certain attitude in using Alaṅkāras and delineating Rasas also. Above all, he is the only Sanskrit writer who realised very strongly the final basis
of style in the character of the poet and consequently related Rīti to the writer.
Kuntaka first refers to the geographical Rītis, Vaidarbhī, Gauḍīand Pāñcālī. He says that old writers give these three Rītis and call them Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. This point of view Kuntaka objects to, for styles of poetry dependent for their origin on poetic genius and craftsmanship, upon Śakti and Vyutpatti in poets, cannot be spoken of like certain kinds of ‘Deśācāra’like marriage, permissible or obtaining in certain parts of the land.
न च विशिष्टरीतियुक्तत्वेन काव्यकरणं मातुलेयभगिनीविवाहवद् देशधर्मतया व्यवस्थापयितुं शक्यम्।देशधर्मो हि वृद्धव्यवहारपरम्परामात्रशरणःशक्यानुष्ठानतां नातिवर्तते। तथाविधकाव्यकरणं पुनः शक्त्यादिकारणकलापसाकल्यमपेक्ष्य(क्ष)माणं न शक्यते यथाकथञ्चिदनुष्ठातुम्। न च दाक्षिणात्यगीतविषयसुस्वरतादिध्वनिरामणीयकवत्तस्य स्वाभाविकत्वं वक्तुं पार्यते। तस्मिन्सति तथाविधकाव्यकरणं सर्वस्य स्यात्। किञ्च शक्तौ विद्यमानायामपि व्युत्पत्त्यादिः आहार्यकारणसम्पत् प्रतिनियतदेशविषयतया न व्यवतिष्ठते, नियमनिबन्धनाभावात् तत्र अदर्शनादन्यत्र च दर्शनात्।
P.46
Then Kuntaka criticises the view that holds these three Rītis as Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. If the Gauḍīand the Pāñcālī are not good, why treat of them in the Śāstra?
न च रीतीनां उत्तमाधममध्यमत्वभेदेन त्रैविध्यमवस्थापयितुं न्याय्यम्। यस्मात् सहृदयाह्लादकारिकाव्यलक्षणप्रस्तावे वैदर्भीसदृशसौन्दर्यासम्भवात् मध्यमाधमयोरुपदेशवैयर्थ्यमायाति। परिहार्यत्वेनाप्युपदेशः न युक्ततामालंबते, तेरैव अनभ्युपगमात्। न च अगतिकगतिन्यायेन यथाशक्ति दरिद्रदानादिवत् काव्यं करणीयतां अर्हतां (?) अर्हति। P. 46.
If however the names Vaidarbhī etc., are meant only as names and do not mean any geographical connection with poetry, Kuntaka has no objection.
तदेवं निर्वचनसमाख्यामात्रकरणकारणत्वे देशविशेषाश्रयणस्य वयं न विवदामहे।¹
Kuntaka then gives his idea of Rīti that it is based on the character of the poet, Kavisvabhāva. He accepts that this Kavisvabhāva is infinite, but generally speaking, he says that there can be indicated three main types.
यद्यपि कविस्वभावभेदनिबन्धनत्वाद् अनन्तभेदभिन्नत्वमनिवार्यं तथापि परिसंख्यातुम् अशक्यत्वात् सामान्येन त्रैविध्यमेवोपपद्यते। P. 47.
The three styles thus indicated by him are the graceful, the striking and the mixed, Sukumāra, Vicitra and Madhyama, The Sukumāra is the style of certain poets of a similar temperament and it is suited to certain situations. Similarly the Vicitra. The third combines the features of both the styles. All the three are beautiful and have their own charm. It is absurd to suppose that one is good, the other bad or the third passable.
तथा च रमणीयकाव्यपरिग्रहप्रस्तावे स्वभावसुकुमारस्तावेदको राशिः, तद्व्यतिरिक्तस्य अरमणीयस्य अनुपादेयत्वात्। तद्व्यतिरेकी रामणीयकविशिष्टो विचित्र इत्युच्यते। तदेतयोर्द्वयोरपि रमणीयत्वाद् एतदीयच्छाया-
____________________________
1 This paragraph is concluded by Kuntaka in the words: तदल्मनेन निस्सारवस्तुपरिमलनव्यसनेन. On the basis of this, Dr. S. K. De says on p. 386 of his Skr. Poe. Vol. II that Kuntaka was an advocate of the Alaṁkāra school and meant to make light of the Rīti. For a correct statement of the Kuntaka’s view on Rḷti, however, see the same writer’s Introduction to his Edn. of the Vakrokti Jivita. pp. xxxii-xxxiii.
द्वितयोपजीविनोऽस्य रमणीयत्वमेव न्यायोपपन्नं पर्यवस्यति। तस्मादेतेषाम् अस्खलितस्वपरिस्पन्दमहिम्ना तद्विदाह्लादकारित्वपरिसमाप्तेः न कस्यचिन्न्यूनता। P. 47.
Raleigh, in his book on Style, speaks of the ‘soul’ in style. He quotes Pater who says “As a quality of style, soul is a fact.” What is this soul? Raleigh interprets it as ‘spirit’. He says in this connection: ‘Ardent persuasion and deep feeling enkindle words, so that the weakest take glory.’This is the quality of sincerity he speaks of earlier. Analysed, this resolves into an emphasis on Rasa and the writer’s attention to its supreme expression. There is another sincerity which is artistic perfection and which sometimes modifies the sincerity of emotion. In the former case, the poet is true to Rasa and Bhāva, and only to them. In the latter case, he thinks of how best to present that feeling in a setting of words. This anxiety for artistic perfection calls forth style, figures etc. Those who are impelled by the latter, the artistic sincerity, are followers of the Vicitra Mārga. Those that are absorbed in the Rasa and Bhāva and present them in their own glory are followers of the Sukumāra Mārga. Ideas and words for these sprout out of an ever fresh imagination; there is always an enough ornament which is effortless; the natural beauty of things has been preferred there for artificial adornment; at every step establishing an emotional appeal, it is of unpremeditated grace.
अम्लानप्रतिभोद्भिन्ननवशब्दार्थबन्धुरः।
अयत्नविहितस्वल्पमनोहारिविभूषणः॥
भावस्वभावप्राधान्यन्यक्कृताहार्यकौशलः।
रसादिपरमार्थज्ञमनस्संवादसुन्दरः॥
अविभावितसंस्थानरामणीयकरञ्जकः।
विधिवैदग्ध्यनिष्पन्ननिर्माणातिशयोपमः॥
यत्किञ्चनापि वैचित्र्यं तत्सर्वं प्रतिभोद्भवम्।
सौकुमार्यपरिस्पन्दस्यन्दि यत्र विराजते॥
सुकुमाराभिधस्सोऽयं येन सत्कवयो गताः।
मार्गेणोत्फुल्लकुसुमकाननेनेव षट्पदाः॥ V. J., I. 25-29.
The main feature of this style is that whatever beauty it possesses is all natural, Sahaja; poetic genius and imagination and not pure craftsmanship and scholarship form the basis of this style. The things of the world and Rasa and Bhāva are given in all the beauty of their very nature and this first-instance-expression is not refashioned in the workshop of figure.
That such a definition of style is all-comprehensive need not be pointed out. But Kuntaka also speaks of certain Guṇas as characterising his Mārgas. Of the Sukumāra Mārga he says, Mādhurya is the first Guṇa. It is defined as the un-compounded use of words and a certain grace of the Śabda and Artha—पदानामसमस्तत्वं and शब्दार्थरमणीयतया विन्यासवैचित्र्यम्. The insistence on Mādhurya as the use of Asamastapadas49is for securing clarity of the idea. The words of emphasis, heightenings and lowerings, in a sentence can have their point only if the words remain separate; their emphasis is lost when they are huddled into a compound. Samāsa always hampers understanding. Says Mahimabhaṭṭa:
विनोत्कर्षापकर्षाभ्यां स्वदन्तेऽर्था न जातुचित्।
तदर्थमेव कवयोऽलङ्कारान्पर्युपासते॥
तौ विधेयानुवाद्यत्वविवक्षैकनिबन्धनौ।
सा समासेऽस्तमायातीत्यसकृत्प्रतिपादितम्॥
अत एव च वैदर्भीरीतिरेकैव शस्यते।
यतस्समाससंस्पर्शस्तत्र नैवोपपद्यते॥
सम्बन्धमात्रमर्थानां समासो ह्यवबोधयेत्।
नोत्कर्षमपकर्षेवा— v. V., P.53.
The next Guṇa of the Sukumāra Mārga is Prasāda, the quality by virtue of which the idea is given to us without any difficulty. This Prasāda refers to both Rasa and the idea or Artha which forms its vehicle. The idea may be expressed with Vakratā to give point to it but such turn or deviation adopted should not obscure the idea or take it into the dark50.Here also the use of the uncompounded words and words of which meanings are well known, पदानाम् असमस्तत्वम् and प्रसिद्धाभिधानत्वम्,51are the primary means. The third Guṇa is Lāvaṇya, which refers more to the Śabdas and the Varṇas, which should have an indescribable beauty floating over them. Any kind of Śabdālaṁkāra adopted for this purpose should have been done with ease and done with moderation. Ere the words as messengers of ideas deliver their meanings to the mind, their Lāvaṇya affects the sensibilities of the responsive reader. Similar in nature and borrowed from the same field is the fourth Guṇa given by Kuntaka, Ābhijātya. A certain softness of texture and delicateness of words making the mind feel them form this quality of Ābhijātya, a quality pre-eminently realisable only by the Sahṛdaya and hardly describable in so many words.
The Vicitra Mārga of Kuntaka is a style dominated by Vakratā. It is a flashy style, gleaming all over with gold dust.It is intricately worked and wrought with design and gem. Alaṁkarā leads to Alaṁkarā; ere one effect is off our mind, another is on.
अलंकारस्य कवयो यत्रालङ्करणान्तरम्।
असन्तुष्टा निबध्नन्ति हारादेर्मणिबन्धवत्॥ V. J., I. 35,
A style which reminds us of Vālmiki’s description of Rāvaṇa’s Puṣpaka —‘न तत्र किञ्चिन्न कृतं प्रयत्नतः’and ‘ततस्ततस्तुल्यविशेषदर्शनम्’, every bit worked with care and craft and at every step equally striking with some speciality52.The description of this Mārga also, as made by Kuntaka, is all comprehensive, referring to every aspect of expression. (V. J.,1, 34-43, pp. 56-66).
Though Kuntaka has indicated two major varieties of style, he is fully aware that style is not classifiable. He says that Mārga or style is infinite in variety and subtle in difference; for it is based on the poet’s nature.
कविस्वभावभेदनिबन्धनत्वेन काव्यप्रस्थानभेदःसमञ्जसतां गाहते। सुकुमारस्वभावस्य कवेः तथाविधैव सहजा शक्तिः समुद्भवति, शक्तिशक्तिमतोरभेदात्। तथा च तथाविधसौकुमार्यरमणीयां व्युत्पत्तिमाबध्नाति। ताभ्यां च सुकुमारवर्त्मनाभ्यासतत्परः क्रियते। तथैव चैतस्माद् विचित्रः स्वभावो यस्य कवेः तस्य काचिद् विचित्रैव तदनुरूपा शक्तिस्समुल्लसति।
V. J., p. 46.
यद्यपि कविस्वभावभेदनिबन्धनत्वादनन्तभेदभिन्नत्वमनिवार्यं,तथापि परिसंख्यातुमशक्यत्वात् सामान्येन त्रैविध्यमेवोपपद्यते। Ibid., p. 47.
Though character is subtle and infinite, differing with each person, it is possible to say that there are three classes, the Sukumāra and the Vicitra types and that of those who have both in varying proportions. The Sukumāra nature of a writer affects this Vyutpatti and practice of writing which becomes stamped with that quality. Vyutpatti and Abhyāsa bring out his Svabhāva. The poet’s Svabhāva is clearly expressed in the writing. Is this not the expression of the writer’s personality, his soul? What else does Kuntaka say in the words :
आस्तां तावत् काव्यकरणं, विषयान्तरेऽपि सर्वस्य कस्यचिद् अनादिवासनाभ्यासाधिवासितचेतसः स्वभावानुसारिणावेव व्युत्पत्त्यभ्यासौ प्रवर्तेते। तौ च स्वभावाभिव्यञ्जनेनैव साफल्यं भजतः।V. J., p. 47.
Again Kuntaka emphasises the infinite variety of style and its basis in the author’s nature. He takes the well-known poets and assigns them to the different styles. Mātṛgupta, Māyurāja and Mañjīra are exponents of the third combined Mārga. Their poetry has a natural grace which they have rendered attractive with some decoration also. Kalidāsa and Sarvasena (the author of the Harivijaya, mentioned by Ānanda in Ud. III) are masters in the Sukumāra Mārga, their poetry being the product of natural genius and appealing by their natural beauty. Bāṇabhaṭta is the greatest representative of the Vicitra Mārga and Bhavabūti and Rājaśekhara also belong to this class.
अत्र गुणोदाहरणानि परिमितत्वात् प्रदर्शितानि, प्रतिपदं पुनः छायावैचित्र्यं सहृदयैस्स्वयमेवानुसर्तव्यम्। अनुसरणदिक्प्रदर्शनं पुनःक्रियते।
यथा मातृगुप्तमायुराजमञ्जीरप्रभृतीनां सौकुमार्यवैचित्र्यसंवलितपरिस्पन्दस्पन्दीनि काव्यानि संभवन्ति। तत्र मध्यममार्गसंवलितं स्वरूपं विचारणीयम्। एवं सहजसौकुमार्यसुभगानि कालिदाससर्वसेनादीनां काव्यानि दृश्यन्ते। तत्र सुकुमारमार्गस्वरूपं चर्चनीयम्। तथैव च विचित्रवकत्वविजृभितं हर्षचरिते प्रायुर्येण भट्टबाणस्य विभाव्यते भवभूतिराजशेखरविरचितेषु बन्धसौन्दर्यसुभगेषु मुक्तकेषु (?) परिदृश्यते। तस्मात्सहृदयैस्सर्वत्र सर्वमनुसर्तव्यम्।
एवं मार्गत्रितयलक्षणं दिङ्मात्रमेव प्रदर्शितम्। न पुनस्साकल्येन सत्कबिकौशलप्रकाराणां केनचिदपि स्वरूपमभिधातुं पार्यते।V. J., p. 71.
Similar is the view of Daṇḍin also. He describes two Mārgas that can clearly be distinguished, for, he says, Rītis are infinite and their differences very subtle. So subtle is the character of one’s writing from that of another that it is as difficult to point out their differences as to describe in so many words the difference between various kinds of sweetness, of sugarcane, milk etc. Daṇḍin says:
अस्त्यनेको गिरां मार्गः सूक्ष्मभेदः परस्परम्।
तत्र वैदर्भगौडीयौ वर्ण्येते प्रस्फुटान्तरौ॥ I. 40.
इति मार्गद्वयं भिन्नं तत्स्वरूपनिरूपणात्।
तद्भेदास्तु न शक्यन्ते वक्तुं प्रतिकविस्थिताः॥
इक्षुक्षीरगुडादीनां माधुर्यस्यान्तरं महत्।
तथापि न तदाख्यातुं सरस्वत्यापि शक्यते॥ I. 101-2.
Śāradātanaya says on Rīti in his Bhāvaprakāśa:
प्रतिवचनं प्रतिपुरुषं तदवान्तरजातितः प्रतिप्रीति।
आनन्त्यात् संक्षिप्य प्रोक्ता कविभिश्चतुधैव॥
Ch. I, pp. 11-12, lines 21-24
त एवाक्षरविन्यासास्ता एव पदपङ्क्तयः।
पुंसि पुंसि विशेषेण कापि कापि सरस्वती॥
Ibid., p. 12, lines 1-2.
As explained by Bhoja,
रीङ् गताविति धातोस्सा व्युत्पत्त्या रीतिरुच्यते। S. K. Ā., II. 17.
Rīti is the characteristic way of a writer. The other words used as synonyms are Gati, Mārga, Panthāḥand Prasthāna. In Tamil and especially while our Rasikas appreciate our musicians, we hear of the particular Panthā, Vali or Naḍai of each artist. All these words mean style. A poet of mark has a style. To posses a distinct style is to be a poet of mark.
सत्यर्थे सत्सु शब्देषु सति चाक्षरडम्बरे।
शोभते यं विना नोक्तिः स पन्था इति घुष्यते॥ I. 10.
अन्धास्ते कवयो येषां पन्थाः क्षुण्णः परैर्भवेत्।
परेषां तु यदाक्रान्तः पन्थास्ते कविकुञ्जराः॥ I. 17.
— Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita, Gaṅgāvataraṇa Kāvya.
APPENDIX
RĪTI IN THE AGNI PURĀṆA
THE Alaṅkāra section in the Agni Purāṇa is a hopelessly loose heaping of all sorts of ideas taken from this and that writer and does not deserve to be treated seriously as representing any systematic tradition. Dr. De supposes in his Sanskrit Poetics that it represents a systematic tradition which stands separate from that of the orthodox Kasmirian writers and which is followed by Bhoja. It is not a Purāṇa compiler of such a nature that hints at new paths in special Śāstras and surely the compiler who borrows from Tantravārttika, Bhartṛmitra, Bharata, Daṇḍin and Ānanda, may well borrow from Bhoja, who takes credit for the new Rasa theory propounded by him in his Śṛṅgāraprakās’a. The truth therefore is that the Alaṅkāra section in the Agni Purāṇa is definitely later than Bhoja, from whom it borrowed not only the Ahaṅkāra-Abhimāna idea of Rasa expounded in his Śṛṅgāraprakāśa and already referred to in his Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa, V. 1, but also some Śabdālaṅkāras and other ideas.
The Alaṅkāra section of the Purāṇa is spread over eleven chapters, (chs. 337 to 347). The first chapter deals with Kāvya and of it, the Purāṇa says that Rasa is the life. ŚI. 337/33 places Rasa above Vāgvaidagdhya which can be said to be identical with the concept of Vakrokti as applyinggenerally to poetic expression as such and as a whole. The
next chapter deals with drama. The third is completely devoted to Rasa and from this third chapter up to Śloka 17 of the sixth chapter, the subject dealt with is Rasa. For, the fourth which speaks of Rītis and Vṛttis, deals with Buddhyārambha-Anubhāvas; the fifth which is called नृत्त्यादौ अङ्गकर्म निरुपणम् deals with Śarīrārambha Anubhāvas, such as the Alaṅkāras of the Ālambanas in the shape of damsels, the glances etc.; and the first part of the sixth again deals with Rasa. The rest of the sixth, and the seventh treat of Śabdā-laṅkāra and are followed by the eighth speaking of Arthā-laṅkāra. Chapter 345 describes Ubhayālaṅkāra, chapter 346, Guṇas and the last chapter (347), Doṣas,
Vṛtti is Ceṣṭāand Pravrtti is Veṣa or Āhārya. Rīti is Vacana or speech53.Says Rājaśekhara, and following him Bhoja also in his Śr. Pra. :
तत्र वेषविन्यासक्रमः प्रवृत्तिः, विलासविन्यासक्रम वृत्तिः, वचनविन्यासक्रमः रीतिः। (K. M., p. 9)
Vṛtti is dramatic action as such and one of its varieties is Bhāratī which however, being speech, is the Vācikābhinaya which is examined from the point of view of various Rītis. Āhārya is invariably Nepathya, dress and make-up. No doubt, it forms a part of Vitti, even as Rīti forms a part of Vṛtti. We find the graceful dress included in the definition of the Kaiśikīvṛtti— या श्लक्ष्णनेपथ्यetc. In graceful action, graceful dress also is comprehended. Therefore Vṛtti and Pravṛtti are intimately related, as Shakespeare also says, ‘apparel oft proclaims the man.’As the Viṣnudharmottara says, Pravṛttis are वृत्तीनामाश्रयाः54।Āhārya which is dress, is Pravṛtti-Veṣavinyāsa.
These three, Rīti, Vṛtti and Pravṛtti (speech, action and dress) are all Anubhāvas, and are classed as बुद्ध्यारम्भानुभावाःby Bhoja in chapter XVII of his Śṛṅgāra Prakāsa.55Śiṅgabhūpāla also follows Bhoja and says in his RAS., I, p. 64:
बुद्ध्यारम्भास्तथा प्रोक्ताः रीतिवृत्तिप्रवृत्तयः।
Following Bhoja’s Śṛ. Pra. the Purāṇa also considers the three, Rīti, Vṛtti and Pravṛtti as Buddhyārambhānubhāva :
बोधाय एष व्यापारः ? सु(स) बुद्ध्यारम्भ इष्यते।
तस्य भेदाः त्रयः, ते च रीतिवृत्तिप्रवृत्तयः॥ (339 / 53, 54)
The Buddhyārambhas, Rīti, Vṛtti and Pravṛtti, form the subject-matter of the next chapter (ch. 340). In ch. 339, śls. 44-45 begins the treatment of Anubhāvas :
मनो-बाग्-बुद्धि वपुषां स्मृतीच्छाद्वेषयत्नतः।
आरम्भ एव विदुषाम् अनुभाव इति स्मृतः56॥
Śls. 46-50 describe मन आरम्भानुभावाः, śls. 51-53 (first half), द्वादश वागारम्भाः,śls. 53 (second half), 54 and ch. 340 describe बुद्ध्यारम्भाःand ch. 341, as is said in its first verse, describes शरीरारम्भाःIThese are all Anubhāvas and are called Abhinayas. From the point of view of the four kinds of Abhinaya, these are re-distributed and the study of Anubhāvas closes with śl. 2 of ch. 342, after which some general aspects of Rasa are taken up. Vāgārambha is Vācika; Manaārambha is Sāttvika (Sattva=manas; अनुपहतं हि मनः सत्त्वमुच्यतेऽays Bhoja in his Śṛ. Pra., ch. XI) ; Śarīrārambha is Āṅgika
and Pravṛtti which is one of the three Buddhyārambhas is Āhārya.^(1)What about the other two Buddhyārambhas, Rīti and Vṛtti? Vṛtti pertains to all action. Its first variety called Bhārati and the Buddhyārambha called Rīti are Vācikābhinaya and are to be taken along with the Vāgārambhas, Ālāpa etc. According to the traditional meanings, Ārabhaṭī will be Āṅgikābhinaya, Sāṭtvatī Vṛtti will be Sāttvikābhinaya and KaisikīVṛtti will be all Abhinaya that is graceful. But to adopt the more correct meanings of these concepts, as explained in my paper on the Vṛttis in the JOR., Sāttvatī will go with Sāttvikābhinaya and Ārabhaṭī and Kaiśikī will go with all Abhinayas, forceful and graceful respectively.
Chapter 340 of the Purāṇa is called Rītinirūpaṇa. Correctly speaking, it must be called बुद्ध्यारम्भनिरूपणम् or रीतिवृत्तिप्रवृत्तिनिरुपणम्; for, in the foregoing chapter, मन आरम्भ and वागारम्भ have been dealt with and its succeeding chapter (ch.341) treats of शरीरारमभ. As it is, it treats of not only Rītis but of Vṛttis also. This is the smallest chapter in the whole section and of its eleven verses, the first four are concerned with Rītis. Then begins a treatment of Vṛttis. Śl. 5 enumerates the four Vṛttis; śl. 6 defines Bhārati and up to the first
___________________________
1 स्तम्भादिस्मात्त्विको वागारम्भो वाचिक आङ्गिकः।
शरीरारम्भ आहार्यो बुद्ध्यारम्भप्रवृत्तयः॥ 342/2
This verse does not mean that Rīti, Vṛtti and Pravṛtti, which are the three Buddhyārambhas, are Āharya. How can speech and action be two varieties of dress? One cannot contend that the Purāṇa has a new theory to expound viz., dress means speech and action also. The last part of the verse really means that Pravṛtti, which isone of the Buddhyārambhas, is the Ahāryābhinaya (वुद्ध्यारम्भेषु त्रिषु, या तृतीया प्रवृत्तिरिति, सा आहार्याभिनयः।). Even such a clumsy text as the Agni Purāṇa cannot mistake Āhārya as any thing but dress. See also IHQ, X, no. 4, 1934, pp. 767-779, where I have reconstructed and interpreted many of the passages in this section of the Purāṇa.
half of śl. 10, we have the varieties of Bhāratī(भारतीभेदाः) described. Then there are two lines, one giving a short definition of Ārabhaṭīand the other abruptly stopping in the midst of the enumeration of the varieties of Ārabhaṭī. There still remains to be treated the fourth variety of Ārabhaṭī, the whole of the Kaiśikī and the Sāttvatī Vṛttis and the whole subject of Pravṛttis. Therefore I think that the text of the chapter as printed in the Ānandāśrama Series, is incomplete.
The whole of the Ālaṅkāra Śāstra is included in the Vācikābhinaya section of the Nāṭya Śāstra which is one fourth of drama, being the Bhāratī Vṛtti. This Bhāratī Vṛtti is studied and analysed into Lakṣaṇas, Guṇas and Alaṁkāras. Closely akin to these is a composite study of the Bhāratī Vṛtti in terms of Rītis or Mārgas, which was attempted at a later time. Still another study of the Bhāratī Vṛtti is what Bharata gives us chapter XXIV as the twelve ‘Mārgas’^(1)of the Vācikābhinaya. The expression in the shape of Ālāpa, Vilāpa etc. can itself be examined from the point of view of Lakṣaṇas and Alaṅkāras and of the Rītis of Daṇḍin. There is little difference between the text of a drama and a Kāvya. The Vācikābhinaya portion is often treated as Kāvya. All
_________________________________
1 एते मार्गास्तु निर्दिष्टाः यथाभावरसान्विताः।
काव्यवस्तुषुनिर्दिष्टाः द्वादशाभिनयात्मिकाः॥
आलापश्च प्रलापश्च . . . . .
. . . . . . .
एते मार्गा हि विज्ञेया वाक्याभिनययोजिकाः॥
N. Ś. XXIV. 49-57.
Here, if one wants verbal identity in the shape of the word Mārga, one can have it, but much value is not attached to this fact that Vilāpa etc. are also called Mārgas. Anyway such occurrence of the word Mārga in Bharata is to be noted by one interested in the history of the word Mārga, as it is applied as a synonym of Rīti.
Kāvya is drama of the Bhāratī Vṛtti. That वागारम्भ and the realm of गिरां मार्गःare identical and that the Rītis as pointed out in a study of a drama’s Vācikābhinaya are identical with the Rītis pointed out in a Kāvya will be plain on a persual of Śiṅgabhūpāla’s treatmeṇt of Rītis in his R.A.S.
