Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1: Volume 1

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1

Language
English

Contents

Volume 1

Front matter

v1.c1.1

The *fraternities* of the Middle Ages, which were so numerous and so varied in their objects, were not all of the same origin. Some were religious, some social, some charitable, and some industrial. The religious guilds, or *gilds*, as they were often called, were associations of laymen for the purpose of performing religious duties, such as the maintenance of a chaplain, the celebration of masses, or the support of a hospital. The social guilds were formed for the purpose of mutual aid and good fellowship, and often included in their objects the relief of the poor, the sick, and the aged. The charitable guilds were established for the purpose of supporting hospitals, almshouses, and other institutions of mercy. The industrial guilds, or *craft guilds*, were associations of men engaged in the same trade or industry, and were formed for the purpose of regulating the trade, protecting the interests of the members, and maintaining the quality of their work.

v1.c1.2

The craft guilds, which became so powerful in the later Middle Ages, were the successors of the earlier *collegia* of the Roman Empire. The *collegia* were associations of artisans and tradesmen, which were recognized by the state and had a legal existence. When the Roman Empire fell, these associations were largely destroyed, but the idea of association for mutual protection and the regulation of trade survived. In the early Middle Ages, the *gilds* began to reappear, and by the twelfth century they were firmly established in many of the cities of Europe.

v1.c1.3

The craft guilds were organized on a democratic basis, and every member had a voice in the management of the guild's affairs. The officers were elected by the members, and the rules and regulations were made by the guild as a whole. The guilds had the power to fix prices, to regulate the hours of labor, and to determine the conditions of apprenticeship. They also had the power to punish members who violated the rules, and to expel those who were guilty of serious offenses. The guilds were thus a powerful force in the economic life of the Middle Ages, and they played an important part in the development of the modern industrial system.

v1.c1.4

The decline of the craft guilds began in the sixteenth century, when the rise of the factory system and the growth of international trade made it difficult for the small, local guilds to compete with the larger and more efficient industrial organizations. The guilds were also weakened by the growth of the power of the state, which began to regulate trade and industry directly, and by the rise of the capitalist class, which sought to break the power of the guilds and to establish a system of free competition. By the end of the eighteenth century, the craft guilds had largely disappeared, but their influence lived on in the trade unions and other labor organizations of the modern world.

v1.c1.5

The *fraternities* of the Middle Ages, which were so numerous and so varied in their objects, were not all of the same origin. Some were religious, some social, some charitable, and some industrial. The religious guilds, or *gilds*, as they were often called, were associations of laymen for the purpose of performing religious duties, such as the maintenance of a chaplain, the celebration of masses, or the support of a hospital. The social guilds were formed for the purpose of mutual aid and good fellowship, and often included in their objects the relief of the poor, the sick, and the aged. The charitable guilds were established for the purpose of supporting hospitals, almshouses, and other institutions of mercy. The industrial guilds, or *craft guilds*, were associations of men engaged in the same trade or industry, and were formed for the purpose of regulating the trade, protecting the interests of the members, and maintaining the quality of their work.

v1.c1.6

The craft guilds, which became so powerful in the later Middle Ages, were the successors of the earlier *collegia* of the Roman Empire. The *collegia* were associations of artisans and tradesmen, which were recognized by the state and had a legal existence. When the Roman Empire fell, these associations were largely destroyed, but the idea of association for mutual protection and the regulation of trade survived. In the early Middle Ages, the *gilds* began to reappear, and by the twelfth century they were firmly established in many of the cities of Europe.

v1.c1.7

The craft guilds were organized on a democratic basis, and every member had a voice in the management of the guild's affairs. The officers were elected by the members, and the rules and regulations were made by the guild as a whole. The guilds had the power to fix prices, to regulate the hours of labor, and to determine the conditions of apprenticeship. They also had the power to punish members who violated the rules, and to expel those who were guilty of serious offenses. The guilds were thus a powerful force in the economic life of the Middle Ages, and they played an important part in the development of the modern industrial system.

v1.c1.8

The decline of the craft guilds began in the sixteenth century, when the rise of the factory system and the growth of international trade made it difficult for the small, local guilds to compete with the larger and more efficient industrial organizations. The guilds were also weakened by the growth of the power of the state, which began to regulate trade and industry directly, and by the rise of the capitalist class, which sought to break the power of the guilds and to establish a system of free competition. By the end of the eighteenth century, the craft guilds had largely disappeared, but their influence lived on in the trade unions and other labor organizations of the modern world.

v1.c1.9

STUDIES

v1.c1.10

IN THE

v1.c1.11

HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

v1.c1.12

BY

v1.c1.13

SUSHIL KUMAR DE M. A., D. LITT.,

v1.c1.14

PREMCHAND ROYCHAND RESEARCH STUDENT,

v1.c1.15

AND LECTURER IN THE POST-GRADUATE

v1.c1.16

DEPARTMENT, CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY

v1.c1.17

IN TWO VOLUMES

v1.c1.18

VOL. I

v1.c1.19

LUZAC & CO.

v1.c1.20

46, Great Russell Street, London W. C.

v1.c1.21

apūrvam yad vastu prathayati vinā kāraṇakalām
jagad grāva-prakhyam nija-rasa-varāt sārayati ca
kramāt prakhyòpākhyā-prasara-subhagam bhāsayati tat
sarasvatyās tattvam kavi-sahṛdayākhyam vijayatām

v1.c1.22

VOLUME I

v1.c1.23

CHRONOLOGY AND SOURCES

v1.c1.24

The *fraternities* of the Middle Ages, which were so numerous and so varied in their objects, were not all of the same origin. Some were religious, some social, some charitable, and some industrial. The religious guilds, or *gilds*, as they were often called, were associations of laymen for the purpose of performing religious duties, such as the maintenance of a chaplain, the celebration of masses, or the support of a hospital. The social guilds were formed for the purpose of mutual aid and good fellowship, and often included in their objects the relief of the poor, the sick, and the aged. The charitable guilds were established for the purpose of supporting hospitals, almshouses, and other institutions of mercy. The industrial guilds, or *craft guilds*, were associations of men engaged in the same trade or industry, and were formed for the purpose of regulating the trade, protecting the interests of the members, and maintaining the quality of their work.

v1.c1.25

The craft guilds, which became so powerful in the later Middle Ages, were the successors of the earlier *collegia* of the Roman Empire. The *collegia* were associations of artisans and tradesmen, which were recognized by the state and had a legal existence. When the Roman Empire fell, these associations were largely destroyed, but the idea of association for mutual protection and the regulation of trade survived. In the early Middle Ages, the *gilds* began to reappear, and by the twelfth century they were firmly established in many of the cities of Europe.

v1.c1.26

The craft guilds were organized on a democratic basis, and every member had a voice in the management of the guild's affairs. The officers were elected by the members, and the rules and regulations were made by the guild as a whole. The guilds had the power to fix prices, to regulate the hours of labor, and to determine the conditions of apprenticeship. They also had the power to punish members who violated the rules, and to expel those who were guilty of serious offenses. The guilds were thus a powerful force in the economic life of the Middle Ages, and they played an important part in the development of the modern industrial system.

v1.c1.27

The decline of the craft guilds began in the sixteenth century, when the rise of the factory system and the growth of international trade made it difficult for the small, local guilds to compete with the larger and more efficient industrial organizations. The guilds were also weakened by the growth of the power of the state, which began to regulate trade and industry directly, and by the rise of the capitalist class, which sought to break the power of the guilds and to establish a system of free competition. By the end of the eighteenth century, the craft guilds had largely disappeared, but their influence lived on in the trade unions and other labor organizations of the modern world.

v1.c1.28

TO SIR ASUTOSH MOOKERJEE

v1.c1.29

The *fraternities* of the Middle Ages, which were so numerous and so varied in their objects, were not all of the same origin. Some were religious, some social, some charitable, and some industrial. The religious guilds, or *gilds*, as they were often called, were associations of laymen for the purpose of performing religious duties, such as the maintenance of a chaplain, the celebration of masses, or the support of a hospital. The social guilds were formed for the purpose of mutual aid and good fellowship, and often included in their objects the relief of the poor, the sick, and the aged. The charitable guilds were established for the purpose of supporting hospitals, almshouses, and other institutions of mercy. The industrial guilds, or *craft guilds*, were associations of men engaged in the same trade or industry, and were formed for the purpose of regulating the trade, protecting the interests of the members, and maintaining the quality of their work.

v1.c1.30

The craft guilds, which became so powerful in the later Middle Ages, were the successors of the earlier *collegia* of the Roman Empire. The *collegia* were associations of artisans and tradesmen, which were recognized by the state and had a legal existence. When the Roman Empire fell, these associations were largely destroyed, but the idea of association for mutual protection and the regulation of trade survived. In the early Middle Ages, the *gilds* began to reappear, and by the twelfth century they were firmly established in many of the cities of Europe.