The question of what things constitute the differentia of the various Rītis, I have tackled in the main chapter Rīti above and in the chapter on the ‘History of Guṇas’in my work on Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāraprakāśa. Also, in the third instalment of my paper on Vṛttis in the J.O.R., VII. 2, I have pointed out some facts which are relevant to this discussion. An analysis of Daṇḍin’s Guṇas shows the existence in them of such things as Alaṅkāra, Samāsa and metaphorical usage. According to Rudraṭa the Rītis are Samāsa Jātis. Vaidarbhī is the collocation with no compound while the compounded collocation, according to the number of words compounded, produces the Pāñcālī, the Lāṭīyā or the Gauḍī. Another line of thought shows us the develop- ment of Rītis as Anuprāsa Jātis, varieties of Vṛttyanuprāsa. These appear in Bhāmaha, are clearly formulated in Udbhaṭa’s K.A.S.S., and are called merely Vṛttis by Ānanda. By the time we reach Mammaṭa, the three Vṛttyanuprāsa Jātis become identical with the three Rītis, viz., Vaidarbhī, Pāñcālī and Gauḍī. This line of enquiry lights up the early history of Rīti and in Daṇḍin’s treatment of it we find all these ideas. For, what is Daṇḍin’s Samādhi Guṇa, if it is not metaphorical usage? What is Ojas, if it is not the Samāsa on the basis of which Rudrata defines the Rītis? Again, what is the first Śābda variety of Daṇḍin’s Mādhurya except the sweetness born of Anuprāsa, on the basis of which Śabdālaṅkāra, three Vṛttis are born and which eventually get identified with the three Rītis ? (Daṇḍin, I, 51-58.) As a matter of fact, the subject of Anuprāsa is
dealt with by Daṇḍin only in chapter I as comprehended in his Mādhurya Guṇa of one variety pertaining to Śabda (for, of the other Mādhurya of Agrāmytā, we have the two sub-divisions of Śābda and Ārtha) and not in the chapter on Śabdālaṅkāra, a fact which has misled Mr. K. S. Ramaswamy Sastri57.")to say that Anuprāsa Śabdālaṅkāra is absent from Daṇḍin. Even Yamaka is touched here by Daṇḍin but is left out for special treatment in the Śabdālaṅkāra section. And what is this Śabda Mādhurya of Daṇḍin, viz. Anuprāsa, except Śabdālaṅkāra? When we come to Vāmana, we have even Rası coming in as constituting the Guṇa of Kānti of Artha, in the study of Rīti. Therefore it cannot be said simply and naively that some absolute entity called Guṇa, which is quite different from Alaṅkara etc. defines Rīti in Daṇḍin and that other writers and their definitions of Rītis in other words and other ways differ wholly from Daṇḍin’s.
The Agni Purāṇa borrows its definitions of the Rītis from Bhoja, (chapter XVII, on Anubhāvas, in the Śṛ. Pra.), where Bhoja himself borrows from Rājaśekhara. Later than these, Bahurūpa Miśra, in his commentary on the Daśarūpaka, (Mad. MS.) reproduces these definitions of the Rītis with the mention of Bhoja’s name. The Kāvya Mīmāmsā says:
-
—यत्—समासवद्, अनुप्रासवद्, योगवृत्तिपरम्परागर्भंजगाद सा गौडीया रीतिः। (p. S.)
-
—यत्— ईषदसमासम्, ईषदनुप्रासम्, उपचारगर्भं च जगाद सा पाञ्चाली रीतिः। (p. 9.)
-
—यत् —स्थानानुप्रासवद्,असमासं योगवृत्तिगर्भं च जगाद सा वैर्दर्भी रीतिः।(p. 9.)
To these three**,** Bhoja adds the fourth Lātīyā which the Purāṇa takes**.** In the above definitions of the three Rītis**,** three factors count— Samāsa**,** Anuprāsa and Yaugika or Aupacārikaprayoga**.** Of these**,** Samāsa (of Rudrata’s Rītis) is the Guṇa of Ojas**;** Anuprāsa (of the Vṛttis which are finally identified with the three Rītis) is one of the two kinds of शब्दमाधुर्य ofDaṇḍin**;** and Upacāra mentioned by Rājas**_(́)ekhara is Daṇḍin’s Samādhi,** metaphorical expression**,** personification etc**.** There is however no trace of Yoga Vṛtti as a part of the lakṣaṇa of Rīti in Daṇḍin**.** Daṇḍin has also said that Vaidarbhīhas a kind of Anuprāsa**,** has something like स्थानानुप्रास**,** for it is a discriminate employer of such varieties as श्रुत्यनुप्रास**,** and that it is Gauḍī which loves Anuprāsa as such and Samāsa as such**.** The Vaidarbhīof Daṇḍin also has little or no compound**.** This Bhoja follows in the Anubhāva-chapter in his S’r**.** Pra**.** (chapter XVII) and the Agni Purāna borrows from him when it says that
-
Pāñcālī is उपचारयुता**,** मृद्वीand ह्रस्वविग्रहा**,**
-
Gauḍīyā is दीर्घविग्रहा and अनवस्थितसन्दर्भा**,**
-
Vaidarbhī is उपचारैर्न बहुभिः युता or उपचारविवर्जिता. नातिकोमलसन्दर्भा and मुक्तविग्रहा**,** and
-
Lāṭīyā is अनतिभूय उपचारता, स्फुटसन्दर्भा and नातिविग्रहा (Śls 2-4.)^(1)
_________________________________
1In the definition of theLāṭīyā**,** the following line is printed wrongly: परित्यक्ताऽभिभूयोऽपि रूपचारैरुदाहृता।
It must be thus corrected: परित्यक्तातिभूयोभिरुपचारैरुदाहृता।
and it means that the Lāṭīyādoes not have too much of metaphorical expression.
Bhoja’s definitions are as follows**:**
-
यद् अनतिदीर्घसमासम्**,** अनतिस्फुटबन्धन्**,** उपचारवृत्तिमत्**,** पादानुप्रासप्रायं**,** योगरूढिमद् वचः सा पाञ्चाली।
-
यद् अतिदीर्घसमासं**,** परिस्फुटबन्धं**,** नात्युपचारवृत्तिमत्**,** पादानुग्रासयोगि**,** योगरूढिपरम्परागर्भं वचः**,** सा गौडीया।
-
यद् असमस्तम्**,** अतिसुकुमारबन्धम्**,अनुपचारवृत्तिमत,** स्थानानुप्रासयोगि**,** योगवृत्तिमद् वचः**,** सा वैदर्भी।
-
यद् ईषत्समस्तम्**,** अनतिसुकुमारबन्धं**,** नात्युपचारवद्**,** लाटीयानुप्रासयोगि**,** रूढिमद् वचः**,** सा लाटीया।
Śṛ**,** Pra**.Mad. MS.,** chapter XVII**,** vol. III**,** pp**.**212-6.
The word Vigraha in the Agni Purāṇa stands for Samāsa**;** for**,** it is for a Samasta word that we give Vigraha**.**
Thus the characteristics which are given in the definitions of Rītis in Rājas’ekhara**,** Bhoja and the Agni Purāna are not wholly unrelated to Guṇas and these Guṇas themselves are not certain absolute entities standing apart**.** The Upacāra is Daṇḍin**’s Samādhi and the feature of Vigraha or Samāsa comes under Daṇḍin’s Ojas.** Therefore it cannot be held that
** “the Rītis in the Purāṇa have not been distinguished from one another by the presence or absence of certain poetic excellences (Guṇas)-”**58
THE HISTORY OF VṚTTI IN KĀVYA
A SURVEY of the concept of Vṛtti in the realm of Nātya where it originated was made by me in an article entitled the Vṛttis in the J.O.R**,** Madras**,** vols**.** VI and VII**.** But like many other concepts**,** the Vṛtti passed into Kāvya also**,** experiencing many vicissitudes which form the subject of this chapter**.** If the concept is studied in relation to Kāvya**,** i**.e.,** Śravya Kāvya**,** in Alaṅkāra Śāstra**,** this is what we must logically expect**:** The whole field of Śravya Kāvya is BhāratīVṛtti**.** Descriptions of love**,** evening**,** moonlight**,** seasons etc**.,** must be Kaisikīand of war etc**.,** Ārabhaṭī**.** Sāttvatī**,** if we accept it as the name of action**,** is as absent from Kāvya as Bhāratī is present**.** Bhāratī or the text of the whole Kāvya will be modified**,** according to the situation**,** by Kais’ikīand Ārabhaṭī**,** producing two main varieties of Bhāratīgoing by the names Vaidarbhī Rīti and Gauḍīyā**,** Rīti**.** The concept of Guṇa must here be related to these**.** The two and the only two Guṇas necessary here for classification are Mādhurya and Ojas**,** characterising the two extremes of Śṛṅgāra and Raudra**.** The Mādhurya Guṇa**,** the KaiśikīVṛtti and the Vaidarbhī Rīti will go together on the one hand as distinguishing certain Rasas**,** Ītivṛttas and verbal expressions**,** and similarly the Ojas Guṇa**,** the ĀrabhaṭīVṛtti and the GauḍīRīti will go together as characteristics of a different set of poetic conditions**.** Guṇa will be the nature of the Rasa**;** Vṛtti**,** the nature of Vastu or ideas or Ītivṛtta**;** and Rīti**,** the nature of the expression of
the first and the second in suitable words**.** This**,** in brief**,** must be the simple and strictly logical position of Vṛtti in Kāvya**.** But**,** in actual history**,** its career is not found to be so simple**.**
In poetics we have many concepts having the name Vṛtti**.** The only one Vṛtti with which we have nothing to do here is the शब्दवृत्ति**,** the significatory capacities of words**.** The other concepts called Vṛtti are three**,** vis**.,** (1) varieties of alliteration**,** अनुप्रासजाति (2) varieties of compounded collocation**,** समासजाति**,** and (3) the old Vṛttis**,** Kais’ikī etc**.** of Nāṭya**.**
Bhāmaha**,** in K**.A.II.** Śls. 5-8**,** speaks of three kinds of Anuprāsa**.** He first gives Anuprāsa as the repetition of the same or similar sound-सरूपवर्णविन्यासand illustrates it by an alliteration with the sounds**‘न्त’repeated.** (Śl.5.) In Śl**.6,** he gives another variety of Anuprāsa as being held by others**.** It is called ग्राम्यानुप्रास and is illustrated by the liquid alliterations of**‘ल’.** In S’l. 8**,** Bhāmaha says that still some others speak of another variety of Anuprāsa called लाटीयानुप्रासwhich is illustrated by a repetition of syllables**.** Thus it is clear that Bhāmaha mentions at least three kinds of Anuprāsa**,** the first nameless**,** the second ग्राम्यानुप्रास and the third लाटानुप्रास**.** When this is so**,** we are not able to understand how**,** to point out the addition made by Udbhaṭa**,** both his commentators say that Bhāmaha recognised only two kinds of Anuprāsa**.**
भामहो हि ग्राम्योपनागरिकावृत्तिभेदेन द्विप्रकारमेवानुप्रासं व्याख्यातवान्।Pratīhārendurāja**.**
भामहो हि द्विविधं रूपकं चानुप्रासं च अवादीत्। Tilaka**.**
Udbhaṭa gives three kinds of Anuprāsa (I-1 and 3-20), viz**.,** छेकानुप्रास**,** अनुप्रास**,** i.e*,*** वृत्त्यनुप्रास and लाटानुप्रास**.** Of these the
last is the same as mentioned by Bhāmaha**;** the first is new and as regards the second**,** it is partially available in Bhāmaha**.** The second is given as having three varieties in the K. A. S. S., the varieties being called Vṛttis by Udbhata**,** from which this second Anuprāsa is named later as Vṛttyanuprāsa**.** He names the varieties or Vṛttis as Paruṣā**,** Upanāgarikā and Grāmyā**.** The last is the same as the Grāmyānuprāsa in Bhāmaha and is illustrated by a similar verse of**‘ल— alliteration’.** The Upanāgarikā is illustrated by an alliteration with the soft and nasal sound combinations like न्द**.** This is perhaps the same as the first ‘न्त’ variety of Bhāmaha**.** The Paruṣāis newly mentioned by Udbhaṭa as a case of Anuprāsa with S’a**,** ṣa**,** repha**,** ṭa etc**.,** i.e., harsh sounds**.** Now**,** the appropriate manipulation of alliterating sounds helps Rasa certainly**.** The repetition of harsh sounds and the ParusāVṛtti produced by their Anuprāsa**,** help Vīra**,** Raudra and Bībhatsa Rasas**.** The Upanāgarikā**,** using conjunct consonants with nasals and the Grāmyā also to some extent**,** help S’ṛṅgāra**.** Therefore Pratīhārendurāja explains Vṛtti as the use of such sounds as suit and suggest Rasa.
अतस्तावद् वृत्तयो रसाभिव्यक्त्यनुगुणवर्णव्यवहारात्मिकाः**,** प्रथमभिधीयन्ते। ताश्च तिस्रः**,**परुषोपनागरिकाग्राम्यत्वभेदात्।
The first Vṛtti is so called because of its harshness**,** the second because of its being refined like the city-bred damsel and the third**,** because it is all soft like an unsophisticated country-bred damsel**.** The third Vṛtti**,** Grāmyā**,** is also called Komalā**,** signifying the other extreme of the first**,** viz**.,** Puruṣā**.**
Ānandavardhana is very well acquainted with these Vṛttis of Udbhaṭa**.** He considers them to be the result of the Guṇas**,** Mādhurya etc**.** in the collocation**.** (I**,** pp. 5-6.) In Uddyota
three he again mentions the Vṛttis, Upanāgarikā etc. as being such use of words as will promote the realisation of Rasa. He takes the Vṛtti in a double sense**,** in the sense of the Vṛttis of Nātya, Kaiśikī etc. which are to be considered in Kāvya also and in the sense of Upanāgarikã etc. The former he describes as ideas suitable or appropriate to Rasa and the latter as words suitable to Rasa (Vide Dhva. Ā.III**,** p. 182).
रसाद्यनुगुणत्वेन व्यवहारोऽर्थशब्दयोः।
औचित्यवान् यस्ता एव वृत्तयो द्विविधाः स्थिताः॥ III. 33.
व्यवहारो हि वृत्तिरित्युच्यते। तत्र रसानुगुण औचित्यवान् वाच्याश्रयो व्यवहारस्ता एताःकैशिक्याद्या वृत्तयः।वाचकाश्रयाश्च उपनागरिकाद्याः। वृत्तयो हि रसादितात्पर्येण सन्निवेशिताः कामपि नाट्यस्य काव्यस्य च छायामावहन्ति।
Later also Ānandavardhana makes the same distinction and mentions the two Vṛttis together**.**
शब्दतत्त्वाश्रयाः काश्चिदर्थतत्त्वयुजोऽपराः।
वृत्तयोऽपि प्रकाशन्ते ज्ञातेऽस्मिन् काव्यलक्षणे॥III. 48.
अस्मिन् व्यङ्ग्यव्यञ्जकभावविवेचनमये काव्यलक्षणे ज्ञाने सति**,** याः काश्चित् प्रसिद्धाः उपनागरिकाद्याः शब्दतत्त्वाश्रया वृत्तयो याश्चार्थतत्त्वसंबद्धाःकैशिक्यादयः ताः सम्यक् प्रतिपत्तिपदवीमवतरन्ति।
Thus Ānandavardhana states more clearly that in Kāvyas there are two Vṛttis**,** the Kais’ikī etc**.** being the same as in Nāṭya and the Upanāgarikā etc**.** which latter**,** from being varieties of Anuprāsa in Udbhata**,** became रसानुगुणवर्णव्यवहार and thence in Ānandavardhana became more generally रसानुगुणशब्दव्यवहार**.**
Abhinavagupta also takes Vṛttis as not different essentially from Guṇas**.** He mentions them as they are given by Udbhaṭa**,** i.e., as Anuprāsa varieties**:**
नैव वृत्तिरीतीनां तद्(गुण)व्यतिरिक्तत्वम् सिद्धम्।तथा हि अनुप्रासानामेव दीप्तमसृणमध्यमवर्णनीयोपयोगितया परुषत्वललितत्वमध्यमत्वस्वरूपविवेचनाय वर्गत्रयसंपादनार्थं तिस्रोऽनुप्रासजातयो वृत्तय इत्युक्ताः।वर्तन्तेऽनुप्रासभेदा आस्विति + + + परुषानुप्रासः**,** परुषा दीप्ता। मसृणानुप्रासःउपनागरिका**,** नागरिकया विदग्धया उपमितेति कृत्वा। मध्यमं कोमलमपरुषमित्यर्थः।अत एव वैदग्ध्यविहीनस्वभावसुकुमारापरुषग्राम्यवनितासादृश्यादियं वृत्तिर्ग्राम्येति च तृतीयः कोमलानुप्रास इति वृत्तयोऽनुप्रासजातय एव।Locana**,** pp. 5-6**,** N.S. edn**.**
He calls the Paruṣā**,** Dīptā**;** the Upanāgarikā**,** Masṛṇā or Lalitā and the Grāmyā**,** Madhyamā and Komalā**.** Leaving aside the metaphors in the names**,** one can see that the Paruṣāsuits Vīra**,** Raudra and Bībhatsa Rasas and can go with the ĀrabhaṭīVṛtti**;** the Upanāgarikā and Komalā suit S’ṛṅgāra and Hāsya and can go with the Kais’ikī Vṛtti**.** Abhinavagupta says in a later context**:**
नागरिकया ह्यपरमते (ह्युपमिता) अनुप्रासवृत्तिः शृङ्गारादौ विश्राम्यति।परुषेति दीप्तेषु रौद्रादिषु। कोमलेति हास्यादौ। तथा —**‘वृत्तयः काव्यमातृकाः’**इति यदुक्तं मुनिना तत्र रसोचित एव चेष्टाविशेषो वृत्तिः।
p. 232**,** III. Locana**,** N. S. Edn**.**
Thus Abhinavagupta considers both the Vṛttis as Rasaucita-vyavahāra**,** the one**,** Kaśikī etc**.,** of Artha or ideas and the other**,** Upanāgarikā etc**.,** of Śabda**,** words or letters**.**Therefore in Kāvya we will not have a classification of शब्दवृत्त
and अर्थवृत्तिamong Kais’ikyādivṛttis themselves**.** Bhāratīwill not be a शब्दवृत्ति**.** It also becomes an Artha Vyavahāra or Artha Vṛtti**.** All the four are Artha Vṛttis and as distinguished from them**,** the S’abda Vṛttis are the three**,** Upanāgarikā etc.
If Śabda and Artha are thus distributed between Upanāgarikā etc**.** on the one hand and Kais’ikīetc. on the other**,** what shall Rīti stand for ? Ānandavardhana does separately mention Rīti along with the Vṛttis Upanāgarikā etc**.** in both the contexts noted above**,** in Uddyotas one and three**.** In Uddyota one**,** he**,** as interpreted by Abhinavagupta (Vide pp.5-6), holds Rītis also as dependent on Guṇas like the Vṛttis**,** Upanāgarikā etc**.** But strictly speaking there is no room for Rīti in either Ānandavardhana’s scheme or Abhinavagupta’s**.** For**,** Rīti can be रसोचितशब्दव्यवहार— such use of words as are appropriate to Rasa but that place has been given to the Vṛttis**,** Upanāgarıkā etc**.** which have come to mean not exactly varieties of Anuprāsa but use of words suitable to Rasa**.** Therefore it is no wonder that we soon see in Mammaṭa the equation of the three Rītis**,** Vaidarbhī**,** Gauḍīand Pāñcālī with the three Vṛttis Upanāgarikā**,** Paruṣā and Komalā. Mammaṭa says that Anuprāsa is firstly of two kinds**,** Cheka and Vṛtti Anuprāsa and that the latter is the arrangement of letters suitable to Rasa.
वृत्तिर्नियतवर्णगतो रसविषयो व्यापारः।K. Pra. IX
This Vṛtti is of three kinds**,** Upanāgarikā which is the use of letters suggestive of Mādhurya**.** Parusā which is the disposition of letters suggestive of Ojas**,** and Komalāwhich is the use of other letters**.** Finally Mammaṭa says that it is thesethree Vṛttis that are respectively called the Vaidarbhī Rīti**,** the GauḍīyāRīti and the Pāñcālī Rīti according to some**.**
माधुर्यव्यञ्जकैर्वर्णैरुपनागरिकेष्यते।
ओजःप्रकाशकैस्तैस्तु परुषा—कोमला परैः॥
केपाञ्चिदेता वैदर्भीप्रमुखा रीतयो मताः।IX. 3-4.
एतास्तिस्रो वृत्तयो वामनादीनां मते वैदर्भी गोडीया पाञ्चाल्याख्या रीतय उच्यन्ते। K. Pra. IX.59
एतेन रीतयो वृत्त्यात्मका इत्यर्थः। Māṇikyacandra.
Hemacandra quotes and completely follows Mammaṭa**.** K. A. p. 204. He however does not treat of these three Vṛttis**,** which are the same as the three Rītis**,** in the Śabdālankāra section**,** but**,** with a slight improvement treats of them in the Guṇa section**.** Therefore he does not consider these three Vṛttis as Anuprāsa Jātis but merely as three kinds of Varna Saṅghaṭanā**.**
Jagannātha goes even a step further**.** After elaborately examining the letters suggestive of or suitable to the various Rasas**,** he describes the Racanā suggestive of Mādhurya**.** Here he actually makes Vṛtti another name for Rīti and speaks of**‘Vaidarbhī Vṛtti’**.
एभिर्विशेषविषयैः सामान्यैरपि च दूषणै रहिता।
माधुर्यभारभङ्गुरसुन्दरपदवर्णविन्यासा॥
व्युत्पत्तिमुद्गिरन्ती निर्मातुर्या प्रसादयुता।
**तां विवुधा वैदर्भी वदन्ति वृत्ति गृहीतपरिपाकाम्॥
. . ** . .
अस्याश्च रीतेर्निर्माणे कविना नितरामवहितेन भाव्यम्।
R.G.p.73.
In the history of this Vṛtti in Poetics**,** Bhoja occupies a noteworthy place**.** For he says that some have given this Vṛtti as of twelve kinds though mainly they are of three kinds**,** distinguished by three Guṇas**,** viz.सौकुमार्यम्,** प्रौढिःand मध्यमत्तम्**.Bhoja does not call these by the old names Upanāgarikā etc.** He applies those names to varieties of Śrutyanuprāsa**,** (Vide p.196. S. K. Ā. II). He gives new varieties of this Vṛtti-Anuprāsa of old**.**
काव्यव्यापी स सन्दर्भोवृत्तिरित्यभिधीयते।
सौकुमार्यमथ प्रौढिर्मध्यमत्वं च तद्गुणाः॥
गम्भीरौजस्विनी प्रौढा मधुरा निष्ठुरा श्लथा।
कठोरा कोमला मिश्रा परुषा ललितामिता॥
इति द्वादशधा भिन्ना कविभिः परिपठ्यते।
कारणं पुनरुत्पत्तेस्त एवासां विजानते॥
S. K.Ā. II. Śls. 84-86.
We see here that**,** though Bhoja does not use here the names Upanāgarikā**,** Nāgarikā and Grāmyā**,** he uses still the names Lalitā**,** Paruṣāand Komalāand to these three adds nine more**.** After illustrating these he refutes them all**.** He opines that such Vṛttis are unnecessary since they are not separate from either the Guṇas or the Vṛttis**,** Kais’ikīetc.
इति द्वादशधा वृत्तिः कैश्चिद्या कथितेह सा।
न गुणेभ्यो न वृत्तिभ्यः पृथक्त्वेनावभासते॥
S. K. Ā. II. 87.
समतासौकुमार्यादिगुणेषु भारतीप्रभृतिषु वृत्तिषु यथायथमन्तर्भावोऽवगन्तव्यः।Ratneśvara**.**
Having cast away this Vṛtti (i.e., the old Anuprāsa Jātis increased into twelve), Bhoja holds another set of twelve AnuprāsaJātisas being called Vṛtti or Vṛttyanuprāsa. They are named on a geographical basis. They are not heard of elsewhere and have little reality or propriety as regards their names. The names of these twelve Vṛttis are कर्णाटी, कौन्तली, कौङ्की, कौङ्कणी,वाणवासिका, द्राविडी, माथुरी, मात्सी, मागधी, ताम्रलिप्तिका, औण्ड्रीand पौण्ड्री. We don’t know why Bhoja satisfied himself with twelve provinces, while, ancient India is traditionally described as having comprised fifty-six provinces.
Fortunately theseVṛttis disappear in later literature. Even the old Vṛttis Upanāgarikā etc. pass into obscurity and Hemacandra is perhaps the last to mention them. Later writers completely forget the names Upanāgarikā etc. as Vṛttis standing for súch use of words as are suggestive of Rasa. They keep the concept of the four ancient Vṛttis derived from Nāṭya, Kaiśikīetc. and hold them, as Ānandavardhana did, as the name of the development or delineation of such ideas, Artha, as are in consonance with Rasa. They are held as रसोचित अर्थसन्दर्भ. Side by side with them are held the Rītis for रसोचितशब्दसन्दर्भ. Certain writers are satisfied with fourVṛttis and four Rītis, while others increase their number. Bhoja has raised the number of both to six and has held both as two Śabdālankāras. He adds मध्यमकौशिकी and मध्यमारभटीto the four old Vṛttis of Artha Sandarbha and Āvantikāand Māgadhī to the four Rītis, Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī, Pāñcālīand Lāṭīyā. (Vide S. K. Ā.II, pp. 133-139.) Among the six Vṛttis, it happens as we expect that Bhāratī and Sāttvatī have not got the meaning they have in Nāṭya. They are respectively put between the softness and sweetness of the Kaiśikī and the force and blaze of the Ārabhaṭī. Bhārātīis Komalā and Prauḍhā and Sāttvatīis the same with more Prauḍhi. In
Vidyānātha we find that Bhārāti leans to Kaiśikī as. ईषन्मृद्वर्थand Sāttvatī to the Ārabhaṭīas ईषत्प्रौढार्थ60. Vidyānātha also assigns these four to the Rasas thus : Śṛṅgāra and Karuṇa — Kniśikī; Raudra and Bībhatsa— Ārabhaṭī: Hāsya, Śānta and Adbhuta— Bhāratīand Vīra and Bhayānaka— Sāttvatī. Vidyānātha accepts Bhoja’s two additional Vṛttis also and considers them as the Vṛttis of all Rasas. Vide pp. 43-45. Prat. Yaś. Bhūṣ. Bālamanoramāedn.).