v1.c1.31

The craft guilds were organized on a democratic basis, and every member had a voice in the management of the guild's affairs. The officers were elected by the members, and the rules and regulations were made by the guild as a whole. The guilds had the power to fix prices, to regulate the hours of labor, and to determine the conditions of apprenticeship. They also had the power to punish members who violated the rules, and to expel those who were guilty of serious offenses. The guilds were thus a powerful force in the economic life of the Middle Ages, and they played an important part in the development of the modern industrial system.

v1.c1.32

The decline of the craft guilds began in the sixteenth century, when the rise of the factory system and the growth of international trade made it difficult for the small, local guilds to compete with the larger and more efficient industrial organizations. The guilds were also weakened by the growth of the power of the state, which began to regulate trade and industry directly, and by the rise of the capitalist class, which sought to break the power of the guilds and to establish a system of free competition. By the end of the eighteenth century, the craft guilds had largely disappeared, but their influence lived on in the trade unions and other labor organizations of the modern world.

Preface

v1.c2.1

An announcement was made long ago, in the *Grundriss der Indo-arischen Philologie*, of a treatise on Sanskrit Poetics and Metrics from the able pen of Professor Hermann Jacobi, which would perhaps have rendered the writing of this work superfluous. On being informed, however, that the learned Professor has now abandoned the project of writing it, I have ventured to set forth, in the following pages, the results of some of my researches in the subject, with the hope of drawing the attention of scholars to a discipline which has not yet been systematically investigated, but which, forming as it does the foundations of a study of Classical Sanskrit Poetry, is not without its importance in the general history of Sanskrit literature. These investigations were originally embodied in my thesis for the Doctorate of the University of London (1921); but the present publication, though not altogether divested of the form of a dissertation, has been so considerably altered, re-written and supplemented that it may be taken as an entirely new work.

v1.c2.2

My original intention was to write a comprehensive history of Sanskrit Poetics; but in the course of my studies I realised that the available materials were not enough for such an ambitious undertaking. In the following pages, however, I have attempted to approach the subject from the historical point of view, instead of presenting a mere epitome of the different topics of Alaṃkāra, as Regnaud's *Rhétorique Sanskrite* (1884) does. Presuming a general knowledge of the details of Sanskrit Poetics, which may be gathered from any standard text-book or even from Regnaud's useful résumé, and taking the representative writers (and, as far as necessary, the neglected commentators and so-called minor writers), I have made an attempt to trace the development of the discipline through its fairly long and varied course of history which covers more than a thousand years. The first volume of the work, therefore, deals with the preliminary but important question of chronology and sources, on the basis of which the second volume proceeds to set forth the history through its divergent systems and theories.

v1.c2.3

Although the subject possesses great interest and importance, workers in the field cannot be said to be too numerous. Since Bühler's memorable discovery (1877) in Kashmir of the bulk of the old forgotten Alaṃkāra literature, the devoted enterprise, however, of a small but excellent band of scholars has brought to light and given us useful editions of most of the important texts, besides collecting a great deal of valuable information on the subject. There can be no doubt that much yet remains to be done in this direction, but these additions to our knowledge have shed so much light on the whole subject that little room is left for mere guess-work with regard to the general theme, and the historical method may be tentatively applied to a systematic presentation. It is now clear that the works on Alaṃkāra are not sporadic or isolated productions, but constitute an extensive literature, ranging over a fairly long period of time, and embodying, with an abstruse technique and ingenious theories, a systematic discipline which possesses an interesting course of history.

v1.c2.4

It is needless to say that I have made, as the references will indicate, a careful use of the accumulated but scattered labours of previous workers, supplementing them with my own studies. But as some of the problems still require elucidation, while the proffered solutions in some cases have not received recognition, I have taken the opportunity of re-examining the disputed points, re-arranging the available data and re-thinking the entire subject. I have, however, avoided useless discussions as much as possible, confining myself to stating my own view and leaving it to speak for itself. Regarding questions of chronology, I have made extensive use of the chronological materials scattered throughout the various reports, journals, catalogues and notices of Sanskrit MSS. I have also enjoyed the privilege of utilising the manuscript-materials in the India Office, British Museum and elsewhere; and I take this opportunity of expressing my obligations to the authorities concerned for extending this privilege to me. My thanks are also due to Dr. Gaṅgānāth Jha for getting the entire MS of Abhinavagupta's bulky commentary on Bharata copied for my use, and to Dr. Thomas and the Curator of Madras Government Oriental MSS Library, as well as to my friend and colleague Pandit Anantakṛṣṇa Śāstri, for procuring for me transcripts of the rare MSS of Abhinava's *Locana* IV and Kuntala's *Vakrokti-jivita*. With the help of these transcripts I have been able to publish the texts of the last two works; and I have also in contemplation an edition of Abhinava's erudite commentary on Bharata, if I can collect sufficient materials towards it.

v1.c2.5

In this work I have confined myself to Sanskrit Poetics and have not taken into consideration the numerous vernacular works on the subject which, together with the theme of Dramaturgy which I have also omitted, deserve more room for a detailed and separate treatment. The Bibliographies, which are meant to supply information about editions and MSS of texts and commentaries, do not pretend to be exhaustive; but it is hoped that no useful or important point has been overlooked. Instead of merely repeating the entries of different MSS in Aufrecht (as Dr. Haricand Śāstrī does), I have, in compiling these, economised space by simple references to his indispensable *Catalogus Catalogorum*, at the same time consulting the original catalogues when necessary and the original MSS when available, and correcting in this way what seemed to me wrong, misleading or superfluous entries. I have also tried to supplement them by entries from catalogues and reports published after the date of Aufrecht's monumental work.

v1.c2.6

A word of explanation may be deemed necessary regarding the use of the term "Poetics" to designate a half-theoretical and half-practical discipline which is known in Sanskrit as the *Alaṃkāra-śāstra* or the *Sāhitya-śāstra*. Prof. Jacobi, who seems to have been the first to make this term current, has sufficiently explained its scope in *ZDMG* lvi, 1902, p. 393, fn 1. It may be remarked that the commonly used term "Rhetoric" is inadequate in explaining the standpoint of a study which includes a great deal more than a mere practical treatment of rhetorical categories; while the expression "Aesthetics" is misleading in this connexion, inasmuch as the theoretical scope of Alaṃkāra is not fully co-extensive with what is expressed by that term in modern philosophical studies.

v1.c2.7

There remains for me now the pleasant duty of recording the manifold encouragement and help I have received in the course of these labours. I am greatly obliged to some scholars for their kind and prompt reply to my queries, especially to the late Professor Rhys Davids, and to Professors Keith and Jacobi. On learning that I was studying Sanskrit Poetics, Prof. Jacobi evinced a genuine interest in my work and encouraged me with suggestions from his expert knowledge of the subject. After I had finished my work in England, he invited me very kindly to Bonn, where I had the privilege of working with him and prosecuting these studies further, as well as of enjoying his genial friendship and hospitality. I had then the opportunity of laying the rough outlines of this modest work before that veteran scholar and profiting by his criticism. I must also thank Dr. Thomas of the India Office Library for his keen interest in my work and for his uniform courtesy and kindness in rendering me all facilities I required. I cannot also omit acknowledging my obligations to Sir E. Denison Ross for his many acts of kindness during the time I studied at the London School of Oriental Studies. I am also deeply grateful to Dr. L. D. Barnett, under whom I worked in the same School and with whom it was always a pleasure to work, for his goodness in watching the progress of this essay and reading patiently through its first draft, as well as for his unwearied help, kind sympathy and steady encouragement. It is a pleasure and privilege also to return my heartfelt thanks to many friends in England, Germany and elsewhere, whose kind words of sympathy never failed to cheer me in a foreign land.

v1.c2.8

In a work like this, errors, both of omission and commission, are hard to escape; all suggestions for correction or improvement will, therefore, be thankfully received. To avoid unnecessary delay in printing and transmission of proofs, the book had to be printed in India; but those who are acquainted with the conditions of printing here will realise its difficulties and condone its imperfections. Although care has been taken to make this work free from errors of pen and print (and in this connexion I must thank the promptness and zeal of the Calcutta Oriental Press), a few obvious but unwelcome misprints and slips, especially with regard to diacritical marks, have unfortunately crept in, for which I express my apology to the generous reader.