The KaiśikīVṛtti goes with the Vaidarbhī Rīti; the Ārabhaṭīwith the Gauḍī; the former pair is characterised by sweetness and delicacy while the latter, by force and energy. Murāri thus couples the Kaiśikī Vṛtti and the Vaidarbhī Rīti:
विभ्रतींकैशिकीं वृत्तिं सौरभोद्गारिणीं गिरः।
दूराध्वानोऽपि कवयः यस्यरीतिमुपासते॥A. R. VII, 101.
Coming to the last concept of Vṛtti in poetics, viz., Vṛtti as meaning varieties of compounded collocation— this appears in Bāṇa and Rudraṭa. Bāṇa mentions the Padavṛtti in which the Padas are uncompounded, Asamasta. असमस्तपदवृत्तिमिव अद्वन्द्वाम्। p. 250, the Kādambarī, N. S. edn. Rudraṭa says—
नाम्नां वृत्तिर्द्वेधा भवति समासासमासभेदेन।
वृत्तेः समासवत्यास्तत्र स्यूःरीतयस्तिस्रः॥ etc. K. A. II, 3-6.
Collocation of words are of two kinds or Vṛttis, uncompounded and compounded, असमासा वृत्तिः and समासवती वृत्तिः. The former is of only one kind and is called the Vaidarbhī Rīti.
वृत्तेरसमासाया वैदर्भी रीतिरेकैव। II. 6.
The समासवती वृत्तिः or the collocation with compounds is of three kinds. If the compounds are as long as possible, then it is called the Gauḍīyā Rīti. If there are compounds only of two or three words. the resulting Rīti is Pāñcālīwhich comes ncarest to the Vaidarbhī. When the compounds are of five or seven words, the Rīti resulting from them is Lāṭīyā. We hear of the study of compounded or uncompounded collocation as suggestive of Rasa under various circumstances, under the name Saṁghaṭanāin the third Uddyota of Dhv. Ā. But there we do not hear of the varieties compounded or uncompounded collocationas being called Vṛtti or as directly producing the four Rītis. Above, in the preceding section, we saw how a concept of Vṛtti, developing from Anuprāsa, soon called itself Rīti. Here we are given a relation of the Rītis to the fact of a collocation having compound words or uncompounded words. This fact lights up the history of the Rīti before Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha. As we find it in Daṇḍin, we see that Anuprāsa, Samāsa, Mādhurya, Pāruṣya, Komalya or some Gunas corresponding to these two last Guṇas enter into the differentia of the Rītis.
Rudraṭa knew also the Vrttis which are Anuprāsa Jātis. He gives, not three, but five kinds of them.
मथुरा प्रौढा परुषा ललिता भद्रेति वृत्तयः पञ्च।
वर्णानां नानात्वाद अभ्येति यथार्थनामफलाः॥ II. 19.
Namisādhu, while commenting on this, mentions one Hari as having held these Vṛttis to be eight in number.
तथा ह्यष्टौ हरिणा उक्ताः—
महुरं फरुसं कोमलमोजस्सिं निट्ठुरं च ललियं च।
गंभीरं सामण्णं च अद्धभणिती उनायच्चा॥
The three Vṛttis added by Hari are ओजस्विनी, निष्ठुरा and गम्भीरा and perhaps from Rudraṭa and Hari it is that Bhoja makes a set of twelve Vṛttis which we noted above. Who this Hari is, is not known. He does not seem to be an Ālankārika. This verse is from a Prākṛt poem of Hari in the introductory portion of which, as many other writers do, Hari speaks of some topics of Alankāra. These Vṛttis, Rudraṭa says, as Ānandavardhana also later says, are to be used, not with a vengeance but with discrimination, taken and often cast away with an eye on the Āucitya of Rasa.
एताः प्रयत्नादधिगम्य सम्यगौचित्यमालोच्य तथार्थसंस्थम्।
मिश्राःकवीन्द्रैरघनाल्पदीर्घाः कार्या मुहुश्चैव गृहीतमुक्ताः॥
Rudraṭa, K. A. II, 32.
Thus the four Vṛttis of Nāṭya live in Kāvya as रसोचितार्थसन्दर्भ and as such stand in close relation to the Guṇas. They are on a par with Rītis which are रसोचितशब्दसन्दर्भ or in an earlier stage, with what has been characterised as Śabda Vṛtti, Upanāgarikā etc. Of the four Vṛttis, the Kaiśikīand Ārabhaṭī have had the least or no change at all in Kāvya. As can be expected, Bhāratīand Sāttvatī, when they came into Kāvya had to cast off their old meanings of Speech and Action of subtle Bhāvas of the mind. Even the Śabda Vṛtti, Bhāratī, became an Artha Vṛtti leaning towards the Kaiśikī as having less Saukumārya. Sāttvatī, as having less Prauḍhi, was made to mean a weak variety of Ārabhaṭī.
THE HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS
One of the noteworthy points in the Sanskrit systems of literary criticism is that, in an inquiry into a comprehensive philosophy of the literary art, they do not separate poetry and drama, nor prose and verse. Bharata, in his Nāṭya Śāstra, has defined Drama as Imitation of the three worlds or representation of the actions of men of various nature: त्रैलोक्यानुकृतिः or धीरोदात्ताद्यवस्थानुकृतिः (N, Ś, 107, 113, 120 etc. Vide also Daśarūpaka I, 7). Consequently Bharata has perfected a system of ideas of ‘Loka Dharmī’, which term means ‘the ways of the world’or to put it short ‘Nature’, and stands to denote the realistic elements in Bharata’s Stage.61 and Nāṭya Dharmi (Conventions and Idealism) of Bharata’s Stage in the JOR, Madras, Vol. VII.")In the concept of Prakṛti, Bharata studies the various kinds of men, minds, and natures found in the worlds. In the concept of Pravṛiti he has studied the provincial, racial, and national characteristics in dressing and other activities. He has elaborately dealt with Āhārya-abhinaya, dress and make-up, which, he says, must be appropriate to the Rasa and Bhāva.
एतद्विभूषणं नार्या आकेशादानस्वादपि।
यथाभावरसावस्थं विज्ञायैवं प्रयोजयेत्॥ N. Ś. XXIII, 42.
He has devoted separate sections to a consideration of the most proper way of correct speaking in the drama according to the emotions (XIX, पाठ्यगुणाः), of the Svaras suitable for each mood and of the musical tunes, Jātyamśakas, appropriate to the varying Rasa and Bhāva (XXIX, 1-4). These remarks apply to the artists of the stage and theatre, the actors, theconductor and others. Regarding the work of the poetdramatist, Bharata has analysed the text of the drama and has pointed out how the verbal qualities of sweetness, harshness etc., and the flights of fancies expressed in the form of figures of speech have to be appropriate to that Bhāva or Rasa which is portrayed (XVII, 108-123). Thus at the end of the treatment of each topic, Bharata has an important section called ‘Rasa-prayoga’, where he points out what suits what.
So much so that Bharata observes that, in judging drama, the ground of reference for success of the art is the world. He emphasises that one has to know the infinite variety of human nature—Prakṛti and Śīla, on which is Nāṭya or drama based.
नानाशीलाःप्रकृतयः शीले नाट्यं प्रतिष्ठितम्।
The ‘Pramāṇa’of Nāṭya is finally only the world. A theorist can give a few indications and the rest can be learnt only from the world.
लोकसिद्धं भवेत् सिद्धं नाट्यंलोकस्वभावजम्।
तस्मान्नाट्यप्रयोगे तु प्रमाणं लोक इष्यते॥
. . . . . .
यानि शास्त्राणि ये धर्माःयानि शिल्पानि याः क्रियाः।
लोकधर्मप्रवृत्तानि तानि नाट्यंप्रकीर्तितम्॥
न हि शक्यं हि लोकस्यस्थावरस्य चरस्य च।
शास्त्रेण निर्णयं कर्तुं भावचेष्टाविधिं प्रति॥
नानाशीलाःप्रकृतयः शीले नाट्यंप्रतिष्ठितम्।
तस्माल्लोकः प्रमाणं हि कर्तव्यं नाट्ययोक्तृभिः॥
**N. Ś., XXVI, 113-119.**
नोक्तानि च मया यानि लोकग्राह्यानि तान्यपि।
**N. Ś., XXIV, 214.**
(end of the chapter on dress and make-up). Nature or the three worlds or Prakṛti or Śīla— all these can finally be referred to by the single word Rasa which is the ‘Soul’of poetry. Drama is the representation of moods, Bhāva-anukīrtana, as Bharata puts it. Out of these moods flow everything—the actions, the character, the dress, the nature of one’s speech etc. Thus to this factor, which is at the root of all these things, viz., Rasa, have these things again to be referredfor finding out whether in representing them, there is propriety or appropriateness. Things cannot be estimated by themselves separately and labelled as good or bad, appealing or otherwise. That is, Guṇatva and Doṣatva do not inherently pertain to anything eternally but anything, according to the situation where it occurs, is either suitable or not; and in this suitability or otherwise lies Guṇatva or Doṣatva. What Bharata says of ornaments and decoration in the make-up of the characters is true of all other parts of the art of representation by the poet and the production of the drama on the stage by the actors. Bharata lays down that if a thing does not agree or is not proper in a certain place with reference to Rasa, it is the greatest literary flaw. Improper placing, like placing a necklace at the foot and an anklet round the neck, can only produce laughter.
अदेशजो हि वेषस्तु न शोभां जनयिष्यति।
मेखलोरसि बन्धेच हास्यायैवोपजायते॥ N. Ś., XXIII, 69.
It is a serious breach of propriety for a writer to describe a forlorn lady suffering from separation from her lord (i.e., one in Pravāsa Vipralambha) as having her body fully decked with jewels. In the realm of artistic expression the same rule holds good. A poet commits the greatest crime against Rasa if he introduces a cartload of ornaments of a verbal character in places where Rasa has to be effectively portrayed and where the absence of any figure is itself the perfection of art. The proper placing of things in such a manner as to suit Rasa and the avoiding of things not suitable form the essence of artistic expression. This is propriety, Aucitya. An anklet adds no beauty as an ornament but an anklet as an ornament for the ankle is helpful to beautify one. We can thus see how this doctrine of appropriateness, propriety and adaptation— all comprehended in the one word Aucitya, is directly derivable from Bharata. Just put by the side of the verse of Bharata abovequoted, the verse illustrative of the theory of Aucitya given by Kṣemendra in his Aucityavicāracarcā, in which work the doctrine of Aucitya had the complete elaboration into a system of criticism, and see :
अदेशजो हि वेषस्तु न शोभां जनयिष्यति।
मेखलोरसि बन्धे च हास्यायैवोपजायते॥ Bharata, XXIII, 69.
कण्ठे मेखलया, नितम्बफलके तारेण हारेण वा
पाणौनूपुरबन्धनेन, चरणे केयूरपाशेन वा।
शौर्येण प्रणते, रिपौ करुणया, नायान्ति के हास्यताम्
औचित्येन विमा रुचिं प्रतनुते नालंकृतिर्नो गुणाः॥
Kṣemendra’s Au. V.C.
Thus the first work in the history of Sanskrit Poetics contains implicitly as much of this theory of Aucitya of the Sanskrit Alaṅkara Śāstra, as of the other theory of poetry, Rasa, explicitly, even though emphasis on both these— Aucitya and Rasa—was again systematically laid only as late as the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries.
Aucitya is harmony and in one aspect it is proportion between the whole and the parts, between chief and the subsidiary, between the Aṅgin and the Angas. This perfection is all the morals and beauty in art. At the final stage of its formulation as a theory explaining the secret of poetic appeal, Aucitya is stated to be the ‘Jīvita’, life-breath, of poetry. This Aucitya, which is proportion and harmony on one side and appropriateness and adaptation on the other, cannot be understood by itself but presupposes that to which all other things are harmonious and appropriate. Surely there has to be harmony and appropriateness in every part and between one part and another; but everything as a whole has to be pronounced proper and appropriate or otherwise by a reference to what constitutes the ‘Soul’— Ātman of poetry viz., Rasa. Thus Bharata speaks of the Rasa-prayoga of Pravṛtti, Vṛtti, Guṇa, Alaikāra, Āhāryābhinaya, Pāṭhyaguṇa, Svara and Jātyamśa. In later terminology, this Rasaprayoga is Rasa-aucitya. But Aucitya is only implicitly contained in Bharata. It was only rather late that Poetics got itself again wedded and identified with Bharata’s Dramaturgy and took its stand scientifically on the two pedestals of Rasa and Aucitya, which it had forgotten for a time, as we shall now see in the following account of the history of the concept of Aucitya after Bharata.
Māgha
The next glimpse we have of Aucitya is in Māgha, who, in his poem, has made some side-remarks which shoot their rays into the darkness of the early
history of Poetics. In canto ii of Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha, we have a verse on the policy best suited for the king, which, through comparison, drags in the topic of Guṇas in Kāvyas or dramas.
तेजः क्षमा वा नैकान्तं कालज्ञस्य महीपतेः।
नैकमोजःप्रसादो बा रसभावविदः कवेः॥ Ś. V. II, 83.
The king has to achieve his purpose with an eye on expediency. Time and circumstance are the pre-eminently deciding factors of his policy. There is no inherent good in either power or forbearance and peace by themselves but all goodness of a policy consists in its effectiveness, in using that which is suited to the time. Prowess is waste and will even ruin the cause where it is needlessly flaunted. Forbearance cannot help the king when he has succeed by putting up athick fight. Thus, adaptation is the only policy good for the king. The case is similar to that of a poet with whom the main concern is Rasa and Bhāva and an understanding of their subtle nature. In portraying his characters and their actions and in describing them, it will not do if the poet sticks to one quality throughout, say Prasāda or Ojas. When the Vīra, Adbhuta and Raudra Rasas appear, he has to adopt the Guṇa Ojas to suit the vigour, energy and blaze (Dīpti) of those Rasas and when the key of emotion is lowered and quiet emotinal effects have to be produced, the requisite quality for the poet is Prasāda. Thus, not Guṇas by themselves, but that Guṇa which is proper and appropriate—Ucita—is helpful to Rasa. This is Guṇa-aucitya. Aucitya is here Adaptation. Māgha, as a poet, had this clear insight into Bharata’s ideas of Rasa and Guṇas appropriate to each Rasa. Bhoja considers such appropriateness in expression between the emotion and the stylistic quality as a Prabandha-guṇa,
i.e., one of the good features of good poetry. He calls it ‘रसानुरूपसन्दर्भत्वम्’. He means the same thing as what Māgha says in the above-given verse, which also Bhoja quotes.
रसानुरूपसन्दर्भत्वमित्यनेन रतिप्रकर्षे कोमलः, उत्साहप्रकर्षे प्रौढः, क्रोधप्रकर्षे कठोरः, शोकप्रकर्षे मृदुः, विस्मयप्रकर्षे तु स्फुटशब्दसन्दर्भो विरचनीय इति उपदिशन् ‘नैकमोजः प्रसादो वा रसभावविदः कवेः’ (Māgha, Ś. V. II, 83.) इति ख्यापयति।Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa,
Madras MS. Vol. II, p. 432.
In the above-given verse of Māgha we have an early ‘Śirodaya’of the doctrine of Guṇas as the Dharmas of Rasa, the Soul of Kāvya, which is one of the special contributions of Ānandavardhana. In later terminology, Māgha is here speaking of वर्णसंघटना-औचित्य, appropriateness of letters and collocation, or simply गुणौचित्य.
Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin
It is again in respect of Guṇas that we have a faint glimpse of the idea of Aucitya implied in certain parts of the treatises of Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin. Māgha says that Guṇas must change and be appropriate to the Rasa and the Bhāva of the situation. Ojas or Prasāda wrongly placed is a literary flaw, directly hindering Rasa. Thus the breach of Aucitya gives rise to flaws. In one way, the greatest Guṇa or excellence of poetry is only Aucitya and it comprehends all other Guṇas; and the greatest Doṣa or flaw comprehending other flaws is Anaucitya.^(1)Thus when
_____________________________
1 (a) Sarveśvara, in his Sāhityasāra, (p. 20, Madras MS.) gives seven Vākyārtha doṣas, and among these Aucitya bhaṅga is considered as the first.
(b) Cf. also Municandra’s commentary on Dharmabindu (Āgamodaya Samiti series, p. 11 a) :
औचित्यमेकमेकत्र गुणानां राशिरेकतः।
विषायते गुणग्रामःऔचित्यपरिवर्जितः॥
the Rīti is not suited to the Rasa, we can say that there is Rīti-anaucitya and a Doṣa called Arītimat. But the GauḍīRīti which may not suit Śṛṅgăra cannot be condemned altogether as eternally unsuited to all poetry. The GauḍīRīti can effectively suggest Vīra, Adbhuta, and Raudra Rasas and in the cases of these three, the Vaidarbhīsuited to Śṛṅgāra may be ‘anucita’. There may be harsh sounds and heavy, long and swollen utterances in a highly worked-up emotion of the kind of Raudra; the harsh sounds which suggest the Rasa in this case must be avoided by the poet in Śṛṅgāra Rasa which is suggested by sweet assonances and delicate sound effects. Therefore it is that the Doṣas, given as such in separate sections by Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, are, to use a word which came into currency only after Ānandavardhana, Anitya. That is, in certain circumstances Doṣas cease to be so; there are no fixed Guṇas or Doṣas; what is Guṇa in one case is Doṣa in another and vice versa.
In chapter I, Bhāmaha deals with certain Doṣas in the last section beginning with śl. 37. After defining and illustrating them he says that these flaws cease to be so sometimes and really give beauty to expression.
सन्निवेशविशेषात्तु दुरुक्तमपि शोभते।
नीलं पलाशमाबद्धमन्तराले स्रजामिव॥
किञ्चिदाश्रयसौन्दर्याद् धत्ते शोभामसाध्वपि।
कान्ताविलोचनन्यस्तं मलीमसमिवाञ्जनम्॥
. . . . . . . . .
अनयान्यदपि ज्ञेयं दिशा युक्तमसाध्वपि।
. . . . . . .
यथा तद्वदसाधीयः साधीयश्च प्रयोजयेत्॥
The principle behind these observations is Aucitya, adaptation. Again, in chapter IV, Bhāmaha speaks of such flaws in poetry as Lokavirodha. The flaw of Lokavirodha, which is going against nature, is nothing but the non-observance of the Aucitya of Prakṛti etc. Here, he also points out that redundance, Punarukti, which is generally a flaw in expression, turns out to be an effective way of expression in fear, sorrow, jealousy, joy and wonder.
भयशोकाभ्यसूयासु हर्षविस्मययोरपि।
यथाह गच्छ गच्छेति पुनरुक्तं न तत् विदुः॥IV, 14.
There is also the saying ‘प्रिये नास्ति पुनरुतम्।’
It is in the same section on Doṣas that the principle of Aucitya is implied in Daṇḍin’s work also.Daṇḍin treats of Dosas in the fourth chapter of his work. Each and everyDoṣa is given with a qualification that in certain circumstances it ceases to be Doṣa and turns out to be a Guṇa. Thus Apārtha, the first flaw, is generally a Dosa but it is the most proper means of successfully portraying a madman’s raving, a child’s sweet prattle or the speech of a sick man.
समुदायार्थशून्यं यत् तदपार्थमितीष्यते।
उन्मत्तमत्तबालानामुक्तेरन्यत्र दुष्यति॥ IV. 5.
. . . . . . . . . . .
इदमस्वस्थचित्तानामभिधानमनिन्दितम्।IV. 7.
Speaking of the flaw of Viruddhārtha or Vyartha, Daṇḍin says that there such a state of mind also in which even contradictory speech is the natural mode of expression and hence, in those places, the flaw becomes an excellence.
अस्तिकाचिदवस्था सा साभिषङ्गस्य चेतसः।
यस्यां भवेदभिमता विरुद्धार्थापि भारती॥IV. 10.
Punarukta, as has been pointed out by Bhāmaha also, is no flaw but is an effective way of expressing compassion or any stress of emotion which needs repetition. Samśaya or the use of doubtful or ambiguous words may generally be a flaw but when such words are wilfully used, as is often needed in the world, they are perfect Guṇas. Thus Daṇḍin shows exceptions— Vyabhicāra— to all the Doṣas. He is fully aware, that in the realm of poetry, a certain thing is not Doṣa by its very nature but that it is so because of circumstance, a change of which makes it a Guṇa. He thus finally concludes:
विरोधस्सकलोऽप्येष कदाचित्कविकौशलात्।
उत्क्रम्यदोषगणनां गुणवीथीं विगाहते॥IV. 3-7.
Bhoja developed the same idea by constituting under the head ‘Guṇa’ a peculiar class of Guṇas called the Vaiśeṣika Guṇas. These are the flaws above noticed which Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin considered as excellences sometimes. (Vide the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa, chapter I. Śls. 89-156, pp. 78-119).^(1)Bhoja calls them also Dosaguṇas. As a matter of fact, all Guṇas and Dosas are ‘Vaiśesika’. ‘It all depends’, says the discerning critic in literature as one says in this complex world. The fact of Doṣas becoming Guṇas recorded by Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin means, if it means or implies anything, the doctrine of Aucitya as the only ruling principle holding good in the realm of poetry for ever. It is because of this that, in Poetics, Dosas are called Anitya. It is only a clearer
________________________________
1 I have spoken of these at length in the chapter on the History of Guṇas in my book on the Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa.
statement of what Daṇḍin has said in the Doṣa-section that we have in Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, who say :
श्रुतिदुष्टादयो दोषा अनित्या ये च सूचिताः।
ध्वन्यात्मन्येव शृङ्गारे ते हेया इत्युदीरिताः॥
Dhva. Ā. II, 12.
नापि गुणेभ्यो व्यतिरिक्तं दोषत्वम्।बीभत्सहास्यरौद्रादौ त्वेषां (श्रुतिदुष्टादीनां) अस्माभिरुपगमात्, शृङ्गारादौ च वर्जनाद् अनित्यत्वं समर्थितमेवेति भावः।Locana.
The principle by virtue of which ‘harsh sounds’— Śrutiduṣṭa— which form a Doṣa to be avoided in Śṛṅgāra become themselves a Guṅa highly suggestive of Raudra etc., is Adaptation or Aucitya. (Vide also Dhva. Ā. III, 3-4).
Yaśovarman, author of the drama Rāmābhyudaya
In the first half of the 8th century, King Yaśovarman of Kanauj, patron of Bhavabhūti, wrote his drama Rāmābhyudaya, whose prologue has some interest to the student of the history of Poetics for a verse in it on certain concepts connected with theoretical literary criticism. That veritable mine of quotations, the stupendous Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa of king Bhoja, quotes that verse. Bhoja considers a number of Alaṅkāras of Prabandha, i.e., good features of a poem or a drama as a whole. One of these Prabandhālankāras is given by him as ’excellence of build’— सन्निवेश प्राशस्त्यम्— which means, according to him, that the minor ‘descriptions’in a Mahākāvya must be so set in the framework of the story that they do not appear irrelevant or overdone. This is Aucitya in its aspect of proportion, harmony and strict artistic relevancy of all details from the point of view of Rasa. Bhoja means that this applies to drama also as his quotation from Yaśovarman shows.
तेष्वेव नगरार्णववर्णनादीनां सन्निवेशप्राशस्त्यम् अलङ्कार इति। तदुक्तं—
औचित्यं वचसां प्रकृत्यनुगतं, सर्वत्र पात्रोचिता
पुष्टिः स्वावसरे रसस्य च कथामार्गे न चातिक्रमः।
शुद्धिः प्रस्तुतसंविधानकविधौ, प्रौढिश्च शब्दार्थयोः
विद्वद्भिः परिभाव्यतामवहितैः एतावदेवास्तु नः॥¹
Śṛ. Pra. Mad. MS. Vol. II, p. 411.
This is the earliest instance so far known of the occurrence of the word Aucitya. Yaśovarman here refers to a number of good features which a good drama should have. First among them are Aucitya of expression, i.e., speech written according to the nature and level or rank of the characters and Aucitya
_____________________________
1 That this is a verse in Yaśovarman’s Rāmābhyudaya is known from the Locana on the Dhva. Ā. III, p. 148. Ānānda-vardhana quotes from the second line of the above verse, the bit ‘कथामार्गे न चातिक्रमः’. Explaining the phrase यदुक्तं which introduces this quotation, Abhinavagupta says : ‘यदुक्तमिति।रामाभ्युदये यशोवर्मणा।’ There should be a full-stop in the text here and the words स्थितमिति यथा शय्यां in the Locana do not form any quotation, as the N. S. edn. suggests by clubbing then together with यशोवर्मणand by giving them with quotation marks. The correct text should be स्थितिमिति, कथाशय्याम्। स्थितिमिति is a Pratika and refers to the word Sthiti in Ānandavardhana’s Vṛtti‘इतिवृतवशयातां कथञ्चिदसाननुगुणां स्थितिं त्यक्त्वा etc. This word Sthiti is interpreted by Abhinavagupta as the course of the story ‘कथाशय्या’.
That it is a verse from the prologue can easily be known; for such verses can figure nowhere else. Mark the similarity of this verse to the verse ‘यद्वेदाध्ययनं etc.’in the prologue to the Māla-tīmādhava of Bhavabhūti who wrote in Yaśovarman’s court. Also note in the III line the Guṇa mentioned by Yaśovarman ‘प्रौढिश्च शब्दार्थयोः’ which Bhavabhūti also mentions. ‘यत्प्रौढत्वमुदारता च वचसाम्’. This seems to have developed into the Prauḍhi forming the Arthaguṇa Ojas in Vāmana, III. ii. 2.
of Rasa, i.e., delineation of characters in their proper moods with an eye to developing the Rasa in the proper place. These to comprise the external and internal Aucitya or Aucitya of expression and Aucitya of the content, i.e., the Rasa. On this point Yaśovarman has emphasised only what Bharata had laid down as regards Prakṛti and Śīla. The second mentioned Aucitya of Rasa, its appropriateness to the Pātra, the character and its development in the proper place (पात्रौचित्यं, पुष्टिः स्वावसरे रसस्य)are elaborated into many rules ofRasaucitya by Rudraṭa and Ānandavardhana as we shall seein a further section.
It is this all-round Aucitya called by Bhoja an Alaṅkāra and Sanniveśaprāśastyam that Lollaṭa also emphasises. Lollaṭa wants every part of the Mahākāvya to be Rasavat. All these are various ways of putting the idea of the Aucitya of Rasa, the ‘Soul’ of poetry, without basing oneself on which, none can talk of Aucitya intelligibly.
Lollaṭa
In practice, as can be seen from the numerous and large Mahākāvyas, which are entitled to that name because of their bulk at least, all notions of propriety had become unknown to poets. The several limbs over-developed themselves separately, like elephantiac leg, and the Kāvya as a whole was an outrage on harmony and Aucitya. This Lollaṭa severely criticised, perhaps in his commentary on the Nāṭya Śāstra. To this aspect of Aucitya viz., proportion and strict relevancy of every detail, Lollata drew attention. In the gap between Daṇḍin and Rudraṭa, two or three stray verses of Lollaṭa quoted by Rājaśekhara, Hemacandra and Namisādhu give us a flash in the dark and we see how, stage by stage, the concept of propriety or Aucitya was developing. These three verses of Lollaṭa emphasise Rasaucitya, Aucitya of parts to the chief element called Rasa i.e., the aspect eallcd
proportion. Ornaments hide beauty if they are not structural or organic; similarly ‘descriptions’ have to logically emerge out of the story and the complex course of its Rasa as a necessity. Descriptive cantos should not stand out like outhouses and isolated places for the poet’s mind to indulge at length in excess. This is true of the drama as much as of the epic poem. In a drama, the sub-plots, the Patākā and the Prakarī and the Sandhyaṅgas should not be considered by themselves as having any virtue but should be seen to be relevant to Rasa. This Ānandavardhana emphasises, as we shall see. As regards the Mahākāvya, Lollaṭa [Āparājiti, i.e., son of Aparājita62] says according to Rājaśekhara:
‘अस्तु नाम निस्सीमा अर्थसार्थः; किन्तु रसवत एव निबन्धो युक्तः, न तु नीरसस्य’इति आपराजितिः। यदाह—
मज्जनपुष्पावचयनसन्ध्याचन्द्रोदयादिवाक्यमिह।
सरसमपि नातिबहुलं प्रकृतरसानन्वितं रचयेत्॥
यस्तु सरिदद्रिसागरपुरतुरगरथादिवर्णने यत्नः।
कविशक्तिख्यातिफलः विततधियां नो मतस्सइह॥
K. M. I, ix, p. 49.
The second verse in the above quotation, along with its following verse, is quoted by Hemacandra with the mention of the name Lollaṭa. The additional verse quoted by him criticises the poets for setting apart cantos for such feats as Yamaka, Cakrabandha etc., in a Mahākāvya, they being very inappropriate and uttterly unhelpful to the emotional idea of the epic poem.
तथा च लोल्लटः
यस्तु सरिदद्रिसागरनगतुरगपुरादिवर्णने यत्नः।
कविशक्तिख्यातिफलो विततधियां नो मतः प्रबन्धेषु॥
यमकानुलोमतदितरचक्रादिभिदोऽतिरसविरोधिन्यः।
अभिमानमात्रमेतद् गड्डुरिकादिप्रवाहो वा॥इति॥
K. A. Ch. V, p. 215.
Namisādhu, on Rudraṭa III. 59, quotes the additional verse quoted by Hemacandra and emphasises with its authority the principle of Aucitya.
Thus proportion and harmony form an aspect of Aucitya which is propriety, adaptation, and other points of appropriateness. From the point of view of the perfect agreement between the parts and the chief element of Rasa, from the point of view of this proportion and harmony, I think, Aucitya can be rendered in English into another word also viz., ‘Sympathy’, which as a word in art-criticism means ‘mutual conformity of parts’.
Rudraṭa
From Daṇḍin we had to come to Lollaṭa before we could again catch sight of Aucitya as a principle underlying many literary dicta. This means that we have to come almost to the time of Ānandavardhana whom Rudraṭa must have slightly preceded. Up to the time of Rudraṭa the concept was developing unconsciously without a name. The name Aucitya was not given to the idea by any writer of poetic theory, and one more useful word was not thus added to the critical vocabulary of the Sahṛdaya. But the word Aucitya must have slowly dawned in the circles of Sahṛdayas and we first see that word used in theoretical literature only in Rudraṭa’s Kāvyālaṅkāra, a work which has not yet left the primitive Alaṅkāra-stage
of criticism but has however embodied into itself a good deal of the concept of Rasa, which alone, according to it, made poetry that interesting and charming thing it is— Sarasa. The word Aucitya occurs often in Ānandavardhana’s work and Rudraṭa is only the first writer to mention it in theoretical literature. For, earlier, in the first half of the eighth century, King Yaśovarman of Kanauj uses the word Aucitya with much theoretical significance, in much the same significance as the word is used with in later times, in the prologue of his lost drama, Rāmābhyudaya, as we have noticed above. Thus the three stages to be noticed in the appearance of the name Aucitya is its mention by Yaśovarman, treatment of it to a small extent in Rudraṭa and to a large extent in Ānanda-vardhana’s Dhvanyāloka. Rudraṭa just preceded Ānandavardhana or was an early contemporary of his. He was perhaps writing in Śaṅkuka’s time. Some ideas given in the Dhva. Ā. are already seen in Rudrata’s work. Many of the Rasa doṣas mentioned by Ānandavardhana under Rasaucitya in Uddyota iii are found in Rudraṭa’s K. A. What we must note here at present is that though Rudraṭa treats of Alaṅkāras so largely and though his work is yet one of the old period in which works are called Kāvya-Alaṅkāra, he has realised the importance of Rasa to suit which Alaṅkāras exist. If Alaṅkāras are otherwise, they have little meaning. That is what Ānandavar-dhana develops in a section on Alaṅkārasamīkṣā in Uddyota ii. The idea that Rasa and Rasaucitya control Alaṅkāras is already seen in Rudraṭa, who, as said above, is the first writer of Poetics to mention the word Aucitya. After dealing with some Śabdālankāras like Yamakas which are a siren to the easily tempted poets, Rudraṭa says, by way of closing the chapter, that these figures must be introduced after bestowing due thought on propriety, Aucitya, with reference to the main
theme. Even the Anuprāsas have to be now cast away and now taken and must be sparsely used with much advantage. They must not be thickly overlaid upon the theme through the whole length of it.
एताः प्रयत्नादधिगम्य सम्यग् औचित्यमालोच्य तथार्थसंस्थन्।
मिश्राः कवीन्द्रैरवनाल्पदीर्घाः कार्या मुहुश्चैव गृहीतमुक्ताः॥
K. A. II, 32.
This is Aucitya of Alaṅkāna which Ānandavardhana elaborates in Uddyota ii of his work. It is this idea in the last line of Rudraṭa’s verse quoted abore—‘गृहीतमुक्ताः’ that Ānandavardhana has formulated into the rule— ‘काले च ग्रहणत्यागौ’—(II. 19) taking and throwing away according to the circumstances, as regards the use of figures.
The word Aucitya again occurs at the end of the next chapter in Rudiaṭa’s work where again Rudraṭa points out the danger of Yamaka etc. He says that they must be approached only by him who knows Aucitya. Namisādhu perfectly understands the full implication of Rudraṭa’s strictures on Yamaka etc., and quotes on this subject of Aucitya the verse of Lollaṭa which we considered in a previous section. Rudrata says :
इति यमकमशेषं सम्यगालोचयद्भिः
सुकविभिरभियुक्तैः वस्तु च औचित्यविद्भिः।
K. A. III, p. 36.
तथा च वस्तु विषयभागमालोचयद्भिः। यथा कस्मिन् रसे कर्तव्यं, क्व वा न कर्तव्यम्। यमकश्लेषचित्राणि हि सरसे काव्ये क्रियमाणानि रसखण्डनां कुर्युः। विशेषतस्तु शृङ्गारकरुणयोः। कवेः किलैतानि शक्तिमात्रं पोषयन्ति, न रसवत्ताम्। यदुक्तं ‘यमकानुलोम + गड्डरिकादिप्रवाहो वा (Lollaṭa)॥’
. . . . औचित्यं यमकादिविधानास्थानस्थानादिकम्
. . . .। तदनुचौचित्यविज्ञानानन्तरं विरचनीयम्।
Namisādhu.
Besides the mention of the word Aucitya and the presence of the idea of Alaṅkāraucitya in the two places above referred to, Rudraṭa speaks of the adaptation-aspect of Aucitya also implicitly like Daṇḍin while dealing with Doṣas, which, in certain cases, become Guṇas. (Vide chap. vi, ŚI. S). Under the Doṣa called Grāmya, Rudraṭa speaks of propriety in addressing persons of differing ranks which Bharata deals with at length as a part of Prakṛtyaucitya. Explaining another variety of the Doṣa called Grāmya, viz., the Asabhya in VI. 21-24, Rudraṭa says that there are certain words which are inappropriate-Anucita-but which in certain special cases become very appropriate— Ucita. ‘अनुचितभावं मुच्चति तथाविधं पदं सदपि।’ He again uses the idea of ‘Ucitānucita’ in the next variety of Grāmya. He then points out like Daṇḍin how all Doṣas, Punarukta etc., become Guṇas elsewhere. (VI, 29-39). Finally, Rudraṭa says that almost all kinds of flaws become excellences when occasion needs the ‘imitation’— Anukaraṇa of those flaws. That is, the poet and the dramatist have to depict an infinite variety of men and nature in diverse and complex circumstances. When a madman has to be represented, his nonsense has to be ‘imitated’ and it is itself ‘sense’ for the artist here. This was pointed out also at the beginning of this paper while showing how Bharata’s N.Ś. implies the adaptation aspect of Aucitya. Says Rudraṭa :
अनुकरणभावमविकलमसमर्थादि स्वरूपतो गच्छन्।
न भवति दुष्टमतादृक् विपरीतक्लिष्टवर्णं च॥ V, 47.
As an instance of all flaws becoming excellences, Namisādhu says that in describing a bad speaker committing mistakes of pronunciation, grammar etc., art makes Guṇas of all those mistakes. Aucitya or adaptation transforms Dosas into Guṇas. He cites an instance of the funny description of the illiterate husband of the poetess Vikaṭanitambã who is unableto pronounce properly.
यथा विकटनितम्बायाः पतिमनुकुर्वाणा सखी प्राह—
काले माषं सस्ये मासं वदति शकाशं यश्च सकाशम्।
उष्ट्रे लुम्पति रं वा षं वा तस्मै दत्ता विकटनितम्बा॥ इत्यादि।
Following Rudraṭa, Bhoja says in the beginning of his treatment of those Doṣas which become Guṇas :
पदाद्याश्रितदोषाणां ये चानुकरणादिषु।
गुणत्वापत्तये नित्यं तेऽत्र दोषगुणाः स्मृताः॥S. K. Ā. I, 89.
This point is realised by the American critic J. E. Spingarn who writes as follows as if explaining the principle of Aucitya, by which Doṣas become Guṇas as a result of circumstances like ‘imitation’. Mr. Spingarn says, in an essay on the Seven Arts and the Seven Confusions, that in poetry and drama Dosatva and Guṇatva are not absolutely fixed abstractly and that they are always relative. He remarks: ‘It is inconceivable that a modern thinker should still adhere to the abstract tests of good expression, when it is obvious that we can only tell whether it is good or bad when we see it in its natural context. Is any word artistically bad in itself? Is not “ain’t”an excellent expression when placed in the mouth of an illiterate character in a play or story?’ In Rudrata’s words, Spingarn
says that a Grāmya word becomes most appropriate in a case of Anukaraṇa— ‘imitation.’ Therefore in expression, in the world of thought, in the realm of action and feeling, and in the region of ideas, that which is proper in the context, that which is useful to the Rasa, and that which has mutual harmony with the other parts, is the best and most beautiful.
In chapter XI, Rudraṭa again speaks of flaws of thought and emotion, Arthadoṣas and Rasadoṣas, where under ‘Grāmya’, he mentions Anaucitya or inappropriateness in doings, in port, in dress and in speech with reference to country, family, caste, culture, wealth, age and position. The need for the Aucitya in these is emphasised by Bharata. Rudraṭa says:
ग्राम्यत्वमनौचित्यं व्यवहाराकारवेषवचनानाम्।
देशकुलजातिविद्यावित्तवयस्स्थानपात्रेषु॥ XI, 9.
All these Doṣas are again shown to become Guṇas in Śls. 18-23. We can illustrate this principle of Aucitya everywhere. Ordinarily Nyūnopamā or comparing to an inferior object and Adhikopamāor comparing to a superior object are flaws of Upamā or the figure of Simile but these two are the very secret of success when a poet wants to satirise a person. Nyūnopamā and Adhikopamā are freely employed in comic and satiric writings where they become very ‘Ucita’.
Ānandavardhana
The idea of Aucitya and that word itself also explicitly occur often in the Dhvanyāloka, besides being implied in many places. As a matter of fact, Kṣemendra, the systematic exponent of Aucitya as the ‘Life’ of poetry, took his inspiration only from Ānandavardhana. Ānandavardhana has laid down that the ‘Soul’of poetry is Rasa or Rasadhvani.
काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थः तथा चादिकवेः पुरा।
क्रौच्चद्वन्द्ववियोगोत्थः शोकः श्लोकत्वमागतः॥1,5.
That Dhvani is the only artistic process by which Rasa, the ‘Ātman’, is portrayed by the poet and is got at by the Sahṛdaya and that everywhere things appeal most by being deftly concealed and suggested by suppression in a fabric of symbology, are the reasons why Ānandavardhana posits Dhvani as the ‘Ātman’of poetry. That really Rasa or Rasadhvani is the ‘Ātman’, he expressly admits even in the first Uddyota (vide p. 28). The most essential thing in Rasa is Aucitya. That Vastu or ideas and Alaṅkāra or the artistic expression couched in figure and style are only the outer garment of Rasa, that they are subordinate and serviceable only to Rasa, and that they have meaning only as such, is the way in which Ānandavardhana speaks of the Aucitya of Vastu and Alaṅkāra to Rasa. Firstly, Alaṅkāra by itself has no virtue. It has to be relevant, helpful to develop Rasa and never an overgrowth hindering or making hideous the poem. The term Alaṅkāra itself has meaning only then.
रसभावादितात्पर्यमाश्रित्य विनिवेशनम्।
अलङ्कृतीनां सर्वासामलङ्कारत्वसाधनम्॥III, 6.
The topic of Aucitya of Alaṅkāra giving the rules which alone secure the appropriate employing of Alaṅkāra is dealt with by Ānandavardhana in Ud. II, ŚIs. 15-20, pp. 85-93. He first takes up the Śabdalankaras and condemns the Yamakas written at a stretch in such tender situations like Vipralambha. The rationale of Ānandavardhana’s principles is this whatever the poet writes must be suggestive of Rasa and everything has to be tested good or bad, relevant or irrelevant,
beautiful or ugly, by applying this strict logic of their capacity to suggest or hinder Rasa. The main refrain of Ānandavardhana here is that Alankara should be structural, organically emerging as the only way of expressing an emotion and it must never be a cold and deliberate effort at decoration, necessitating the forgetting of Rasa and the taking of a special effort.
रसाक्षिप्ततया यस्य बन्धः शक्यक्रियो भवेत्।
अपृथग्यत्रनिर्वर्त्यः सोऽलंकारो ध्वनौ मतःII II 17.
On p. 88, in Kārikās 19-20, he gives the poet five practical ways of using Alaṅkāra to advantage63.On this section is based the section on Alṅkāraucitya in Kṣemendra’s Aucityavicāracarcā.
Similarly Ānandavardhana relates Guṇa to Rasa of which Guṇa is the ‘Dharma’ and points out Aucitya of Guṇa. The quality of Mādhurya is inherent in Śṛngāra, Vipralambha and Karuṇa, whereas Raudra is attended by the quality of Dīpti, by a blazing up of the hearts. Accordingly words and collocation used in the two different cases must be such as to agree with the mood and the atmosphere of the Guṇa and its Rasa or such as to suggest the Guṇa and the Rasa. Thus sweet sound effects, the soft letters with nasal conjunct consonants, suggest and promote the realisation of the more tender and sweeter emotional moods whereas harsh combinations which jar in the above instances instil vigour and become very appropriate to or highly suggestive of the wild Rasa of Raudra. This proper use of letters is Varṇa-aucitya; Ānandavardhana will say that there is Varnadhvani in these instances; and a third will call it Varṇavakratā. Collocation suggestive of
Rasa on appropriate to Rasa is a case of Dhvani from Sanghaṭanāor Aucitya of Saṅghaṭanā. Both these instances of Aucitya of Varṇa and Saṅghaṭanācoming under Guṇaucitya are treated of by Ānandavardhana in Ud. III.
यस्त्वलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्यो ध्वनिर्वर्णपदादिषु।
वाक्ये संघटनायां च स प्रबन्धेऽपि दीप्यते॥III, 2.
Wherever there is suggestiveness of Rasa in the expression, be it the element of sound and letter, separate words, collocation, portions of the theme (Prakaiaṇa) or even the work as a whole, there we have the Aucitya of those elements to Rasa which is the main thing. This is the relation between Dhvani and Aucitya. This is the relation between Dhvani and Vakratā or Vakrokti, as Abhinavagupta points out in his commentary on chap. XV of the Nāṭyaśāstra.¹
Ānandavardhana says of Varṇas :
शर्षो सरेफसंयोगौ ढकारश्चापि भूयसा।
विरोधिनः स्युः शृङ्गारे तेन वर्णा रसच्युतः॥
त एव तु निवेश्यन्ते बीभत्सादौ रसे यदा।
तदा तं दीपयन्त्येव तेन वर्णाःरसच्युतः॥III, 3-4.
Sounds must be appropriate— Ucita— enough to suggest the Rasa. This is the Aucitya called Appropriateness, the test of this Aucitya being the harmony between the expressed sounds and the suggested Rasa, the power of the former, the vehicle
_______________________________
1 Vide my article on the Writers quoted in the Abhinavabhārati, Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III, p. 221; also my note on Abhinavagupta, Kuntaka and Lakṣana in the Indian Culture, Vol. III, part. IV, p. 756. Abhinavagupta reconciles here Dhvani, Vakratā and general Vaicitrya. We can reconcile Aucitya also to these.
and the means, in suggesting the latter, the end. The same sounds helpful, suggestive or appropriate in one case need not always be so. They are inappropriate to other cases where other suggestive means of expression are required. Similarly what is useless in one case becomes useful in another and this is the Aucitya called Adaptation.
Then Ānandavardhana speaks of another kind of Guṇaucitya called the Saṅghaṭanaucitya.
गुणानाश्रित्य तिष्ठन्ती माधुर्यादीन् व्यनक्ति सा।
रसांस्तन्नियमे हेतुः औचियं वक्तृवाच्ययोः॥III, 6.
Viṣayaucitya is dealt with in III, 7 and Rasaucitya regarding Saṅghaṭanāin III, 9. This topic of Saṅghaṭanā as having its intelligibility in suggesting the qualities of Mādhurya and Ojas which in turn bring in their emotions, Vipralambha and Raudra, and as being finally controlled by the Aucitya of Rasa, together with three other minor principles of Aucitya of Vaktā, (the character), Vācya (the subject) and Viṣaya, (the nature or form of artistic expression like the classification into drama, epic poem, campū, prose etc.)— is the special contribution of Ānandavardhana for which he thus takes credit:
इति काव्यार्थविवेको योऽयं चेतश्चमत्कृतिविधायी।
सूरिभिरनुसृतसारैरस्मदुपज्ञो न विस्मार्यः॥ III, p. 144.
Viṣayaucitya is pointed out by Bharata himself. The dramatic form as such enforces certain conditions and principles of Aucitya on the poet. Ānandavardhana says that in a drama, the supreme concern of the poet shall be only Rasa. He shall never think of Alaṅkāra etc. In drama especially, long compounds should be avoided.
एवं च दीर्घसमासा संघटना … तस्यां नात्यन्तमभिनिवेशःशोभते, विशेषतोऽभिनेयार्थे काव्ये …।
Dhva. Ā., p. 139.
All things impeding the quick realisation of Rasa must be avoided. According to Bharata, this additional Aucitya must be observed as regards drama in particular: the words used must be simple, well-known and easy to be understood, delicate and sweet to hear. Harsh words and grammarisms like Yaṅglugantas, Cekrīḍita etc., in a drama are like anchorites with Kamaṇdalus in a courtesan’s room. They are ‘Anucita’ in drama.
चेक्रीडिताद्यैः शब्देस्तु काव्यबन्धा भवन्ति ये।
वेश्या इव न शोभन्ते कमण्डलुधरैर्द्विजैः॥
मृदुशब्दं सुखार्थं च कविः कुर्यात्तु नाटकम्।
N. Ś. XXI, 131 2. (See also XVII, 121-3.)
तस्माद्गम्भीरार्थाः शब्दा ये लोकवेदसंसिद्धाः।
सर्वजनेन ग्राह्याः संयोज्या नाटके विधिवत्॥
N. Ś. XXVII, 46.
The section on Prabandhadhvanı deals with the very substance of a poem or drama and here one has to see that everything observes the principles of Aucitya and justifies itself suggesting, as best as it can, the Rasa. A story has to be built as the expression of a Rasa. If a story already available is handled, changes suitable to the Rasa must be made wherever the old story is not helpful to bring out the Rasa. If there are too many incidents, only those that are most expressive of the emotion must be chosen. This is Prabandhadhvani and Prabandhaucitya as also Prakaraṇadhvani
and Prakaraṇaucitya to adopt the two-fold classification of Kuntaka. Bhoja would call this appropriate change in the story as Prabandhadoṣahāna and Kuntaka as Prakaraṇavakratā. Appropriateness of which suggestiveness is the touch-stone is meant by all these writers. Says Ānandavardhana:
विभावभावानुभावसञ्चार्यौचित्यचारुणः।
विधिः कथाशरीरस्य वृत्तस्योत्प्रेक्षितम्य वा॥
इतिवृत्तवशायातां त्यक्त्वाननुगुणां स्थितिम्।
उत्प्रेक्ष्योऽप्यन्तराभीष्टरसोचितकथोन्नयः॥
सन्धिसन्ध्यङ्गघटनं रसाभिव्यक्त्यपेक्षया।
न तु केवलशास्त्रार्थस्थितिसंपादनेच्छया॥
उद्दीपनप्रशमने यथावसरमन्तरा।
रसस्यारब्धविश्रान्तरेनुसन्धानमङ्गिनः॥
अलङ्कृतीनां शक्तावप्यानुरूप्येण योजनम्।
प्रबन्धस्य रसादीनां व्यञ्जकत्वे निबन्धनम्॥III, 10-14.
The Aṅgas or subsidiary themes and accessory emotional interests have to be developed only up to the extent proper to them and their Aṅgin, i.e., the chief theme and its Rasa. Thus the episodes, the Patākās and Prakarīs, in a drama, or the ‘descriptions’in a Mahākāvya have to observe the rule of Aucitya which is pre ortional harmony. They must not make one forget the main thread and sidetrack him for a sojourn into grounds foreign in purpose to the main theme.That is why Lollaṭa condemns the descriptive digressions in the Mahākāvyas and emphasises thereby the same principle of the Aucitya of proportion by demanding that everything must be ‘Rasavat’ . When this rule is not observed, faults are committed. By the transgression of the principles laid
down by Ānandavardhana in the above-given verses and in other places also, Hemacandra, who follows Ānandavardhana and of whose system he is a clear exponent, points out that the following literary flaws are committed :
1. अङ्गस्य अप्रधानस्य अतिविस्तरेण वर्णनम्—यथा हयग्रीववधे हयग्रीवस्य।यथा वा विप्रलम्भशृङ्गारे नायकस्य कस्यचिद् वर्णयितुमुपक्रान्ते कवेः यमकाद्यलङ्कारनिबन्धरसिकतया समुद्रादेः।
K. Anu III, p. 121.
In Harivijaya, when the delicate sentiment of Vipralambha has to be delineated, the poet has succumbed to the temptation of an overdone description of the beach and the sea. Such irrelevancies can be characterised as so many swellings on the face of a Kāvya. Hemacandra does not spare even the major poets while considering this aspect of Aucitya. He criticises both the prose works of Bāṇa and the Kāvyas like Śiśupālavadha for their ‘Gaḍus’.
2. अङ्गिनःप्रधानस्य अननुसन्धानम् . Hemacandra remarks that though the drama has to be varied in interest and many other emotions have to be introduced as subsidiary features, the poet must not concentrate on the subsidiary Aṅgas and lose sight of the Aṅgin which must be taken up and brought to the forefront wherever necessary. The main thread must never be last sight of; for as Hemacandra says:
अनुसन्धर्हि सर्वस्वं सहृदयतायाः।
3. Irrelevant description or introduction of events, incidents or ideas that have nothing to do with the Rasa is a great mistake. It is ‘अनङ्गस्त रसानुपकारस्य वर्णनम्।’. These are the principles of Aucitya which secure proportion and harmony. (See also Mammaṭa, K. Pra. VII, 13-14.)
The fourth Doṣa mentioned by Hemacandra is Prakṛti-vyatyaya. breach of Prakṛtyaucitya of which Bharata has spoken at length and which we referred to in the opening section where we held that in this concept of Prakṛti, Bharata implicitly laid down the doctrine of Aucitya also. All these Doṣas are derived from Ānandavardhana’s Vṛtti on his own Kārikās on Prabandhadhvani which we have quoted above. In this section Ānandavardhana speaks of the Aucitya of Vibhāva, Anubhāva and Sañcārin, all of which can be included in the one idea of Bhāvaucitya which resolves into a question of Prakṛtyaucitya. Aucitya is very often met with in this section in the III. Ud. of the Dhva. Ā. It is in this section that Ānandavardhana formulates that memorable verse which is the greatest exposition of the concept of Aucitya and its place in poetry. He says here: Nothing hinders Rasa as Anaucitya or impropriety; Aucitya is the great secret of Rasa.
अनौचित्याहते नान्यद् रसभङ्गस्य कारणम्।
प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत्परा॥ III, 15.
Bharata himself recognises how each part and incident in the drama has to refer to Rasa and how, otherwise, it has no right to exist. It is only natural, for Bharata is the writer who lays the greatest emphasis on Rasa to which everything else is subservient. Ānandavardhana observes that, simply because Bharata has laid down a certain number of emotional points or incidents as Sandhyangas, one must not try to see that he introduces everything mentioned by Bharata. Whatever is introduced must be on the score of its suggestiveness of Rasa and not on the score of loyalty to text.
सन्धिसन्ध्यङ्गघटनं रसाभिव्यक्त्यपेक्षया।
न तु केवलशास्त्रार्थस्थितिसंपादनेच्छया॥III, 12. Dhva. Ā.
Bharata himself says so finally, after giving all the Sandhyangas and Ānandavardhana only restates the following of Bharata:
सर्वाङ्गाणि कदाचित्तु द्वित्रियोगेन (गो न) वा पुनः।
ज्ञात्वा कार्यमवस्थां च योज्यान्यङ्गानि सन्धिषु॥
N. Ś. XXI, 107.
Bharata emphasises discretion : ‘ज्ञात्वा कार्यमवस्थां च’; this suitability or writing according to the needs of the context is only the sense of Aucitya in a poet.
Ānandavardhana then goes to other kinds of Aucitya or ather points out how, not only the working out of a plot, not only the expression of an idea in figure, but even the words and the synonyms, the case, inflection, voice etc., have to be suggestive of Rasa. That is, a poet should explore all possibilities of suggesting the vast realm of emotion— as many possibilities as his poor medium called language can afford. If a jingle can aid him, he seizes it; if a use in the passive voice is more effective than one in the active, he prefers it; if Ātmanepada suggests more, that has to be exploited. Thus every bit of the medium called language from sound, word, position of a word in a sentence etc., has to be thoroughly exploited and capital use made out of it by the poet. All these ideas revolve round Aucitya. If Sup, Tiṅg, Kāraka etc., are suggestive, they are ‘ucita’, appropriate.
सुप्तिङ्वचनसम्बन्धैः तथा कारकशक्तिभिः।
कृत्तद्धितसमासैश्च द्योत्योऽलक्ष्यक्रमः क्वचित्॥
From this part of Ānandavardhana’s work is derived Kṣemendra’s Aucitya of Kriyā, Kāraka, Liṅga, Vacana etc. Similarly there is the Aucitya of Pada, of a word, of a name or
synonym. This is the Padadhvani of Ānandavardhana, found in the beginning of Ud. III. The ‘suggestive word’or the ‘proper word’of Ānandavardhana and Kṣemendra is like the ‘inevitable word’ or the ‘strong word’mentioned by some English writers.
Of Aucitya of Vṛtti and Rīti also, Ānandarardhana speaks in the third Uddyota which is devoted to the exploration of all possible suggestive means in the medium of language. the Vyañjaka.
यदि वा वृत्तीनां भरतप्रसिद्धानां कैशिक्यादीनां काव्यालंकारान्तरप्रसिद्धानाम्उपनागरिकाद्यानां वा यदनौचित्यम् अविषये निबन्धनं तदपि रसभङ्गहेतुः। Dhva. Ã., III, p. 163.
Aucitya regarding Rasa itself, how the main Rasa to be delineated, how the Aṅga-rasas are to be made to develop the main, what Rasas are mutually incompatible, how a Rasa like Śṛngāra must not be so over developed as to cloy, or Karuṇa which, when again and again developed, makes the heart ‘fade’(Mlāna)— these are dealt with by Ānanda-vardhana in the III Ud. In this respect also, the pitfalls which may be called Rasadoṣas, are already mentioned to some extent in Rudraṭa. Yaśovarman himself mentions‘रसस्य स्वावसरे पुष्टिः’ ‘nourishing of the Rasa at the proper time.’ Rudraṭa gives a Doṣa called Virasa which is the introduction or the flowing in of an irrelevant or contradictory sentiment into the current of the main Rasa. In this Virasa is included the Dośa of Vinuddha rasa samāveśa of Ānandavardhana. (See Dhva. Ā. III, 2, pp. 164-170). Rudraṭa illustrates this Virasa by a case of a very inappropriate mingling of Karuṇa and Śṛṅgāra. Another kind of Virasa according to Rudraṭa is the fault of overdevelopment of even the proper Rasa.
अन्यस्य यः प्रसङ्गे रसस्य निपतेद् रसः क्रमोपेतः।
विरसोऽसौ स च शक्यः सम्यक् ज्ञातुं प्रबन्धेभ्यः॥
यस्सावसरोऽपि रसो निरन्तरं नीयते प्रबन्धेषु।
अतिमहतीं वृद्धिमसौ तथैव वैरस्यमायाति॥
K. A. XI, 12-14.
The latter is Ānandavardhana’s Atidīpti or पुनःपुनर्दीप्तिः.These flaws of Rasa resulting from lack of Rasaucitya are mentioned in the Śṛṅgāratilaka also:
विरसं प्रत्यनीकं च दुस्सन्धानरसं तथा।
नीरसं पात्रदुष्टं च काव्यं सद्भिर्न शस्यते॥III, 20-22.
Virasa is explained by Rudrabhaṭta as Viruddha rasa, inappropriate or incompatible emotion and Nīrasa as the intermittent or excessive portrayal of one Rasa—निरन्तरं एकस्य वृद्धिः Ānandavardhana puts these ideas of Rasaucitya relating to the handling of the Rasas themselves thus:
प्रबन्धे मुक्तके वापि रसादीन् बन्धुमिच्छता।
यत्नः कार्यस्सुमतिना परिहारे विरोधिनाम्॥
विरोधिरससम्बन्धिबिभावादिपरिग्रहः।
विस्तरेणान्वितस्यापि वस्तुनोऽन्यस्य वर्णनम्॥
अकाण्ड एव विच्छित्तिः अकाण्डे च प्रकाशनम्।
परिपोषं गतस्यापि पौनःपुन्येन दीपनम्॥
रसस्य स्याद् विरोधाय वृत्त्यनौचित्यमेव च। III, 17-19.
The last mentioned Vṛttyanaucitya resulting in Rasānaucitya is an error in taste in respect of thought in the development of character and in the portrayal of actions and incidents
which is called by Rudrabhaṭṭa as Pātraduṣṭa. This is also taken by Ānandavardhana as the improper atmosphere— कैशक्यादिवृत्त्यनौचित्यम्.A mellow temper cannot suit a boisterous scene of dust-raising conflict in Raudra; a bloody and tumultuous chaos goes ill with the sweetness and quite pleasantness of love or the tenderness and delicacy of Vipralambha and Karuṇa. Of this Vṛttyaucitya Ānandavardhana again says:
रसाद्यनुगुणत्वेन व्यवहारोऽर्थशब्दयोः।
औचित्यवान् यस्ता एव वृत्तयो द्विविधाः स्मृताः॥ III, 33.
Thus Ānandavardhana has shown how, in his own phraseology, Aucitya is the greatest secret of Rasa— परा उपनिषत्; how in the fashioning of every part of the expression which is the body or the symbolic vehicle of Rasa or ’the empirical technique’ as Abercrombie would call it, the only ruling principle of the poet is an all-round, all-comprehensive Aucitya, with reference to which alone, the choice of words, of cases, of metre, the collocation, style, Guṇas, Alaṅkāras— in fact every means of suggestion from the trifling jingle to the greatest, is intelligible. This Aucitya of word and thought, Vācya vācaka, with refernce to Rasa is the greatest rule in poetry. To attend to it and write according to it is the chief duty of the poet.
वाच्यानां वाचकानां च यदौचित्येन योजनम्।
रसादिविषयेणैतत् कर्म मुख्यं महाकवेः॥III, 32
Between this verse on one side and with the verse—
अनौचित्यादृते नान्यद् रसभङ्गस्य कारणम्।
प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत्परा॥
occurring in the same section in a similar context, on the other side, the whole theory of Aucitya is completely stated.
Rājaśekhara and his wife, Avantisundarī
If Time had spared to us the whole of Kāvya mīmāmsa, we would have had a larger knowledge of Rājaśekhara’s ideas on Aucitya. Even in the first chapter of Kavirahasya that has come to us, Rājaśekhara mentions Aucitya in the fifth section called Kāvyapākakalpa. He first takes up poetic culture and learning and opines that all poetic culture is only the discrimination of the proper and the improper— Ucita and Anucita.
उचितानुचितविवेको व्युत्पत्तिः इति यायावरीयः।
p. 16, K. M. Gaek. edn.
There is also an oft-quoted Sanskrit verse which gives this same idea regarding the larger art of man’s behaviour in the world.
श्रुत्वापि नाम बधिरो दृष्ट्वाप्यन्धो जडो विदित्वापि।
यो देशकालकार्यव्यपेक्षया पण्डितः स पुमान्॥
Rājaśekhara’s wife also lays great emphasis on Aucitya; for she says that Pāka, ripeness or maturity of poetic power, is the securing of expression,—ideas, words, conceptions, fancies etc., —which is proper and appropriate to Rasa.
तस्माद् रसोचितशब्दार्थसूक्तिनिबन्धनः पाकः।
p. 20, K. M.
The idea of Aucitya as adaptation, the idea that in poetry there is no fixed rule determining Guṇa and Doṣa and that things are good or bad only on the ground of appropriateness or inappropriateness and that, according to circumstance, even a Doṣa may become a Guṇa— is also very well realised by Rājaśekhara who says at the end of the chapter Kavirahasya—
न च व्युत्क्रमदोषोऽस्ति कवेरर्थपथस्पृशः।
तथा कथा कापि भवेद् व्युत्क्रमो भूषणं यथा॥
अनुसन्धानशून्यस्य भूषणं दूषणायते।
सावधानस्य च कवेः दूषणं भूषणायते॥64 says: यान्येव दूषंणान्याहुस्तानि स्युर्भूषणान्यपि।")p. 112. K. M.
The careful poet who has his eye on Aucitya employs even the so-called flaws and makes them excellences whereas the careless writer abuses even the Guṇas and spoils his expression by the absence of the sense of Aucitya.
Abhinavagupta
The place of Abhinavagupta in the history of Aucitya is important. As the author of the Locana he lucidly expounds and elaborates the ideas of Ānandavardhana, who, as we have seen above, is the greatest name in the history of Aucitya. On the other side, Abhinavagupta is the teacher in Poetics65 of Kṣemendra who is the systematiser of Aucitya. It is clear from Ānandavardhana’s treatment of Aucitya in Ud. III, that Aucitya naturally emerges out of the doctrines of Rasa and Dhvani and that the three cannot be separated. Abhinavagupta takes his stand on this triple aspect of the ‘life’ of poetry— Rasa first, then Dhvani and then Aucitya. He says:
उचितशब्देन रसविषयमौचित्यं भवतीति दर्शयन् रसध्वनेः जीवितत्वं सूचयति। p. 13.
Aucitya presupposes something to which a thing is ‘ucita’and that to which everything else is finally to be estimated as ‘ucita’is Rasa which is the ‘soul’of poetry.
On the subject of Alaṅkāraucitya about which Ānanda-vardhana speaks so much in Ud. II, Abhinavagupta says that the greatest Aucitya of Alaṅkāra is that the term has any meaning at all only when there is the ‘Alaṅkārya’, the ‘soul’. Otherwise, it is like decorating the dead body. Decoration of a living body also is Anaucitya in certain cases, ornaments on the body of a recluse who has renounced life appear ridiculous— anucita. Thus figures of speech without Rasa and figures of speech in places which do not need them are bad.
तथा ह्यचेतनं शवशरीरं कुण्डलाद्युपेतमपि न भाति। अलङ्कार्यस्याभावात्। यतिशरीरं कटकादियुक्तं हास्यावहं भवति, अलङ्कार्यस्यानौचित्यात्।p. 75. Locana.
He thus explains Rasaucitya, i.e., the Aucitya of Bhāvas, Vibhāvas, etc., on p. 147.
विभावाद्यौचित्येन हि विना का रसवत्ता कवेरिति। तस्माद्विभावाद्यौचित्यमेव रसवत्ताप्रयोजकं नान्यदिति भावः।
The idea of Aucitya, like that of Vakrokti, was current as a very frequently used term in the critical circles of Kashmirian Ālaṅkārikas for a long time. Vakrokti rose out of Alaṅkāra, Aucitya in the wake of Rasa and Dhvani. Aucitya must have become more current after Ānandavardhana who has spoken of it so much and who has said that its presence and absence makes and unmakes Rasa and poetry. It was so much in use that, by the time of Abhinavagupta, it must have been heading towards systematisation, even as the concept of Vakrokti, which, as old as Bhāmaha, was given so much life in the critical circles that it enlarged itself and through Kuntaka built itself into a system. Aucitya also had assumed proportions and was in search of a writer for systematisation. The
critics were speaking of Aucitya as the essence of poetry very often, more often than Rasa even. Says Abhinavagupta in two places criticising these critics: ‘One cannot be indiscreetly using the word Aucitya by itself; Aucitya is ununder-standable without something else to which things are “ucita”— appropriate. Aucitya is a relation and that to which things are or should be in that relation must first be grasped. That is Rasa, nothing less and nothing else.’ Abhinavagupta first proves that there is no meaning in Aucitya without Rasa.
उचितशब्देन रसविषयमौचित्यं भवतीति दर्शयन् रसध्वनेः जीवितत्वं सूचयति। तदभावे हि किमपेक्षयेदमौचित्यं नाम सर्वत्र उद्धोष्यत इति भावः। p. 13.
He again proves that Aucitya presupposes Rasa, and Dhvani also.
औचित्यवती (अतिशयोक्तिः) जीवितमिति चेत्, औचित्यनिबन्धनं रसभावादि मुक्त्वानान्यत् किञ्चिदस्तीति तदेवान्तर्भासि मुख्यं जीवितमित्यभ्युपगन्तव्यं, न तु सा। एतेन यदाहुः केचित्, ‘औचित्यघटितसुन्दरशब्दार्थमये काव्ये किमन्येन ध्वनिना आत्मभूतेन कल्पितेन’ इति स्ववचनमेव ध्वनिसद्भावाभ्युपगमसाक्षिभूतम् अमन्यमानाः प्रत्युक्ताः।
p. 208. Locana.
These two passages clearly show that critics there were who were speaking of Aucitya as the only thing enough to explain poetry, which according to them, was beautiful words and ideas set in perfect harmony — Aucitya. These critics had omitted the word Rasa from their vocabulary and dispensed with Dhvani. Abhinavagupta criticises these poor critics who do not understand the implication of what they say. Aucitya implies, presupposes and means ‘suggestion of Rasa ‘—रसध्वनि i.e., the doctrines of Rasa and Dhvani.
Abhinavagupta thus takes his stand on the tripod of Rasa, Dhvani and Aucitya. Rasa is the ‘Ātman’ of poetry and the fact is that it is so only through the process of Dhvani. Again Rasa is or can be so only through Aucitya. Thus these three are very intimately and inseparably associated together. Aucitya is as inseparably associated with Dhvani as with Rasa. If an Alaṅkāra is said to suit, to be ‘ucita’ to, a Bhāva, it means that the Alaṅkāra effectively suggests that Bhāva; if there is said to be Guṇaucitya, it means the Rasa there is suggested by the Guṇa. A word, a gender, a mere exclamation— these are said to be ‘ucita’, and how? The test. of Aucitya, its proof, is the suggestion of Rasa.
Another point which Abhinavagupta pointed out was that the breach of Aucitya resulted in ‘Ābhāsatā.’ A Kāvya which does not have Aucitya is Kāvyābhāsa, not poetry but semblance of poetry. Improper Alaṅkāra is Alankārābhāsa. If there is Aucitya we have Rasa and sentiment; if there is Anaucitya due to absence of Prakṛtyaucitya etc., we have Rasābhāsa and sentimentality.
औचित्येन प्रवृत्तौ चित्तवृत्तेःआस्वाद्यत्वे स्थायिन्या रसः व्यभिचारिण्या भावः। अनौचित्येन तदाभासः, रावणस्य सीतायामिव रतेः।¹
Bhoja
Neither in his smaller Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa nor in his bigger Śṛṅgāraprakāsāhas Bhoja any special subject under a separate head called Aucitya. But the concept of Aucitya is not altogether absent
___________________________
1The Rasakalikā (Madras MS. R. 2241, pp. 43-4), after giving the several conditions causing Rasa-ābhāsa viz.,एकत्र बह्वनुरागः,तिर्यड्म्लेच्छगतरागः, योषितो बहुसक्तिः, concludes that Anaucitya in fine is the basis of Rasābhāsa : उपलक्षणं चैतत्— औचित्यनौचित्य एव रस-आभासनिबन्धने । यथाहुः ‘अनौचित्यादृते नान्यत् etc.’
from his two works. It is found in more than one place as a basic idea underlying many principles. Long before the concept of Aucitya dawned upon the literary circle, it was accepted in grammar as one of the conditions that determine the meaning of a word in a context, when the word has more than one meaning. The Vākyapadīya of Bhartṛhari says:
वाक्यात् प्रकरणाद् अर्थाद् औचित्याद् देशकालतः।
शब्दार्थाः प्रविभज्यन्ते न रूपादेव केवलात्॥ II, 315.¹
Other writers call these ‘Śabdārthapravibhājakas’, Aucitya etc., as ‘Anavacchinna śabdārtha viśeṣa smṛti hetus’. This sense-determinant of Aucitya, Bhoja mentions twice in his Śṛṅgāraprakāśa, first while explaining various kinds of Vivakṣā or intention in chapter seven and then in a similar context in chapter twenty-five.
In chapter xi, Bhoja calls his magnum opus, the Śṛngāra-prakāśa by the name Sāhityaprakāśa and says that, among other things, Aucitya is inculcated therein (p. 430, vol. II,Mad. MS.).
एतस्मिन् शृङ्गारप्रकाशे सुप्रकाशमेव अशेषशास्त्रार्थसंपदुपनिषदाम् अखिलकलाकाव्य— औचित्य— कल्पनारहस्यानां च सन्निवेशो दृश्यते।
Bhoja realises that Aucitya is a vast and elastic principle and that it pertains to every part of the art of poetic expression. We first sight Aucitya in Bhoja in his section on Doṣas where he speaks of a Pada doṣa called Apada, which means that a poet must use the vocabulary suited to the character
______________________________
1 Cf. The Bṛhaddevatā, II, 120, p. 55, Bib. Ind. edn.—
अर्थात्प्रकरणाल् लिंगाद् औचित्याद् देशकालतः।
मन्वेष्वर्थविवेकः स्याद् इतरेष्विति च स्थितिः॥
who is speaking. A vulgar and a rustic character does not employ the same words as a refined city-bred man. The appropriate vocabulary is one of the chief conditions that call up the correct atmosphere. Inappropriate vocabulary which is a breach of Aucitya is the Doṣa called Apada. See S. K. Ā. I, 23, pp. 19-20. Bhoja’s Vākyārthadoṣa called Virasa, which is borrowed by him from Rudraṭa, emphasises a principle of Rasa-aucitya. (See S. K. Ā. I, 50, p. 35.) Ratneśvara, commentator on the S. K. Ā., quotes here Ānandavardhana’s verse on Aucitya and Anaucitya—अनौचित्यादृते नान्यत् etc., and adds that the three following Upamādoṣas also are various instances of Anaucitya. Thirdly, the Doṣa called Viruddha (S. K. Ā. 1, 54-57), Loka virodha, Kāla virodha etc., is also based on Aucitya. These are only more definite and particularised names for varieties of Anaucitya of Vastu or Artha. In the sub-class of Anumāna viruddha, Bhoja has a variety called Aucitya viruddha (see p. 40. S. K. Ā) and illustrates it by a case of an incorrect and inappropriate description of a low ordinary man, a Pāmara, as wearing refined silk-dress. Fourthly, a similar instance of Anaucitya of Artha-kalpana is mentioned by Bhoja in connection with his Śabdaguṇa Bhāvika. (S. K. Ā., p. 58.) Here is an instance of the larger Aucitya of Adaptation, which makes Guṇas of flaws. Besides this, there is a whole section of Vaiśeṣika guṇas at the end of chapter I where it is shown that as a result of circumstance, special context and Aucitya, all the Doṣas may cease to be so and may even become Guṇas (S. K. Ā., pp. 74-120, see esp. p. 118).66
अत्र स्त्रीत्वाद् औचित्यविरोधेऽपि तत्समयोचितत्वाद् गुणत्वम्।
S. K. Ā. P. 118.
Aucitya figures to some extent in Bhoja’s Alaṁkāra-section also. Bhoja opens his list of Śabdālaṁkāras with the elaboration of the idea of the choice of the appropriate language, Bhāṣaucitya, which, he says, is an ornament or Alaṁkāra called Jāti. Certain subjects are well expressed in Sanskrit ; certain in Prākṛt or Apabhramśa. There is also the appropriateness of country or province (Deśa) and rank and culture of character (Pātra,-uttama; male, female etc.)which decides the language. Bhoja and Ratneśvara point out all these Aucityas which are seen already in the eighteenth chapter of Bharata’s N.Ś. called Bhāṣāvidhāna. Bhoja himself uses the word Aucitya here and Ratneśvara clearly explains the Aucitya involved in this Jāti Śabdālaṁkāna67”). In chapter xi, Bhoja gives a Prabandha-ubhaya-guṇa, a comprehensive excellence of the Śabda and Artha of the whole work, called “language according to the character”, पात्रानुरूपभाषत्वम्. What is this Ānurūpya except Aucitya? This Prabandha-bhāṣaucitya is only the extension of the Vākyālaṁkāra called Jāti (p. 432, vol. ii, Śṛ. Pra. Mad. MS.). The second Śabdālaṁkāra of Bhoja is also a principle of Aucitya. It is called Gati; it is the choice of the proper poetic form, verse (padya), prose (gadya), or mixed style (campū) and the choice of the proper metres suggestive of Rasa in the padya-class; this last is only another name for Vṛttaucitya. In explaining this Gati, Bhoja himself bases his Alaṅkāra on Aucitya of Artha which he mentions twice here. (see S. K. Ā. II, 18 and 21.)
पद्यं गद्यं च मिश्रं च काव्यं यत् सा गतिः स्मृता।
अर्थौचित्यादिभिः सापि वागलङ्कार इष्यते॥ II, 18.
In chapter xi again Bhoja speaks of this, the ‘proper metre’, as the Prabandha-ubhaya-guṇa called ‘metre according to idea’–- अर्थानुरूपच्छन्दस्त्वम्,
“अर्थानुरूपच्छन्दस्त्वम् इत्यनेन शृंगारे द्रुतविलम्बितादयः, वीरे वसन्ततिलकादयः, करुणे वैतालीयादयः, रौद्रे स्रग्धरादयः, सर्वत्र शार्दुलविक्रीडितादयःनिबन्धनीया इत्युपदिशति।”
p. 432, vol. II. ŚṛPra. Mad, MS.
Bhoja speaks here of yet another similar principle of Aucitya, that again as a Prabandha-ubhaya-guṇa, called ‘Rasa-anurūpa sandarbhatva’. See above, p. 200.
All these Aucityas, Bhoja does not fail to relate to Rasa; for he takes these principles of Aucitya as Doṣa-hāna, as Guṇa and as Alaṁkāra and all these three are, according to his statement, the means to secure the eternal presence of Rasa, Rasa-aviyoga.
Lastly Bhoja speaks of Anaucitya in the very story as available in the original source. He says that the poet must leave off those Doṣas or Anaucityas in the source which hinder Rasa and conceive the plot in a new manner. Bhoja calls this Prabandha-doṣa-hāna and Anaucitya-parihāra. (See above, p. 218-9). Says Bhoja:
“तत्र (प्रबन्धे) दोषहानम् अनौचित्यादिपरिहारेण यथा मायाकैकेयीदशरथाभ्यां रामः प्रवासितः न मातापितृभ्याम् इति निर्दोषदशरथे (राजशेखरस्य बालरामायणे)” । p. 410. Vol. II. Śṛ. Pra. Mad. MS.
In his S. K. Ā. Bhoja has the above-quoted passage on p. 642 and he has also this Kārikā :
वाक्यवच्च प्रबन्धेषु रसालङ्कारसङ्करान्।
निवेशयन्त्यनौचित्यपरिहारेण सूरयः॥ V. 126, p. 418.
Compare Ānandavardhana III. 11 and Kuntaka IV, p 224.
Kuntaka
Kuntaka naturally speaks much of Aucitya which, we are given to understand by the Locana, was a term widely current in circles of Sahṛdayas of that time. Kuntaka was a younger contemporary of Abhinavagupta or wroteimmediately after him. The word denoting the essence of poetry at that time seems to be ‘Jivita’. For we find the Locana itself rendering the ‘Ātman’of Ānandavardhana as ‘Jivita’ twice. Kuntaka uses the same word ‘Jivita’ to praise his Vakrokti and soon Ksemendra is to use the same to signify the place of Aucitya. The two main facts recognised by Kuntaka in poetry are the utterance and its embellishment or its strikingness called Alaṅkāra or Vakrokti. Besides these, he recognises certain general concepts which go to define his notion of poetry. Notable among these is the idea of Sāhitya. Along with Sāhitya, Kuntaka mentions two ‘Sādhāraṇa Guṇas’ called Aucitya and Saubhāgya. These general excellences pertaining to all styles of poetry are to be distinguished from the ‘Asādhāraṇa Guṇas’, special qualities, which go to distinguish styles into the graceful (sukumāra), the striking (victra), and the middling (madhyama). The Sādhāraṇa Guṇas, Aucitya and Saubhāgya, are of greater importance.
“एवं प्रत्येकं प्रतिनियतगुणग्रामरमणीयं मार्गत्रितयं व्याख्याय साधारणगुणस्वरूपव्याख्यानार्थमाह —॥” p. 72. V. J.
The first of these two Sādhāraṇa Guṇas, Aucitya, is thus-defined in two verses:
आञ्जसेन स्वभावस्य महत्वं यन पोष्यते।
प्रकारेण तदौचित्यम् उचिताख्यानजीवितम्॥
यत्र वक्तुः प्रमातुर्वा वाच्यं शोभातिशायिना।
आच्छाद्यते स्वभावेन तदप्यौचित्यमुच्यते॥ V. J.I, 53-54.
Both kinds of Aucitya are for heightening the power of expression, for developing the idea undertaken to be described. They are very general and comprehensive, referring to all aspects. Kuntaka describes Aucitya generally as उचिताख्यान— proper expression. Vide pp. 72-74. V. J.
Kuntaka grasps the supreme importance of Rasa and character, i.e., Prakṛti or, as Kuntaka often says, Svabhāva. He accepts the Aucitya pertaining to these which has been spoken of by Bharata and Ānandavardhana. Other items of Aucitya also are shown by Kuntaka, and everywhere, he points out that all Aucitya is to develop the idea or Rasa. Firstly, defining the speciality of Śabda and Artha in Kāvya, Kuntaka points out the ‘Pāramārthya’ of these two. His Śabdapāramārthya is only the Aucitya or Dhvani of Pada or Paryāya and his Arthapāramārthya is nothing but Arthaucitya. His Arthaparamārthya comprises cases of the propriety of minor fancies— Pratibhaucitya. Explaining a case of the absence of this Arthapāramārthya, Kuntaka remarks that the fancy of the poet is contrary to the greatness of the character of Sītā and Rāma. This is a case of a breach off प्रकृत्यौचित्य. The test of this Aucitya is, according to Kuntaka, Rasa.
“अत्र असकृत् प्रतिक्षणं कियदद्य गन्तव्यमित्यभिधानलक्षणःपरिस्पन्दः न स्वभावमहत्तामुन्मीलयति, न च रसपरिपोषाङ्गतां प्रतिपद्यते। यस्मात् सीतायाः सहजेन केनाप्यौचित्येन गन्तुमध्यवसितायाः सौकुमार्यादेवंविधं वस्तु हृदये परिस्फुरदपि वचनमारोहतीति सहृदयैः सम्भावयितुं न पार्यते।” p. 21.
On page 28, mentioning the qualities in poetry which should vie with each other, i.e., while explaining Sāhitya, Kuntaka refers to Vṛttyaucitya. This is either the Aucitya
of the Kaiśikīand other Vṛttis or of the Vṛttis Upanāgarikā etc. The latter is the Aucitya of Rīti, Saṅghaṭanā, Guṇa or Varṇa and Kuntaka calls it Varṇavakratā, which he deals with at the beginning of Unmeṣa il. This is a case of Varṇa-Saṅghaṭanā-dhvani of Ānandavardhana or Guṇaucitya of Kṣemendra. Kuntaka says that letters or sounds must be appropriate to the context and that certain letters unsuited to certain situations may help the idea and Rasa of other situations.
वर्गान्तयोगिनः स्पर्शाः द्विरुक्ता तलनादयः।
शिष्टाश्च रादिसंयुक्ताः प्रस्तुतौचित्यशोभिनः॥ V. J. II, 2.
“ते च कीदृशाः—प्रस्तुतौचित्यशोभिनः। प्रस्तुतं वर्ण्यमानं वस्तु, तस्य यदौचित्यमुचितभावः तेन शोभन्ते ये, ते तथोक्ताः। न पुनः वर्णसावर्ण्यव्यसनितामात्रेण उपनिबद्धाः प्रस्तुतौचित्यम्लान(नि)कारिणः। प्रस्तुतौचित्यशोभित्वात् कुत्रचित्परुषरसप्रस्तावे तादृशानेव अभ्यनुजानाति। "
P. 80.¹
Following the principles of Alaṅkāraucitya pointed out by Ānandavardhana, Kuntaka speaks further of this Varṇavakratā, under which come Śabdālaṅkāras like Anuprāsa and Yamaka,
____________________________________
1 Vide above p. 216, Ānandavardhana, III, 3-4. शषौ सरेफसंयोगौ etc. It is of this Aucitya of Varṇa that Pope speaks of in his Essay on Criticism :
‘Tis not enough no harshness gives offence,
The sound must seem an echo of the sense.
Soft is the strain when Zephyr gently blows,
And the smooth stream in smoother numbers flows;
But when loud surges lash the sounding shore
The hoarse rough verse should like a torrent roar.
. . . . . . .
.
Hear how Timotheus varied Lays surprise,
And bid alternate Passions fall and rise.’
that Anuprāsas must not be written at a stretch and that the repeated letters must often be changed.
नातिनिर्बन्धविहिता नाप्यपेशलभूषिता।
पूर्वावृत्तपरित्यागनूतनावर्त्तनोज्ज्वला॥ II, 4.
The first principle of all Alaṅkāraucita is that figures must easily come of themselves, without the poet taking special effort for them. Says Kuntaka in the Vṛtti on the above Kārikā.
निर्बन्धशब्दोऽत्र व्यसनितायां वर्तते। तेन अतिनिर्बन्धे पुनःपुनरावर्तनव्यसनितया न विहिता, अप्रयत्नविरचितेत्यर्थः। व्यसनितया प्रयत्नविरचने हि प्रस्तुतौचित्यपरिहाणेःवाच्यवाचकयोः परस्परस्पर्धित्वलक्षणसाहित्यविरहःपर्यवस्यति। p. 84.
Here Kuntaka speaks of what Ānandavardhana has said that Rasa is lost when special effort is taken to build a structure of alliteration.
रसाक्षिप्ततया यस्य बन्धः शक्यक्रियो भवेत्।
अपृथग्यत्ननिर्वर्त्यः सोऽलङ्कारो ध्वनौ मतः॥Dhva. Ā. II, 17,
रसं बन्धुमध्यवसितस्य कवेः योऽलङ्कारस्तां वासनामत्यूह्य यत्रान्तरमास्थितस्य निष्पद्यते, स न रसाङ्गमिति।p. 86.
In the second line of the Kārikā, Kuntaka has said what Ānandavardhana has put in another form that the same sound effect should not be continued to a great length.
शृङ्गारस्याङ्गिनो यत्रादेकरूपानुबन्धनात्।
सर्वेष्वेव प्रभेदेषु नानुप्रासः प्रकाशकः॥II, 15.
एकरूपत्वानुबन्धनं त्यक्त्वा विचित्रानुप्रासः अनुबध्यमानो न दोषाय।Locana, p. 85.
See Kuntaka’s Vṛtti also on p. 84. Kuntaka adds another point of Aucitya, namely that cacophony should be avoided. Concatenation of very unpleasant sounds like शीघ्रघ्राणाङ्घ्रिetc., are not to be written at all. Kṣemendra quotes such verses of a poet of hundred and more works in his Kavikanthābharaṇa and condemns them as devoid of even a drop of Camatkāra. These sounds by nature, says Abhinavagupta in his Abhinava bhāratī, torture our ears, while there are other sounds that seem to pour nectar into our ears.
अन्यैरप्युक्तं (आनन्दवर्धनाचार्यैः) ‘तेन वर्णा रसच्युतः’ (Dhva. Ā. III) इत्यादि। स्वभावतो हि केचन वर्णाः सन्तापयन्तीव। अन्ये तु निर्वापयन्तीव उपनागरिकोचिताः; लोकगोचर एवायमर्थः॥
p. 415, vol. III, Abhi. bhā. Mad. MS.
Of Yamakaucitya pointed out by Rudrata and by Ānandavardhana Kuntaka speaks thus:
औचित्ययुक्तम् आद्यादिनियतस्थानशोभि यत्।
यमकं नाम . . . . . . .॥ II, 6-7.
औचित्यं वस्तुनः स्वभावोत्कर्षः, तेन युक्तं समन्वितम्। यत्र यमकोषनिबन्धनव्यसनित्वेनाप्यौचित्यमपरिम्लानमित्यर्थः॥
The few and rare cases of ‘Rasavad Yamakas’ are called by Kuntaka “समर्पकाणि यमकानि” p. 87.
The suggestive Pratyaya of Ānandavardhana is Pratyayavakratā, having Aucitya to the context, according to Kuntaka. This is a case of Pratyayaucitya, the propriety of the definite Pratyaya or its effectiveness in suggesting the idea or emotion.
प्रस्तुतौचित्यविच्छित्तिं स्वमहिम्नाविकासयन्।
प्रत्ययः पदमध्येऽन्यामुल्लासयति वक्रताम् II II, 17.
किं कुर्वन् ? प्रस्तुतस्य वर्ण्यमानस्य वस्तुनो यदौचित्यम् उचितभावः तस्य विच्छित्तिमुपशोभां विकासयन् समुल्लासयन्— ।
Here are given two instances of very proper, striking and suggestive use of the present participle : वेल्लद्वलाका घनाः and स्निह्यत्कटाक्षे दृशौ।
Liṅgadhvani or Liṅgavakratā or Lingaucitya is described on pp. 114-115; II, 23.
विशिष्टं योज्यते लिङ्गम् अन्यस्मिन् सम्भवत्यपि ।
यत्र विच्छित्तये सान्या वाच्यौचित्यानुसारतःII II, 23.
कस्मात्कारणात्, वाच्यौचित्यानुसारतः। वाच्यत्य वर्ण्यमानस्य वस्तुनो यदौचित्यम् **…**पदार्थौचित्यमनुसृत्येत्यर्थः।
Kuntaka thus often speaks of this Aucitya of every element to the idea (Vastu) or emotion (Rasa). He calls it Prastutaucitya or Svabhāvaucitya or Vastvaucitya. He speaks of it again while describing the fivefold Kriyāvaicitryavakratva, II, 25, p. 227.
A case of Tense-Aucitya is mentioned by Kuntaka in II, 26. It is to promote the Aucitya of the idea to the Rasa that the poet adopts the कालवैचित्र्यवक्रता. Upagrahaucitya is dealt with also by Kuntaka. The poet chooses one of the two— Ātmanepada and Parasmaipada-on the score of Āucitya.
पदयोरुभयोरेकम् औचित्याद् विनियुज्यते।
शोभायै यत्र जल्पन्ति तामुपग्रहचक्रताम्॥
Unmeṣa III thus describes Prakṛtyaucitya which Kuntaka calls the Svabhāvaucitya of various beings and things.
भावानामपरिम्लान स्वभावौचित्यसुन्दरम्।
चेतनानां जडानां च स्वरूपं द्विविधं स्मृतम्॥
. . . . . . . .
स्वजात्युचितहेवाकसमुल्लेखोज्ज्वलं परम्॥III, 5-7.
Of Vyavahāraucitya or Lokavṛttaucity a, which idea is the basis of Bharata’s Nāṭya, Kuntaka speaks in III, 9, p. 155. Thus We see how largely the idea of Aucitya looms in Kuntaka. As a matter of fact, in almost all cases of Kuntaka’s Vakratā, the test or proof of the strikingness or charm is this Aucitya of the various elements with reference to the Vastu or Rasa the depicting of which is the work of the poet. Vakrokti is only another name for Aucitya ।For Kuntaka says of Pada-aucitya that it is Pada-vakratā.
तत्र पदस्य तावदौचित्यं बहुविधभेदभिन्नो वक्रभावः।
V. J. p. 76.
As more than once pointed out already, many of the instances of Ānandavardhana’s Dhvani, Abhinavagupta’s Vaicitrya mentioned in the Abhinavabhāratī, Kuntaka’s Vakratā and Kṣemen-dra’s Aucitya are identical. Many items of Vakratā mentioned by Kuntaka are seen in the Abhinavabhāratī as cases of Vaicitrya, with exactly the same or similar illustrations and Abhinavagupta says that the same idea is called Suptiṅgdhvani by Ānandavardhana and Subādivakratā by others68.There is bound to be this close relation between Aucitya, Dhvani and Vakratā. Criticising Kuntakā’s definition of poetry as Śabda and Artha set in Vakroktı, Mahimabhaṭṭa says in V. V., Vimaras’a I : The “out-of-the-way-ness” of poetic word and idea as
distinguished from those of Śāstra and Loka must either be the Aucitya, so very essential to Rasa which is the “Ātman”of poetry or be the Dhvani of Ānandavardhana. If therefore the new Vakaokti is only Aucitya (which as a matter of fact figures largely in Kuntaka’s treatment of his subject) , nothing new is said. If this is denied, the only other possibility is that Vakrokti is nothing but a new name for Dhvani which really seems to be the fact. For the same varieties and the same instances as given by Ānandavardhana are given by Kuntaka.’
यत्पुनः‘शब्दार्थोसहितौ … …. …’इत्यादिना शास्त्रादिप्रसिद्धशब्दार्थोपनिबन्धव्यतिरेकि यद्वैचित्र्यं तन्मात्रलक्षणं वक्रत्वं नाम काव्यस्य जीवितमिति सहृदयमानिनः केचिदाचक्षते, तदप्यसमीचीनम्। यतः प्रसिद्धोपनिबन्धनव्यतिरेकित्वमिदं शब्दार्थयोरौचित्यमात्रपर्यवसायिस्यात्, प्रसिद्धाभिधेयार्थव्यतिरेकि प्रतीयमानाभिव्यक्तिपरं वा स्यात्। प्रसिद्धप्रस्थानातिरेकिणः शब्दार्थोपनिबन्धनवैचित्र्यस्य प्रकारान्तरासम्भवात्। **… …**द्वितीयपक्षपरिग्रहे पुनः ध्वनेरेवेदं लक्षणमनया भङ्ग्याभिहितं भवति, अभिन्नत्वात् वस्तुनः। अत एव चास्य त एव प्रभेदाः तान्येव उदाहरणानि तैरुपदर्शितानि।
V. V. I, p. 28.
Mahimabhaṭṭa
Mahimabhaṭṭa wrote in the same age, just after Abhinavagupta and Kuntaka. Mahimā accepts Rasa supreme and also the Aucitya pertaining to Rasa, Bhāva and Prakṛti. He could not escape the idea of Aucitya which was in its season then. As his criticism of Kuntaka’s definition of poetry by Vakroktı shows, critics of his time were aware of only two things as specially distinguishing the poetic utterance from the ordinary or Śāstraic one, viz., Aucitya and Dhvani. Of these two, there is no need to specially
speak of the former because Mahimāconsiders it as the supreme necessity in so far as Kāvya is accepted as utterance ensouled by Rasa. That is, according to Mahimā, there can be no opposition to Aucitya. It is only with Dhvani that he fights.
यतः प्रसिद्धोपनिबन्धनव्यतिकित्वमिदं शब्दार्थयोः औचित्यमात्रपर्यवसायि स्यात, प्रसिद्धाभिधेयार्थव्यक्तिरेकिः प्रतीयमानाभिव्यक्तिपरं वा स्यात्। प्रसिद्धप्रस्थानातिरेकिणःशब्दार्थोपनिबन्धनवैचित्र्यस्यप्रकारान्तरासम्भवात्। तत्र आद्यस्तावत् पक्षः न शङ्कनीय एव। तस्य काव्यस्वरूपनिरूपणसामर्थ्यसिद्धस्य पृथगुपादानवैयर्थ्यात्। विभावाद्युपनिबन्ध एव हि कविव्यापारः, नापरः। ते च यथाशास्त्रम् उपनिबध्यमानाः रसाभिव्यक्तेः निबन्धनभावं भजन्ते, नान्यथा।रसात्मकं च काव्यमिति कुतस्तत्र अनौचित्यसंस्पर्शः संभाव्यतेयन्निरासार्थं काव्यलक्षणमाचक्षीरन् विचक्षणमन्याः।
V. V. I. p.28.
On the point of Rasa and the Aucitya of every element of expression to this Rasa, Mahimā is completely in agreement with Ānandavardhana. Ānandavardhana says that if there is one word which is Nīrasa, devoid of Rasa, it is the greatest literary flaw, the Apaśabda. Similarly all flaws are comprised in one common flaw, viz., hindrance to the realisation of Rasa. All Doṣas are hindrances to Rasa and Mahimācalls them by the common name Anaucitya. He quotes Ānandavardhana’s memorable Kārikā on this subject.
कथञ्चिद्वा भिन्नक्रमतयापि अभिमतार्थसम्वन्धोपकल्पने प्रस्तुतार्थप्रतीतेः विघ्नितत्वात् तन्निवन्धनो रसास्वादोऽपि विघ्नितः स्यात्, शब्ददोषाणाम् अनौचित्योपगमात् तस्य च रसभङ्गहेतुत्वात्। यदाहुः
अनौचित्यादृते नान्यद् रसभङ्गस्य कारणम्।
प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत्परा॥
V. V. I, p. 31.
Certain ideas get certain writers as their brilliant exponents. Thus Sāhitya gets Kuntaka as its first great exponent. To Mahimāfalls the share of expounding two ideas, Svabhāvokti and Doṣas. The most important part of Mahimā’s work is chapter II of his V. V., devoted to a study of five important flaws of expression, on which the classic Kāvya Prakāśa, the model for later compilations, draws for its own Doṣaprakarana to a great extent. These five flaws, and all others also are only the many varieties of Anaucitya which means hindrance to Rasapratīti. For Aucitya of Rasa and Prakṛti is the greatest Guṇa, most essential for Kāvya. The absence of this Aucitya is the greatest Doṣa within which every other Dosa is included. Aucitya and Anaucitya pertain to the content, i.e., Rasa and Artha or Vastu, as well as to the outer garment of the Rasa and Vastu, viz., the expression— Śabda. The former is Ābhyantara or Antaraṅga— internal, while the latter is Bahiranga— external. Even the unsuggestive or inappropriate metre is an Anaucitya, one belonging to the latter category. Among Śabdānaucityas, Mahimā says that five are to be specially noted; they are five Doṣas named Vidheyāvimarśa, Prakrama-bheda, Kramabheda, Paunaruktya and Vācyāvacana.
इह खलु द्विविधमनौचित्यमुक्तम्, अर्थविषयं शब्दविषयं चेति। तत्र विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिणाम् अयथायथं रसेषु यो विनियोगः तन्मात्रलक्षणमेकम् अन्तरङ्गम् आद्यैरेवोक्तमिति नेह प्रतन्यते। अपरं पुनः बहिरङ्गं बहुप्रकार सम्भवति। तद्यथा विधेयाविमर्शः प्रक्रमभेदः, क्रमभेदः, पौनरुक्त्यं, वाच्यावचनं चेति। दुःश्रवत्वमपि वृत्तस्य शब्दानौचित्यमेव,
तस्याप्यनुप्रासादेरिव रसानुगुण्येण प्रवृत्तेरिष्टत्वात्। … …. एतस्य(अनौचित्यस्य) विवक्षितरसादिप्रतीतिविघ्नविधायित्वं नाम सामान्यलक्षणम्। **…**त एते विधेयाविमर्शादियोदोषा इत्युच्यन्ते। II. V. V. p. 37.
Kṣemendra
Kṣemendra was the pupil of Ācārva Abhinavagupta in poetics. Kṣemendra first wrote a work on Poetics called Kavikarṇikā69which is unfortunately lost to us. Perhaps in it he dealt with Rasa and Dhvani. Our sense of its loss is keen because, in his critical writings spared to us we find many a touch of originality. Kṣemendra’s Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa and Suvṛttatilaka have only slight and subsidiary interest for us. It is his Aucitya-vicāracarcāwe are concerned here with, a small work which yet belongs to the class of ‘Prasthāna-works’ like those of Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Vāmana, Ānandavardhana. Kuntaka and Mahimabhaṭṭa. As is plain from the above-gone survey of the concept of Aucitya, Kṣemendra is not the author of Aucitya, but, as in the case of Vakrokti and Kuntaka, Kṣemendra made Aucitya into a system, elaborating that concept and applying it to all parts of the Kāvya. Kṣemendra only worked out Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta in whose system he had his being. Abhinavagupta criticised those critics who glibly talked of Aucitya without reference to Rasa and Dhvani which alone render Aucitya intelligible. Just as Kuntaka’s Vakrokti proceeds only after accepting Rasa as supreme and accepts also Dhvani, so also Kṣemendra’s Aucitya. Kṣemendra first posits Rasa as the soul of poetry, as the thing whose presence makes Kavya; Aucitya is its life— ‘Jīvita’. The term ‘Jīvita’,as can be seen from the two quotations given above, was used
by Abhinavagupta to denote Rasadhvani with Aucitya. Thus Abhinavagupta used both the words ‘Ātman’ and ‘Jīvita’ as interchangeable and as meaning generally the essence— सारभूतोऽर्थः. But Kṣemendra made a subtle distinction between Soul and Life, Rasa theĀtman and Aucitya the Life.^(1)These two metaphorical names and the relation between them in metaphysical speculations point to the fact of the intimate relation between Rasa and Aucitya and of how both come into existence together. Kṣemendra’s attitude to Rasa is thus plainly stated even in the opening:
औचित्यस्य चमत्कारकारिणश्चारुचर्वणे।
रसजीवितभूतस्य विचारं कुरुतेऽधुना॥ ŚI. 3.
It is to explain Rasa, by which Kāvya is already explained, that Ksemendra offers Aucitya. Aucitya is the very life of Rasa, the soul of poetry and this is the natural view of Aucitya in the texts of Ānandavardhana and bhinavagupta. In a verse or in a Kāvya, Aucitya gives Camatkāra, Aucitya which is the life of Rasa. Rasa is the thing to which Aucitya is the greatest relation in which other things exist. He again says:
औचित्यं रससिद्धस्य स्थिरं काव्यस्य जीवितम्।ŚI, 5,
रसेन शृङ्गारादिना सिद्धस्य प्रसिद्धस्य काव्यस्य धातुवादरससिद्धस्येव तज्जीवितं स्थिरमित्यर्थः।p. 115.
_____________________________
1 Jayamaṅgalācārya’s Kaviśiksā(Peterson’s I Report, Last list, App. I, pp. 78-9) calls Aucitya the ‘Jivita’of poetry.
औचित्यं श्लाघ्यते तत्र कविताजीवितोपमम्।
कवयस्तदजानन्तः कथं स्युः कीर्तिभाजनम्॥
Cf. also the Sāhityamīmāmsā (TSS. 114, p. 154) : अत्यन्तं रक्षणीयं स्यादौचित्यं काव्यजीवितम्।
We had observed before that Aucitya is as unintelligible without Dhvani as without Rasa. As a matter of fact it had its greatest exposition at the hands of Ānandavardhana only as a supplementary idea in the system of Rasadhvani; for, to Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, the Soul (Ātman) of poetry is ‘औचित्यवद्रसध्वनिः’and the three are inseparable. But such an explicit mention and acceptance of Dhvani, as of Rasa, are not found in the Au. V. C. But Dhvani is all throughout implied. We had said that the test and proof of Aucitya is Dhvani, the suggestion of Rasa or idea. Showing the propriety of Pada (which is a case of Padadhvani with Ānandavardhana), i.e., Padaucitya in a verse, Kṣemendra says that Aucitya in that word pleases us because that word in particular suggests the state of separation and the consequent suffering, i.e., the Vipralambha Rasa:विरहावस्थासूचकं‘कृशाङ्ग्याः’ इति पदं परममौचित्यं पुष्णाति।Similarly in all instances of all kinds of Aucitya, Kṣemendra must have sufficiently and clearly based his explanations of Aucitya scientifically on the principle of Dhvani. For, it is from Ānandavardhana that the concept of Aucitya took new life.
In most cases, Dhvani, Vakrokti and Aucitya are merely the more specific names for the Camatkāra in a certain point. In his commentary on chapter XV, the opening chapter of the Vācikābhinaya section of the Nāṭyasāstra, Abhinavagupta uses another word for this Camatkāra, viz., Vaicitrya, strikingness or beauty or charm. Bharata gives ten grammatical divisions of words and Abhinavagupta says that everything in poetry, gender, number, name, case etc., has to be ‘vicitra’, wonderful or striking. Having explained the Vaicitrya of all elements of language in poetry, Abhinavagupta reconciles to this Vaicitrya of his the Dhvani of Sup, Ting, Vacana etc., of Ānandavardhana (Ud. III) and the Vakratāof Sup. etc., of others
(Anye) meaning Kuntaka or those of whose ideas Kuntaka is the systematic exponent.^(1)To these can be reconciled Kṣemendra’s Aucitya of Pada, Kriyā, Kāraka, Linga, Vacana, Upasarga, Nipāta etc. Again Suptiṅgdhvanı, Subādivakratā, Subādivaicitrya or Subādyaucitya is the same as some of the ten different kinds of Camatkāra, Camatkāra in Śabda, in Artha etc., given by Kṣemendra in the third section of his Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa. As a matter of fact there is nothing new in Kṣemendra’s Aucitya of Pada etc., except appreciation under a different name of the same points mentioned by Ānandavardhana in Uddyota III of his work under the heads of Dhvani of Pada, Sup. etc., forming the numerous parts of the Vyañjaka. The Au. V. C. is vastly indebted to the third chapter of the Dhva. Ā. On the subject of Rasaucitya alone, while explaining Viruddha rasa samāveśa, combining of two contradictory sentiments, Kṣemendra quotes Ānandavardhana’s verse on the subject. (p. 134. Au.V. C.) Except for this one quotation, it must be stated that in this tract of his which only works out Ānandavardhana’s ideas, Kṣemendra has not paid adequate homage to Ānandavardhana. He grows eloquent on Aucitya in the opening but strangely does not even quote the famous verseof Ānandavardhana, अनौचित्यादृते नान्यत् etc.
Kṣemendra has elaborated and pointed out some more principles of Aucitya in the wider sphere of thought— Artha and Arthasandarbha. Most of the things in this class like Aucityas of Deśa, Kāla, Vrata, Tattva, Sattva, Svabhāva, Sārasaṅgraha and Avasthā are comprehended in Prakṛtyaucitya and in the absence of the flaw of Loka-āgama-virodha,
_________________________________
1 Vide p. 367, Vol. II, chap. xiv. Abhı. Bhā. Mad. MS. Vide also my article on Writers Quoted in the Abhi. Bhā, in the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III, p. 221. See also above, this same chapter on this point.
which is pointed out by all writers from Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, which is part of Aucitya, and can be said to be generally included in Prakṛtyaucitya itself which is as old as Bharata or can be separately called as Lokasvabhāuaucitya. The Pratibhāucitya given by Kṣemendra concerns with the minor ‘fancies’ and not with poetic imagination or genius as a whole. Similarly innumerable items of Aucitya can be elaborated and so does Ksemendra say in the end : ‘अन्येषु काव्याङ्गेषुअनयैव दिशा स्वयमौचित्यम् उत्प्रेक्षणीयम्। तदुदाहरणान्यानन्त्यात् न प्रदर्शितानीत्यलमतिप्रसङ्गेन।’p. 60. As for instance, the propriety of metre, Vṛttaucitya, is an interesting study. Bharata has spoken of it in his chapters on Vṛttas and Dhruvās, xvi and xxxii. Abhinavagupta quotes in his Abhi. Bhā. Kātyāyana, an old writer on metres, on the appropriateness of certain metres to certain subjects, moods and situations.
वीरस्य भुजदण्डानां वर्णने स्रग्धरा भवेत्।etc.70
Kṣemendra reserves this subject for special treatment in his Suvṛttatilaka. (Vinyāsa ii. Śls. 7-16).
काव्ये रसानुसारेण वर्णनानुगुणेन च।
कुर्वीत सर्ववृत्तानां विनियोगं विभागवित्॥
. . . . . . . . .
वृत्तरत्नावली कामाद् अस्थाने विनिवेशिता।
कथयत्यज्ञतामेव मेखलेव गले कृता॥ etc.
Kṣemendra then goes to explain with illustrations what situations and subjects should be depicted in what metres. Though there is bound to be a large amount of subjectivism
and impressionism in this study, though, even as regards the question of relation of Rāgas and Rasas in music, in this enquiry also, it may be that one same metre has many emotional significances, there is some truth in some principles of Vṛttaucitya like the association of long metres like Sragdharā with descriptions of war.Vīra, Raudra and Bībhatsa Rasas and the use of Anuṣṭubhs for narration, brief summing up and pointed speech.
The concept of Aucitya was born as a supplement to Rasa and Dhvanı and is so developed by Kṣemendra, though it must be stated that the latter, Dhvani, is not specifically spoken of by him. From the verses in the beginning which state the doctrine of Aucitya in general, it is plain, that like Rasa and Dhvani, Aucitya came in as a severe criticism of a merely physical or ‘materialistic’or a jeweller’s philosophy of poetry which made much only of Alaṅkāras and Guṇas. This is true not of the critical literature of Kṣemendra’s time; for Rasa had been established firmly as the soul of poetry in poetics and the discussion yet going on was only on the process of the realisation of that Rasa, whether it was Dhvanı, Anumāna, Bhāvanā and Bhōga or Tātparya and so on. But it is true of literary practice, of what the poets themselves were doing. Kṣemendra’s Aucitya is another and final criticism of Alaṅkāras.
काव्यस्यालमलङ्कारैः किं मिथ्यागणितैर्गुणः।
यस्य जीवितमौचित्यं विचिन्त्यापि न दृश्यते॥
अलङ्करास्त्वलङ्काराः गुणा एव गुणास्सदा।
औचित्यं रससिद्धस्य स्थिरं काव्यस्य जीवितम्॥ Śls. 4-5.
उचितस्थानविन्यासादलङ्कृतिरलङ्कृतिः।
औचित्यादच्युता नित्यं भवन्त्येव गुणा गुणाः॥ Śl. 6.
अलङ्कृतिरुचितस्थानविन्यासादालङ्कर्तुंक्षमा भवति. अन्यथा त्वलङ्कृतिव्यपदेशमेव न लभते। तद्वदौचित्यादपरिच्युता गुणाः गुणतामासादयन्ति, अन्यथा पुनरगुणा एव।p. 116.
An illustrative verse (which elaborates, as pointed out at the beginning of this paper, a verse on the same subject in Bharata) is also cited by Kṣemendra:
कण्ठे मेखलया, नितम्बफलके तारेण हारेणवा
पाणौ नूपुरबन्धनेन, चरणे केयूरपाशेन वा।
शौर्येण प्रणते, रिपौ करुणया, नायन्ति के हास्यताम्
औचित्येन विना रुचिं प्रतनुते नालङ्कृतिर्नो गुणाः॥
Bharata xxiii. 64 :
अदेशजो हि वेषस्तु न शोभां जनयिष्यति।
मेखलोरसिबन्धे च हास्यायैवोपचायते॥
Bharata says this in respect of music also where the alaṅkāras of music must be utilized only according to Rasa.
एभिरलङ्कर्तव्या गीतिर्वर्णाविरोधेन।
स्थाने चालङ्कारं कुर्यात् न ह्युरसि काञ्चिकां वध्येत्॥
N. Ś. xxxix, 73-4, p. 335-6 Kasi edn.
Thus well has it been said by Ānandavardhana that Aucitya is the greatest secret of Rasa and Anaucitya, the greatest enemy.
The Agni purāṇa
The section on Poetics in the Agṇi purāṇa contains little by way of any development of the concept of Aucitya : but it is also noticed here because it shows some ingenious and original reshuffling of concepts and gives this concept of Aucitya as an Alaṅkāra of both Śabda and Artha, an Ubhayālaṅkāra. 345/2 and 5.
प्रशस्तिः कान्तिरौचित्यं संक्षेपो यावदर्थता।
अभिव्यक्तिरिति व्यक्तं षड्भेदास्तस्य जाग्रति॥
यथा वस्तु तथा रीतिः य(त)था वृत्तिः त(य)था रसः।
ऊर्ज्जस्विमृदुसन्दर्भादौचित्यमुपजायते॥
“Rīti in accordance with theme and Vṛtti in accordance with Rasa; expression, forceful or soft (as occasion demands)— thus is Aucitya engendered.”
Prakāśavarṣa
The unpublished Rasārṇavālankāra (Mad, MS.) of Prakāśavarṣa is somewhat important. It is another work which speaks of Aucitya as a whole as an Alaṅkāra, but differs from the Agni purāṇa in holding it as a Śabdālankāra.
श्लेषश्चित्रं तथौचित्यं प्रश्नोत्तरप्रहेलिका।
. . . . . .
शब्दालङ्कृतयः स्पष्टमष्टादश मनीषिभिः॥
p. 16. Mad. MS.
Some valuable ideas on Aucitya are also given by Prakāśavarṣa. He defines Aucitya as the spirit of mutual help between sound and sense, between word and idea, Śabda and Artha, and as an element which makes poetry great. He adds that to Sahṛdayas, Anaucitya is the greatest offence.
उपकार्योपकारत्वं यत्र शब्दार्थयोर्भवेत्।
उत्कर्षाधायकं . . . ौः(प्राज्ञैः) औचित्यं तत्प्रकीर्तितम्॥
. . . . . . . .
अनौचित्यात् किमन्योऽस्ति तिरस्कारस्सचेतसाम्॥
Prakāśavarṣa gives a new twofold classification of Aucitya but does not explain the varieties further. He says that others have said enough on this subject71.
Anaucitya and Hāsya
There is one more point to be considered before closing this account of Aucitya. Bharata has said72 that Hāsya Rasa or the sentiment of laughter is produced by Anukṛti and Ābhāsa. It has been pointed out above that Abhinavagupta remarks in his Locana that Anaucitya is at the root of Ābhāsa, as in the case of the Śṛṅgārābhāsa of Rāvaṇa for Sīta. We can only laugh at it. So it is that Laulya, which is proposed as a Rasa by some, is made by Abhinavagupta an accessory in Hāsya Rasa73.In the Abhinava bhāratī on the text of Bharata which explains the origin of Hāsya Rasa, Abhinavagupta discusses what constitutes the basis of the comic and points out that Anaucitya is at the root of the comic74 will be published”).Aucitya is Rasa and Anaucitya is Rasābhāsa and Hāsya Rasa. The illustrative verse quoted by Kṣemendra gives a series of Anaucitya and concludes‘नायान्ति के हास्यताम्’. Surely one with a girdle round the neck and a necklace at the foot will be laughed at. So it is that Bharata also says:
मेखलोरसि बन्धे च हास्यायैवोपजायते। xxii, 69.
This takes us to another aspect of poetry and of Aucitya. In poetry of Rasa, Aucitya is the very life, Jīvita; but in
comic writing, the very life of its Rasa, i.e., Rasābhāsa or Hāsya Rasa, is Anaucitya. Anaucitya is the secret of comic writing. We can well say:
चार्वनौचित्यमेवैका हास्यस्योपनिषत्परा।
अनौचित्यं रसाभासकाव्यस्य स्थिरजीवितम्॥
It is only with various forms of Anaucitya that Hāsya can be developed; all Doṣas of speech and thought occur in Śakāra and we have already pointed out above how Nyūnopamāand Adhikopamā are the secrets of satire and parody. Inappropriateness is at the root of all varieties of the ridiculous and the laughable, and this has been shown by Abhinavagupta in his Abhi. Bhā. :
अनौचित्यप्रवृत्तिकृतमेव हि हास्यविभावत्वम्।
p. 297. Gaek. edn.
Thus Anaucitya is the Aucitya in Hāsya Rasa. This Aucitya is that aspect called ‘adaptation’ by virtue of which, flaws become excellences, by change of circumstances. The incoherent and the inappropriate themselves become appropriate. Just as Śrutidusṣṭa, a flaw in Sṛṅgāra, is a great Guṇa in Raudra and this adaptation is one Aucitya, so also Anaucitya which spoils all Rasas, and is the greatest Rasadosa, is the greatest Rasaguṇa in Hāsya. This is of course said of the fundamental basis, the root cause, Vibhāva, of Hāsya Rasa and of those conditions of inappropriateness, oddities and ludicrousness which are the stuff of which Hāsya is made. And in the delineation of this Anaucitya itself producing Hāsya, in expression and in all other parts, principles of internal Aucitya have to be observed. There are two old verses on this subject of how Anaucitya becomes Aucitya,
of how Doṣas become Guṇas and of how adaptation and appropriateness are the only rule.
सामान्यसुन्दरीणां विभ्रममावहत्यविनय एव।
धूम एवं प्रज्वलिनानां मधुरोभवति सुरभिदारुणाम॥
(Chāyāof a Prakṛt Gâthā).
अन्यदा भूषणं पुंसः क्षमा लज्जैव योषिताम्।
पराक्रमः परिभवे वैयात्यं सुरतेष्विव॥
Māgha. Ś. V. II, 44.
It is all some kind of relativity in the realm of poetry. There is no absolute Guṇa and Doṣa but only Ucita and Anucita; and the poet takes up even Anaucitya to make Aucitya out of it. The poet’s attitude is as free and open in this respect as in respect of the question of morality in poetry.
It is this Aucitya which Robert Bridges speaks of in his essay on Poetic Diction under the name ‘Keeping’, a concept borrowed from Painting and which he describes as the ‘harmonising of medium ‘. The following line of his explains his idea further: ‘But in Aesthetic no Property is absurd if it is in keeping’. Bridges speaks here of absurdity (Doṣa) ceasing to be so and becoming a Guṇa (Vaiśesika) because of Aucitya (keeping).
Conclusion
Three doctrines form the great and noteworthy contributions of Sanskrit Alaṅkāra Literature to the world’s literature on Literary Criticism. They are Rasa, Dhvani and Aucitya75.Aucitya is a very large principle within whose orbit comes everything else. The Aucitya-rule of criticism is obeyed by all others, including Rasa.
Mahāmahopādhyāya Professor S. Kuppuswami Sastriar puts the whole evolution of Skr. Poetics from Alaṅkāra to Aucitya in a Kārikā and illustrates it with a graph. Within the big circle of Kṣemendra’s Aucitya, there are three viewpoints in the shape of a triangle. The topmost point of the triangle is the undisputed Rasa of Bharata, which Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta accept as the ‘Soul’ of poetry and which critics of Dhvani like Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka and Mahimabhaṭṭa and other theorists like Kuntaka accept. Lower down, the two points of the triangle are the two prominent theories, opposed to each other, regarding the process of realising Rasa, viz., the Dhvani of Ānandavardhana and the Anumiti of Mahimabhaṭṭa. Anumiti is mentioned only as ‘upalakṣaṇa’ and it stands for other anti-dhvani theories also, like the Bhāvanā and Bhoga of Bhatta Nāyaka, Tātparya etc. Within this triangle is a smaller circle named after the Vakrokti of Kuntaka. This circle again contains a triangle within it, the topmost point of which is Vāmana’s Rīti, a concept decidedly supcrior to and more comprehensive than the two lower points called Guṇa and Alaṅkāra of Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha. Beginning with Alankāra, the theories get superior or more comprehensive one by one. The Alaṅkāra-guṇa-rīti modes of criticism deal with diction and style in the lower sense of the terms and are classed under one bigger current of the study of form culminating in the comprehensive Vakrokti-circle of Kuntaka, which is also an approach to poetry from the formal side. The next, the bigger triangle begins the current of the study of the content, of the inner essence of poetry, viz., Rasa and the process, the technique by which the poet delineates it and the Sahṛdaya gets it. All these are comprehended in the outermost circle of Aucitya which pertains to Rasa and everything else in
Kāvya. All the other theories only run at the back of Aucitya which leads the van. If there is a harmony or a beauty as such, innate in every part of a great poetry, it is this Auciti.
The Kārikā and the graph explained above are given below:
“औचितीमनुधाबन्ति सर्वे ध्वनिरसोन्नयाः।
गुणालङ्कृतिरीतीनां नयाश्चानृजुवाङ्मयाः॥”
<MISSING_FIG href=”../books_images/U-IMG-1703689933gol.PNG”/>
Mm. Prof. S. Kuppuswāmi Śāstriar
THE EVOLUTION OF THE NAMES OF
SANSKRIT POETICS
AND KRIYĀ-KALPA
A PRE-BHĀMAHA NAME OF THE ALAṄKĀRA ŚĀSTRA
It will not be a surprise if on examining the history of the several names of a branch of knowledge in its long course through the centuries, one finds that it is not always the survival of the best that is the rule in the realm of nomenclatural evolution. This is borne out by an examination of the names of the subject of Sanskrit Poetics also which is called Alaṅkāra Śāstra, not because of the absolute appropriateness of that name. The name of the concept of Alaṅkāra stuck to the whole subject even though the concept itself got dethroned after a time.
In English the subject called Literary Criticism has the old name Poetics or the Study of Poetry and we have Aristotle’s work on the subject called Poetics. In Sanskrit, the most common name for the subject and as a matter of fact, the only name which finally stood, is Alaṅkāra Śāstra. Sometimes we have in its place the name Sāhitya Vidyā.“पञ्चमी साहित्यविद्या इति यायावरीयः”says Rājaśekhara. (K. M. p. 4). The name Sāhitya is very much later than the name Alaṅkāra. It was evidently born out of Grammar and it slowly
came to denote poetry itself upon the basis of Bhāmaha’s definition of poetry76 :
शब्दार्थौसहितौ काव्यम्। I, 16. K. A.
Sāhitya was gaining som importance after the time of Ānandavardhana. It was taken up by two prominent writers who came immediately after Abhinavagupta, namely, Bhoja and Kuntaka. Sometime afterwards, we had the first regular work on Poetics which took the name Sāhitya, namely, the Sāhitya Mīmāmsāof Ruyyaka. After this, the word was in greater use and in later Alaṅkāra literature one of the most important works had this name, namely, the Sāhityadarpaṇa of Viśvanātha. Whenever accomplishments of men of taste were referred to, the word Sāhitya was always used along with Sāṅgīta. Though not as old as Alaṅkāra, Sāhitya is the only name of Sanskrit poetics, which became as common as Alaṅkāra.
Sāhitya means the poetic harmony, the beautiful mutual appropriateness, the perfect mutual understanding, of Śabda and Artha. The concept is of great significance and I have dealt with it and its history in a chapter in my book ‘Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa. Compared with Sāhitya, the name Alaṅkāra is of less poetic worth. It is a reminder of that stage in the history of Sanskrit Poetics when the concept of Alaṅkāra was sitting high on the throne of poetic expression. The Alaṅkāra-age of Sanskrit Poetics is much older than Bhāmaha and lived up to the time of Udbhaṭa, Vāmana and Rudraṭa. Its last great votaries were Bhoja and Kuntaka. Bhāmaha’s work is called Kāvyālaṅkāra; Udbhaṭa, who commented upon Bhāmaha, names his independent work on the subject as Kāvyālaṅkāra-sārasaṅgraha; Vāmana and Rudraṭa only follow and name
their works also as Kāvyālaṅkāra. Though Daṇḍin seems to be an exception, he only proves the rule; for, though he calls his work Kāvyādarśa or Mirror of Poetry, he is the writer who pays the greatest tribute to Alaṅkāra. These ancients, the Alaṅkāra-vādins, took Alaṅkāra as the beautiful expression and as the distinguishing mark of poetry, and considered even the Rasas as only subserving this beauty of expression. Bhoja ardently walks behind Daṇḍin and in his stupendous Śṛṅgāraprakāśa, erects a new and huge throne for Alaṅkāra. Guṇas Alaṅkāras, Rītis, Vṛttis, Sandhis, Laksaṇas, Rasas, Language, Metre, Form of composition, namely, epic, drama etc.,— why, everything is Alaṅkāra to Bhoja.77The Alaṅkāra-age of Sanskrit Poetics which can roughly be marked off as ending with Rudraṭa, is also a very significant period in the history of Sanskrit Poetics. For, it is the analysis of the Alaṅkāras that led to the rise of Vakrokti and in another direction through such Alaṅkāras as Dīpaka, Samāsokti, Paryāyokta containing a suggested element, gave rise to the concept of suggestion, Dhvani. Vakrokti is a continuation of Alaṅkāra; its greatest exponent, Kuntaka, describes his work, the Vakrokti Jīvita as Kāvyalaṅkāra.
काव्यस्यायमलङ्कारः कोऽप्यपूर्वोविधीयते। 1.2.
ग्रन्थस्यास्य अलङ्कार इत्यभिधानम्। Vṛtti. p. 3.
V. J., De’s Edn.
It is as a result of the importance of this Alaṅkāra-stage of Sanskrit Poetics that the whole system got itself named after one of the several elements of poetry, Alaṅkāra. Says Kumārasvāmin :
यद्यपि रसालङ्काराद्यनेकविषयमिदं शास्त्रं तथापि च्छत्रिन्यायेन अलङ्कारशास्त्रमुच्यते।
p. 3, Ratnāpaṇa on the Pratāparudrīya; Bālamanoramā Edn.
At the hands of Vāmana, Alaṅkāra gained greater proportions; it expanded and attained greater significance and beauty. It came to him from Daṇḍin and when he turned that stone of Alaṅkāra handed to him, he found it flashing diverse hues. He realized that it meant Beauty. It had come to mean not only the small graces of the Śabdālaṅkāras and the figures of speech called Arthālaṅkāras but also the absence of all flaws and the presence of all excellences, in fact the sum-total of the beauty of poetic utterance as such, distinguished from other utter-ances. To Vāmana, Alaṅkāra was Beauty, Saundarya.
For the nonce, it seems as if Poetics has got a new and comprehensive name, Saundarya Śāstra. The word ‘Sundara’, the Beautiful, baffles analysis. We have to resign to the magic of the poet’s genus ultimately, to what Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka and Kuntaka would call Kavivyāpāra. Sundara and Saundarya are words which Abhinavagupta uses very often in his descriptions of poetry in the Locana on the Dhvanyāloka. The synonym Cāru (चारु) is also used by Ānandavardhana.
-
शब्दगताःचारुत्वहेतवः P. 5 Ānandavardhana. कामनीयकं and चारुत्वहेतु p. 8 Ānandavardhana. काव्यस्य हि ललितोचितसन्निवेशचारुणःp. 13 Ānandavardhana. विविधविशिष्टवाच्यवाचकरचनाप्रपञ्चचारुणःp. 27 Ānandavardhana.
-
प्रतिभा अपूर्ववस्तुनिर्माणक्षमा प्रज्ञा।तस्या विशेषो रसावेशबैशद्यसौन्दर्यकाव्यनिर्माणक्षमत्वम्।Abhinavagupta, Locana, p. 29.
न हि त्वया रिपवो हता इति यादृगनलङ्कृतोऽयं वाक्यार्थः तादृगयम्; अपि तु सुन्दरीभूतः। Ibid. p. 72.
Beauty is the primary factor and in its absence neither Alaṅkāra nor Dhvani can have any claim to be called such or make for poetry.
तथाजातीयानामिति। चारुत्वातिशयवताम् इत्यर्थः। सुलक्षिता इति यत्किलैषां तद्विनिर्मुक्तं रूपम्, न तत् काव्येऽभ्यर्थनीयम्। उपमा हि ‘यथा गौः तथा गवयः’इति। (रूपकम्) ‘गौःवाहीकः’इति। श्लेषः‘द्विर्वचनेऽचि’इति तन्त्रात्मकः। … … एवमन्यत्। न चैवमादि काव्योपयोगीति।Abhinavagupta, Locana, p. 210.
This is said of Alaṅkāra by Abhinavagupta and the point is stressed by Bhoja also in his Śṛngāraprakāsa (Chap. XI, p. 371, Vol. II, Madras MS.), where he says that the statement धूमोऽयमग्नेः cannot be considered any Alaṅkāra, because it is devoid of the primary characteristic common to all Alaṅkāras (Alaṅkāra-sāmānya-lakṣaṇa), namely, Śobhã, which is Beauty. Such a significant interpretation, Bhoja gives to Daṇḍin’s description of Alaṅkāra, काव्यशोभाकरान् धर्मान् अलङ्कारान् प्रचक्षते। The point is further stressed in a well-known passage byAppayya Dīkṣita in his Citra mīmāṁsā.
सर्वोऽपि ह्यलङ्कारः कविसमयप्रसिद्धयनुरोधेन हृद्यतया काव्यशोभाकर एव अलङ्कारतां भजते। अतः ‘गोसदृशः गवयः’इति नोपमा।
p. 6. N. S. Edn.
The same condition of the necessity of beauty applies to Dhvani also. It is not enough if one tries to point out in a case the existence of some technical Dhvani. Even Dhvani has to be beautiful,
गुणालङ्कारौचित्यसुन्दरशब्दार्थशरीरस्य सति ध्वननात्मनि आत्मनि काव्यरूपताव्यवहारः।Locana, p. 17.
Commenting on Ānandavardhana’s
विविधविशिष्टवाच्यवाचकरचनाप्रपञ्चचारुणःकाव्यस्य
etc., (p. 27, Dhva. Ā.)
Abhinavagupta says:
तेन सर्वत्रापि न ध्वननसद्भावेऽपि तथा व्यवहारः
etc., Locana, p. 28.
Therefore the poetic beauty the real soul of poetic expression. Abhinavagupta accepts that Beauty is the essence, the soul of the art.
यच्चोक्तम्— ‘चारुत्वप्रतीतिस्तर्हि काव्यस्य आत्मा स्यात्’ इति, तदङ्गीकुर्म एव। नास्ति स्वल्वयं विवाद इति।
p.33, Locana.
It is this Beauty that is otherwise called Camatkāra on which word Viśveśvara, the author of the Camatkāracandrikā, takes his stand. The words Vicchitti, Vaicitrya, and even the word Vakratā finally mean only Beauty. It is the same, the beautiful in poetry, that is meant by the Ramaṇīya in Jagannātha’s definition of poetry. From this point of view, it seems that there was good chance for a new name for Poetics, namely Saundarya Śāstra, but it did not come up. The name Saundarya Śāstra would correspond to the western name Aesthetics. In the western literature on the subject, the words, the Beautiful and the Sublime, are met with. There are the works such as that of Longinus on the Sublime. One whole chapter, in his work, ‘What is Art ?’, is devoted by Tolstoy to an examination of the works on Beauty. But the study of Beauty and Sublimity, Aesthetics or Saundarya Śāstra, does not strictly mean Poetics but embraces the critical appreciation of all Fine Arts, including sculpture, painting and music.
In Uddyota I and elsewhere, Ānandavardhana refers to writers on Poetics as Kāvya-lakṣaṇa-kārīns, for, those who wrote on poetry did so with the idea of defining Poetry. (Dhva. Ā. pp. 8, 10, etc.) And Kāvya-lakṣaṇa can also be taken as a general appellation applied to Poetics in the days of the reign of Alaṅkāra and even earlier. Bhāmaha, who opens his work with the words—
काव्यालङ्कार इत्येष यथाबुद्धि विधीयते।
closes it thus with the name Kāvya-lakṣaṇa:
अवगम्य स्वधिया च काव्यलक्ष्म।
Daṇḍin proposes in 1. 2 of his work to write Kāvya-lakṣaṇa:
यथासामर्थ्यमस्माभिः क्रियते काव्यलक्षणम्।
All these names, Kāvya-lakṣaṇa, Alaṅkāra and Sāhitya, are however later names. Before Bhāmaha and before the names Alaṅkāra and the much less definite Kāvya-lakṣaṇa came into vogue, what was the name of the subject of Sanskrit Poetics?
It is the list of the sixty-four arts-CatuṣṣaṣṭiKalāḥ-given by Vātsyāyana in his Kāmasūtras that gives out the first glimmer in this connection. After mentioning ‘the composing of poetry‘—Kāvya kriyā— and two of the subjects helpful to that purpose namely, Lexicon (Abhidhāna kośa) and Prosody (Chandojñāna), Vātsyāyana gives a subject called KRIYĀ-KALPA. (I. iii. 16, p. 32.) What does this Kriyā-kalpa mean? Coming close upon composing of poetry, Lexicon and Prosody, it is very likely that Kriyā-kalpa
a subject related to literature and poetry. A reference to the Jayamaṅgalā upon this reveals to us that Kriyā-kalpa means Poetics or Alaṅkāra Śāstra. क्रियाकल्प इति काव्यकरणविधिः, काव्यलङ्कार इत्यर्थः। त्रितयमपि (i.e. Abhidhāna, Chandas and Alaṅkāra) काव्यक्रियाङ्ग, परकाव्यावबोधार्थं च। p. 39. To explain, Kriyā-kalpa must be expanded into Kāvya-kriyākalpa, a practical treatise showing the way to compose poems.
The name Kriyā-kalpa consists of the two words— Kriyā meaning kāvya-kriyāand Kalpa meaning vidhi. Kriyā-kalpa is the correct word. Śrīdhara’s commentary on the Bhāgavata reads it wrongly as Kriyā-vikalpa and that wrong form is given in the list of sixty-four kalās in the Śabdakalpadruma and the Vācaspatya, both of which reproduce from Śrīdhara. Relying on this reading, Mr. P. K. Acharya, in an article on Fine Arts in the Indian Historical Quarterly. (Vol. V, p. 206), says that Kriyāvikalpa is the art of “derivation and conjugation of verbs in various ways” and that “it refers to grammar and poetics as Yaśodhara says “! If the reading Kriyā-vikalpa is taken as correct and is interpreted as verbs and their derivation and conjugation, where does Poetics come in? And nobody says that it refers to grammar.
The Lalita vistara’s list of Kalās mentions this Kriyākalpa. See p. 156, Lefmann’s Edn.
Daṇḍin says in his Kāvyādarsa, I. 9:
वाचां विचित्रमार्गाणां निबबन्धुः क्रियाविधिम्।
Here he refers to his predecessors who wrote Kriyā-vidhi. Vidhi simply means kalpa and here there is an indirect
reference to the name Kriyā-kalpa, which Vātsyāyana has acquainted us with. Taruṇavācaspati explains Daṇḍin’s Kriyāvidhi as Racanā-prakāra and the Hṛdayaṁgamā, as Kriyāvidhana which mean the same as the Kāvya-karaṇa-vidhi of the Jayamaṅgalā.
In a list of the sixty-four Kalās attributed to Bhāmaha and quoted on p. 29 of Tippabhūpāla’s Kāmadhenu on Vāmana’s K. A. S. and Vṛ., which list closely agrees with that of Vatsyāyana, we have in the place of Kriyā-kalpa, the word Kāvya-lakṣaṇa. This again proves that Kriyā-kalpa is the correct word and that it is an old name for the Alankāra Śaśtra.
Lastly, we find Kriyā-kalpa mentioned in the Uttarakāṇḍa of the Rāmāyana, along with many other arts and branches of knowledge. Though much of the present Uttarakāṇḍa may be later accretion, it may be that the cantos on the banishment of Sita and the recitation of the epic by her two sons are genuine or at least older parts of the epic. Their superior literary merit easily separates and marks them off, In canto 94, (verses 4 to 10), Vālmīki describes the assembling of Rāma and other men of learning in Rāma’s court to hear the two boys recite the epic of Vālmīki. Among the learned men who gathered on that occasion are mentioned पण्डिताः, नैगमाः, पौराणिकाः, शब्दविदः (Grammarians), स्वरलक्षणज्ञाः, गान्धर्वाः कलामात्राविभागज्ञाः(all the three referring to musicians ), पादाक्षरसमासज्ञाः, छन्दसि परिनिष्ठिताः(those well-versed in Grammar and Prosody) and then we find the line—
क्रियाकल्पविदश्चैव तथा काव्यविदो जनान्।ŚI.7.
When Grammar and Prosody have been mentioned, surely Poetics is the only subject waiting to be mentioned and who
else than one who is learned in Poetics deserves a seat in a gathering assembled to hear a poem?
Thus, from Daṇḍin in a way, and from Vātsyāyana and the Rāmāyaṇa in a clear manner, we come to know that, in its early stages, the Alaṅkāra Śāstra was called KRIYĀ-KALPA.¹
_______________________________
1 The semantics of the word “Kriyā” is interesting to study in this connection. It means among many things “a literary composition” and Apte’s Dictionary gives here apt quotations from Kālidāsa himself.
शृणुत मनोभिरवहितैः क्रियामिमां कालिदासस्य। Vik. I, 3.
कालिदासस्य क्रियायां बहुमानः।Mālāvikāgnimitra.
Kriyāthus means Kāvya and Kriyā kalpa is Kavya kalpa. It is remarkable how the English language also has the synonym ofKriyā,“Work”, used in the sense of a literary composition”.
(“Krti” in South Indian music vocabulary means a music composition),
CAMATKĀRA
At first, works on Poetics approached from the stand-point of Alaṅkāra and were invariably named also Kāvyālaṅkāra. Then, with the rise of Rasa and Dhvani, works on Poetics approached the subject from the ‘Ātman’ of poetry, namely Rasa-Dhvani. Then came Bhoja, whose work, the Śṛṅgāra prakāśa, among the many points which it emphasised, emphasised the concept of Sāhitya also, which together with the brilliant exposition of that concept in Kuntaka’s Vakrokti Jīvita, gave rise to a new kind of aproach for a Poetics-treatise in the works called Sāhitya mīmāmsā.^(1) Another approach is that of Camatkāra, the literary delight which comprehends all the poetical elements from Guṇa and Śabdālaṅkāra to Rasa and Dhvani. It is clear that when we read poetry, we have a certain enjoyment; this enjoyment may be due in one place to a sound effect, to a striking idea in another, and to the emotional movement in still another; but it is all the same one relish.
It is a striking coincidence that, like the concept of Rasa, the concept of Camatkāra also came into the Alaṅkāra Śāstra from the Pāka śāstra. Its early semantic history is indistinct and dictionaries record only the later meanings, the chief of
________________________________
1 One Sāhitya mimāmsā is the work of Ruyyaka mentioned in his Alaṅkāra sarvasva, but this work has not yet come to light. MSS. of another Sāhitya mīmāmsā are available in the Tanjore, Madras and Trivandrum MSS. Libraries; and this work has also been edited in a highly defective manner in the TSS. I have dealt with this work and the concept of Sāhitya in a separate chapter in my thesis on the Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa.
which are ‘astonishment’and ‘poetic relish’. In appears to me that originally the word Camatkāra was an onomatopoeic word referring to the clicking sound we make with our tongue when we taste something snappy, and in the course of its semantic enlargements, Camatkāra came to mean a sudden fillip relating to any feeling of a pleasurable type. Nārā-yaṇa, an ancestor of the author of the Sāhitya darpana, interpreted Camatkāra as an expansion of the heart, Citta vistāra, and held all kinds of Rasa-realisation to be of the nature of this Camatkāra or Citta vistãra, of which the best example was the Adbhuta rasa. But as a general and all comprehensive name for literary relish, the word Camatkāra occurs even in the Dhvanyāloka (p. 144, N. S. edn.). In the same sense, the word occurs about fourteen times in the Locana of Abhinavagupta (pp. 37, 63, 65, 69, 72, 79, 113, 137 and 138). From the reference on p. 63 we understand that Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka also used the word in the same sense. On p. 65, Abhinavagupta describes Rasa to be of the nature of Camatkāra. Kuntaka uses the word in the same sense. The Agni purāṇa equates the Caitanya of the Ātman, Camatkāra and Rasa.(Ch. 339, S’I. 2).
Abhinavagupta’s pupil Kṣemendra, whose brain went on many a refreshing and original line, made an approach to poetry through this Camatkāra in one of his small but interesting works, the Kavikanṭhābharaṇa. The third Sandhi of this work is called Camatkāra kathana and here, Kṣemendra analyses the points of Camatkāra in a poem into ten.
तत्र दशविधश्चमत्कारः—अविचारितरमणीयः, विचारितरमणीयः, समस्तसूक्तव्यापी, सूक्तैकदेशदृश्यः, शब्दगतः, अर्धगतः, शब्दार्थगतः, अलङ्कारगतः, रसगतः, प्रख्यातवृत्तिगतश्च।
K. K. Ā. Kāvyamālā Gucchaka IV.P. 129
But the first regular Poetics-treatise to make the Camat-kāra-approach is the Camatkāra candrikāof Viśveśvara, protege of Simhabhūpāla (c. 1330 A.D.)¹. This work opens with the statement that Camatkāra is the Sahṛdaya’s delight on reading a poem and that the ‘Ālambanas’ of this Camatkāra in a poem are seven, viz., Guṇa, Rīti, Vṛtti, Pāka, Śayyā, Alañkāra and Rasa.
चमत्कारस्तु विदुषामानन्दपरिवाहकृत्।
गुणं रीतिं रसं वृत्तिं पाकं शय्यामलङ्कृतिम्।
सप्तैतानि चमत्कारकारणं ब्रुवते बुधाः॥
India Office MS. No. 396678.
Viśveśvara classifies poetry into three classes on the basis of the nature of the Camatkāra. The three classes are Camatkāri (Śabda citra), Camatkāritara (Artha citra and Guṇibhūta vyaṅgya) and Camatkāritama (Vyaṅgyapradhāna).
In A.D. 1729, Hariprasāda, son of Māthura miśra Gaṅgeśa, wrote his Kāvyāloka (Peterson’s III Report, pp. 356-7) in seven chapters. He solved the problem of poetry in a straight and simple manner by taking his stand on Camatkāra which he called the ‘soul’ (Ātman) of poetry.
विशिष्टशब्दरूपस्य काव्यस्यात्मा चमत्कृतिः।
उत्पत्तिभूमिः प्रतिभा मनागत्रोपपादितम्॥
____________________________________
1 This Viśveśvara must be distinguished from the author of the same name of the Alaṅkāra kaustubha who flourished in the beginning of the 18th cent. The Camatkāra candrikā is not yet published, and on the basis of its MS. in the Madras Govi. Oriental Library, (R. 2679), I published a study of it in the Annals of the BORI, XVI, i-li, pp. 131ff.
It is again on the basis of this Camatkāra that Jagannātha gives his most comprehensive definition of poetry in his Rasa gaṅgādhara. Camatkāra, he says, is the supermundane, artistic delight brought about by the contemplation of Beauty, and poetry is such verbal expression as is the embodiment of an idea conveying such Beauty.
रमणीयार्थप्रदिपादकः शब्दः काव्यम्। रमणीयता च लोकोत्तराह्लादजनकज्ञानगोचरता। लोकोत्तरत्वं चाह्लादगतः चमत्कारापरपर्यायः अनुभवसाक्षिको जातिविशेषः॥
ADDENDA
I
LAKṢAṆAS
SĀGARANANDIN ON LAKṢAṆA
P. 28.— Sāgaranandin, author of the Naṭakalakṣaṇaratnakośa (edn. M. Dillon, Oxford, 1937) speaks of the Lakṣaṇas in two places in his work, first in lines 1464-1729 and then in lines 1734-1852. In the first context, he speaks of these as Lakṣaṇas, gives thirty-six of them and follows the Anuṣṭubh recension. The text enumerating these follows that in the Kāśīedn. of the N. Ś., except for a disorder from verse one, pāda four, to end of verse two. On the function and nature of Lakṣaṇas, Sāgaranandin gives the simile of the Cakravarttın and his Sāmudrika Lakṣaṇas which bespeak his sovereignty, and adds to it a further comparison of the Lakṣaṇas to other good qualities with whose help a king attains to the state of an emperor.
When he begins the enumeration Sāgaranandin says: ‘तान्यमूनि लक्षणानि नामत एवाह भरताचार्यः’a remark which may give rise to the suspicion that, according to him, Bharata’s text originally contained only an enumeration and not definitions also; the definitions which follow in the
Nātakalakṣaṇaratnakośa are the same as those found in the Kāśītext of the N. Ś. For Pṛcchā and Sārūpya, Sāgaranandin notes a second definition with the words ‘अन्यस्त्वाह’.
It is interesting to note that it is while dealing with the first Laksaṇa called Bhūsaṇa, which is defined as “being adorned with plenty of Alaṅkāras and Guṇas”, Sāgaranandin gives his brief treatment of the Alaṅkāras, Svabhāvokti, Upamāna etc., and the ten Guṇas, Ślesa etc. according to Daṇḍin.
In the second context referred to above, lines 1734-1852, Sāgaranandin takes Bharata’s statement‘सालङ्कारं तु नाटकम्’ and says that though Upamã etc. are the generally accepted Alaṅkāras, there are still others which are called Nātakālankāras; and he gives here 33 Nāṭakālaṅkāras, some of which pertain to the Upajāti-list of Lakṣaṇas in Bharata and the rest are found in the lists of Bhoja and Śāradātanaya and in Viśvanātha’s list of Nāṭakālaṅkāras. The Nāṭakālakṣaṇaratnakośa shows that when Viśvanātha gives a separate set of 33 items under the name Nāṭakālaṅkāra, he is following Sāgaranandin or one whom the latter followed or one who followed the latter. As has been pointed out above on p. 32, footnote one, Mātṛgupta is the earliest writer now known to speak of Nāṭyālankāras, in addition to Lakṣaṇas. The next writer now known to do so is Sāgaranandin.
The lists of Nāṭakālaṅkāras in Sāgaranandin and Viśvanātha tally, except in two cases: in the place of Ahaṅkāra and Guṇānuvāda of Sãgaranandin, Viśvanātha has Utprāsana and Upadeśana.
At the end of the illustration of these 33 Nāṭakālaṅkāras, Sāgaranandin says that these are Alaṅkāras which exclusively pertain to the Nāṭaka, i.e., the first type of drama, as its own
Alaṅkāras; but a poet may add to the Nāṭaka other Alaṇkāras also. What are these other Alaṅkāras ? They are 57, the 27 Aṅgas of the Śilpaka, the 10 Aṅgas of Bhāṅa, the 13 of Vīthī, and the 7 of the Bhāṇikā.
एवमस्य नाटकस्य स्वकीयास्त्रयस्त्रिंशदलङ्काराः। अन्येषामप्यङ्गान्येवालंकारत्वेन एतस्य कविभिः कार्याणि। तद्यथा—शिल्पकस्य उत्कण्ठादि सप्तविंशतिरङ्गानि, भाणस्य गेयपदादि दश, वीथिकायाः उद्धात्यकादि त्रयोदश, भाणिकाया विन्यासादि सप्त। एवं सप्तपञ्चाशदप्यङ्गानि नाटकेऽलङ्कारत्वेन कार्याणि।
Sāgaranandin, lines 1852-57.
This places Nāṭakālankāra on a par with Sandhyaṅga, Lāsyāṅga and Vīthyaṅga,— several thematic points which go to form and enrich the composition.
II
SVABHĀVOKTI
Pp. 101-2. – Regarding Dr. De’s observation quoted here that it is Svabhāvokti “ when words are used in the ordinary manner of common parlance, as people without a poetic turn of mind use them “—
it must be pointed out that no Ālaṅkārika gives such a definition of Svabhāvokti. See pp. 93, 96, 103, 106, 111-4, where I have emphasised that Svabhāvokti is not a bald or ordinary statement, but that it has also got to be ‘striking’.
III
RĪTI
A
P. 131-2.— Regarding Bāṇa’s verse on the literary habits distinguishingwriters of the different parts of India,— श्लेषप्रायमुदीच्येषु etc. —
compare Kātyāyana’s remark on the subject of provinces and metres:
‘शार्दूललीला प्राच्येषु मन्दाक्रान्ता च दक्षिणे’।
quoted by Abhinavagupta in his Abhinavabhāratī, GOS, II, p. 246.
B
P. 147-9.— Regarding Rājaśekhara’s high praise of the Vaidarbhi Rīti and his mention of Mādhurya and Prasāda as its essential Guṇas, on which both his Kāvyamīmāmsā and Bālarāmāyaṇa have been quoted by me—
the following may also be quoted on the same subject from Rājaśekhara’s Viddhasālabhañjikā-
अहो हृद्या वैदर्भी रीतिः। अहो माधुर्यमपर्याप्तम्। अहो निष्प्रमादः प्रसादः।
Act I. P. 40. Jīvānanda Vīdyāsāgara’s edn.
IV
AUCITYA
P. 208. Lollaṭa’s verse that Yamaka, Anuloma etc., are undesirable, यमकानुलोम*** * *** गड्डरिकादिप्रवाहो वाII, quoted here—
this is quoted, with mention of Lollata’s name, also by Jayamaṅgalācārya, in his Kaviśikṣā. See Peterson’s I Report, App. I, p. 79. The text is corrupt as printed there.
V
NAMES OF SKT. POETICS
A
P. 260, lines 16-19— On Alaṅkāras containing a suggested element and the evolution therefrom of the concept of Dhvani mentioned here—
see my Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa, Vol. I, pt. 1, pp. 145-7.
B
Pp. 261-3.— On Alaṅkāra and Beauty dealt with here—
sec also above, chapter on Use and Abuse of Alaṅkāra, pp. 50-51 and 90.
INDEX
WORKS AND AUTHORS
SANSKRIT
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
SUBJECT
SANSKRIT
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
| Objective differentia of poetic expression | -priate,endless in Bāņa,favourite of Dākṣiṇātyas |
| Omnipresent in poetry | —Hetūlprekṣā |
| Organic, necessary, structural, irremovable and otherwise | Udātta |
| Proper place and function of | Upamā |
| Result of the poetic activity called Varṇan ā Rules for the proper use of | —Appayya on; Abhi. nava on; Vāmana on; and philosophical teachings; its greatness; its purpose to convey idea better; the basis of numerous other figures; two kınds, emotional and intellectual |
| Should not be an over- growth | Ullekha |
| Should not be emphasised in drama | Aupamya. See Upamā |
| Should not necessitate special effort | Dipaka |
| Skt. Poetics named after | Dṛṣṭānta |
| Thematic points in drama as | Nidarśana |
| Those in the Rāmāyaṇa discussed | Pariṇāma |
| Those in Rudraṭa’s Vāstava set | Rūpaka |
| Use and abuse of | Paryāyokta |
| Use of particular Alaṅk. discussed | Pratişedha |
| Atiśayoktı | Praśamsopamā |
| Atyukti | Preyas |
| loved by Gaudas | Bhāva |
| Anyāpadeśa | BhāvikaSee separately. |
| Anyokti, see Anyāpadeśa | Bhāvikacchavi |
| Aprastutapraśamsā | Bhrāntimān |
| Arthāpatti | Mithyādhyavasāya |
| Āśis | Yathāsankhya, cannot be spontaneous, rejected by Kuntaka |
| Utprekṣāappropriate; inappro | Yukti |
| Rasavadaand Bhavika | |
| Rūpaka , andeconomy of language |
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
]
-
“Gaek ed. pp. 223-226.” ↩︎
-
“Protsāhana, Guṇānuvāda and Hetu of the Upajāti recension involve Aupamya.” ↩︎
-
“See Udbhaṭa, Rudraṭa and Mammaṭa; also the Alaṅkāra chapter in my Ph. D. Thesis on Bhoja’s S’ṛṅgāra Prakās’a.” ↩︎
-
“Abhinava has the reading ‘अर्थक्रियायुक्तैः’, and takes it as emphasising the principle of Rasa-aucitya in the use of these Lakṣaṇas: अर्थक्रियायां रसचर्वणायां युक्तं योगो येषाम् etc. p. 468” ↩︎
-
“On the names of the Alaṅkaraśāstra, see below.” ↩︎
-
“Cf. Abhinava: ‘येषामलंकाराणां वाच्यत्वेन शरीरीकरणं शरीरभूतात् प्रस्तुतादर्थात् अर्थान्तरभूततया अशरीराणां कटकादिस्थानीयानां शरीरस्थानापादनम् . . .।’ —Locana, p. 117.” ↩︎
-
“A similar instance of appropriateness of figurative description is Bāṇa’s description of the red evening and the approach of the night in which the king goes to help Bhairavācārya’s Sādhana in the Śmaśāna.” ↩︎
-
“Rasavad alankāra. Locana, pp. 72, 73, 74.” ↩︎
-
“Poetry as a Representative Art.” ↩︎
-
“Style by W. Pater.” ↩︎
-
“As if translating Ānanda, Tolstoy calls bad Art ‘Imitations of Art’. What is Art ?’ Ch. XI.” ↩︎
-
“Bhoja also speaks of this Rasākṣipta and Apṛthagyatnanırvartya Alaṅkāra in his S.K.Ā. (Ch. V
↩︎—Dhva. Ā., II, 17. -
“Kumbhakonam Edn.” ↩︎
-
“See Dhva. Ā., pp. 89-94 for the illustration and discussion of these canons.” ↩︎
-
“‘World of Imagery.’ Quoted by K. A. Subrahmanya Ayyar in his contributions on Imagery of Rāmāyaṇa’, J.O.R., Madras, Vol. III, pt. 4.” ↩︎
-
“विद्वांस एव ते न कवयः’ - -Ramacandra, Nalavilãsa nāṭaka, Act vi, p. 77. Gaek. edn.” ↩︎
-
“See also महीभृतः पुत्रवतोऽपि दृष्टिः तस्मिन्नपत्ये न जगाम तृप्तिम्। अनन्तपुष्पस्य मधोर्हि चूते द्विरेफमाला सविशेषसङ्गा॥ —Kumāra sambhava, I.”
↩︎**—R. V., VI, 69.** -
“The Lalitāstavaratna of Durvāsas and the Mūkapañcaśati use such expressions profusely but one does not dislike them in these two masterly hymns. See also Āryastavaraja of a Tanjore Jagannātha (Vani Vilas edn. ↩︎
-
“Vide above, criticism off etc.” ↩︎
-
“See my article ‘Anekasandhāna kāvyas’ in the Annals of the Oriental Research Institute, University of Madras, Vol. III. pt. 1.” ↩︎
-
“Vide below chapter on Aucitya. Also Dhva. Ã., III.” ↩︎
-
“Vide also the Āntara Ślokas 76-77 on p. 87, V.V. There are very valuable ideas on Alańkāra-aucitya in Vimarśa Two of the Vyaktiviveka.” ↩︎
-
“Tagore” ↩︎
-
“K.A., II, 362. Madras Edn.” ↩︎
-
“For this correct reading, see Bhaṭṭa Gopāla’s gloss on the Kāvyaprakāśa T.S.S. Edn.” ↩︎
-
“नन्वेवं ‘य एते यज्वानः + + विलसति मृदेषा भगवती’इत्यादावपि जातित्वं ‘स्यादत आह— स्वेभ्यः स्वेभ्य इति । स्वभावभूतानीत्यर्थः ।Ratneśvara.” ↩︎
-
" As Vālmīki also would say (while describing Sitā ↩︎
-
“This correct reading अस्य is found in the ‘different readings’ given at the end of the T.S.S. Edn. of the V.V., and is found also in Hemacandra who reproduces these verses on p. 275 of his K.A. Vyā.” ↩︎
-
“See Hemacandra for the correct word ‘Dhyāmala’, meaning ‘impure, tainted’.” ↩︎
-
“See Hemacandra.” ↩︎
-
“Hemacandra also reads incorrectly ‘Anyalaṅkāra.’” ↩︎
-
“This half is missing in the T.S.S. Edn. and is supplied here from Hemacandra.” ↩︎
-
“Cf. Apuṣṭa doṣa and Niralaṅkāra dosa (in cases where the Sāmānya Svabhāva is given ↩︎
-
“See his Intro. to V.J., p. xx, Skr. Poetics, II, p. 63, f.n., and Pāṭhak Com. Vol., p. 355.” ↩︎
-
“Edn. Banhattı, 1925.” ↩︎
-
“Bhāva’ alaṅkara in Rudrata has nothing to do with the Bhāvika of this chapter, which is absent in Rudraṭa.” ↩︎
-
“See the closing section of the previous chapter on Svabhāvokti. Ruyyaka shows how Bhāvika differs from Prasāda guṇa also.” ↩︎
-
“As Samudrabandha mistakes in his gloss, pp. 224-5, T.S.S. Edn.” ↩︎
-
“See my paper on Lokadharmi, JOR., Madras, VIII, pp. 63-64.” ↩︎
-
“Rājaśekhara works out this relation between Pravṛtti and Rīti in his mythological manner in his Kāvya Puruṣa’s marriage with Sāhityavidyā. K. M. Gaek. Edn., pp. 8-9.” ↩︎
-
“See my thesis Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa, Vol. I, Part 2, Ch. on History of Guṇas, pp. 282-293.” ↩︎
-
“Dr. S. K. De wrongly says in his Skr. Poetics II, p. 100: “The ten Guṇas are non-existent in the Gauḍa.” ↩︎
-
“See my Bhoja’s Śṛigāra Prakāśa, Vol. I. Part 1, p. 123; Part 2, p. 417.” ↩︎
-
“In his article on the GaudīRīti in Theory and Practise in I.H.Q., III, 1927, Mr. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya renders ‘Viparyaya’ as misconception about or misapplication of the essentials of style.” ↩︎
-
“See below chapter on the history of Vṛtti in Kāvya.” ↩︎
-
“Vide my article on Rīti and Guṇa in the Agni Purāṇa in I.H.Q. X, iv, 767-779.” ↩︎
-
“It is not known if by this word Kānta, Rājaśekhara means the guṇa Kānti in Daṇḍin or uses it only in a general manner.” ↩︎
-
“It may be suggested that the mention of Māgadhīis due to the author being a Buddhist; Buddha spoke in Māgadhībhāṣā.” ↩︎
-
“Cf. Vāmana, III, i. 20. पृथक्पदत्वं माधुर्यम्। …समासदैर्घ्यनिनिवृत्तिपरं चैतत् । p. 79. V. V. Press Edn.” ↩︎
-
“V. J., I. 31.” ↩︎
-
" Cf. Daṇḍin. प्रसादवत्प्रसिद्धार्थम्and Bhāmaha, II. 1. माधुर्यमभिवाञ्छन्तः प्रसादं च सुमेधसः।समासवन्ति भूयांसि न पदानि प्रयुञ्जते॥” ↩︎
-
“Adopting a Sanskritic comparison, we can say that the Sukumāra Mārga is like the beautiful Kulāṅganā, and the Vicitra Mārga like the brilliant Gaṇikā.” ↩︎
-
“See my article on Vṛttis in JOR., Madras, vol. VI, part 4:vol. VII, parts 1 and 2” ↩︎
-
“Vide JOR., Madras, vol. VII, part. I, pp. 49-51.” ↩︎
-
“pp. 208-236, vol. III, Mad. MS.; vide also Śāradātanaya who follows Bhoja. Bhã. Pra., pp. 11-12” ↩︎
-
“See Bhoja. SKA., V, ŚI. 40, p. 477.” ↩︎
-
“See his Sanskrit Introduction to his edition of Udbhaṭa’s K.A.S.S. with Tilaka’s commentary in the Gaek. series (p. 19 ↩︎
-
“See also my S’ṛṅgara Prakās’a, vol. Ī, pt.Ī, pp. 198-9.” ↩︎
-
“See above ch. on Riti, pp. 146-7.” ↩︎
-
“Such change in their import could not be avoided; for these two cannot come into Kāvya with as much ease and propriety as Kaiśhikīand Ārabhaṭī.” ↩︎
-
“See my article on Loka Dharmi (Realism ↩︎
-
“Vide my paper on Writers Quoted in the Abhinavabhāratī, Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part II, p. 169.” ↩︎
-
“See above, chapter on Use and Abuse of Alaṅkāra.” ↩︎
-
“Jayamaṅgalācārya’s Kaviśikṣā (Peterson’s I Report, Last list, App. I, pp. 78-9 ↩︎
-
“Vide Bṛhatkathāmañjari, chap. xix, 36, 37 and Bhāratamañjarī, last chap. 7, 8.” ↩︎
-
“See also above pp. 202-3 and 211-2.” ↩︎
-
" I have spoken of these at greater length in the chapter onBhoja and Aucitya in my book on Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāraprakāśa. (Vol. I, pp. 191-195. ↩︎
-
“See my article on Writers Quoted in the Abhinavabhārati, Journal of Oriental Research, Vol. VI. pp. 219-22.” ↩︎
-
“Vide Au, V. C., K. M. Gucchaka 1, p. 115. ŚI. 2.” ↩︎
-
“Vide Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III, p. 223, my article on Writers Quoted in the Abı. Bhāratī.” ↩︎
-
“Vide Journal of Oriental Research, Vol. VIII. Part 3 for an account of Prakāśavarṣa and his work.” ↩︎
-
“N. Ś. VI, p. 296 Gaek. edn.” ↩︎
-
“Vide p. 342, Abhi. Bhā., Gaek. edn.” ↩︎
-
“Pp. 296-297. Abhi. Bhā.. Gaek. edn. A study of mine on the Comic Element in Skr. Literature (on the theory of Hāsya and its treatment by poets ↩︎
-
“A survey and review of Western Literary Criticism from Aristotle to Abercrombie from the point of view of Skr. Alaṅkāra Śāstra has been made by me in a separate study.” ↩︎
-
“See my thesis Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa, Vol. I, pt. 1, PP. 87-110.” ↩︎
-
“See my Bhoja’s Śṛṅgara Prakāśa, Vol. I, pt. ii, chapter on Bhoja’s Conception of Alaṅkāra.” ↩︎
-
“The introductory verses in the India Office MS. of the C. C. are not found in the Madras MS.” ↩︎