v1.c2.9

CALCUTTA May 15, 1923. } S. K. Dé

Contents

v1.c3.1

Pages

v1.c3.2

I BEGINNINGS ... ... ... 1-22

v1.c3.3

II BHARATA ... 23-44 Commentators 37-44; Lollaṭa and Śaṅkuka 38; Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka 39-43; Abhinavagupta 43; Bibliography 44

v1.c3.4

III BHĀMAHA ... ... ... 45-57 Bibliography 57

v1.c3.5

IV DAṆḌIN ... ... ... 58-74 Commentators 71; Bibliography 72-74

v1.c3.6

V UDBHAṬA ... ... ... 75-80 Mukula and Pratīhārendurāja 76-79; Bibliography 79-80

v1.c3.7

VI VĀMANA ... ... ... 80-85 Commentators 83; Bibliography 84-85

v1.c3.8

VII RUDRAṬA AND RUDRA-BHAṬṬA ... ... 86-101 Commentators 96-100; Vallabhadeva 96; Nami-sādhu 98; Āśādhara 99; Bibliography 100-101.

v1.c3.9

VIII THE WRITER ON ALAMKĀRA IN THE AGNI-PURĀṆA ... ... 102-104 Bibliography 104

v1.c3.10

IX THE DHVANIKĀRA AND ĀNANDA-VARDHANA ... ... 105-121 Abhinavagupta 117-119; Bibliography and commentaries 119-121

v1.c3.11

X RĀJAŚEKHARA ... ... ... 122-128 Bibliography 128

v1.c3.12

XI DHANAÑJAYA AND DHANIKA ... 129-135 Bibliography and commentaries 134-135

v1.c3.13

XII KUNTALA ... ... ... 136-138

v1.c3.14

XIII KṢEMENDRA ... ... 139-143 Bibliography 142-143 XIV BHOJA ... ... ... 144-151 Commentators and Bibliography 149-151

v1.c3.15

XV MAHIMABHAṬṬA ... ... 152-156 Bibliography and commentary 156 XVI MAMMAṬA AND ALLAṬA ... 157-168 Bibliography 167-168 XVII THE COMMENTATORS ON MAMMAṬA ... 169-189 Rājānaka Ruyyaka or Rucaka 169; Māṇikyacandra 169-70; Narahari Sarasvatitīrtha 171; Jayanta Bhaṭṭa 171-72; Someśvara 172; Vācaspati Miśra 172-73; Śrīdhara Sāndhivigrahika 173; Caṇḍidāsa 173; Viśvanātha 173-74; Bhāskara 174; Paramānanda Cakravartin 174-75; Govinda Ṭhakkura 175-76; Jayarāma Nyāyapañcānana 176-77; Śrīvatsalāñchana and Subuddhi Miśra 177-78; Paṇḍitarāja 178-79; Ravi and Ratnapāṇi 179; Maheśvara Nyāyālaṅkāra 179-180; Kamalākara Bhaṭṭa 180; Rājānaka Ānanda 180-81; Rājānaka Ratnakaṇṭha 181-82; Narasimha Ṭhakkura 182-83; Vaidyanātha Tatsat 183; Bhīmasena Dīkṣita 183-84; Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa 184-85; Nāgeśa or Nāgoji Bhaṭṭa 185. Minor Commentators 186-89. Anonymous Commentaries 189.

v1.c3.16

XVIII RUYYAKA ... ... ... 190-202 Commentators 197-202; Alaka (or Alaṭa ?) 197; Jayaratha 197-99; Samudrabandha 199-200; Vidyā Cakravartin 200-201. Bibliography 202

v1.c3.17

XIX HEMACANDRA AND THE VĀG-BHATAS ... ... ... 203-209

v1.c3.18

Bibliography and Commentaries 208-9.

v1.c3.19

XX ARISIMHA, AMARACANDRA AND DEVEŚVARA ... ... 200-214

v1.c3.20

Bibliography and Commentaries 213-4

v1.c3.21

XXI JAYADEVA ... ... ... 215-225

v1.c3.22

Commentators 223 : Bibliography 224-5

v1.c3.23

XXII VIDYĀDHARA AND MĀLLINĀTHA ... ... 226-28

v1.c3.24

Bibliography 228

v1.c3.25

XXIII VIDYĀNĀTHA AND KUMĀRASVĀMIN ... ... ... 229-32

v1.c3.26

Bibliography 232

v1.c3.27

XXIV VIŚVANĀTHA ... ... ... 233-40

v1.c3.28

Bibliography and Commentaries 239-40

v1.c3.29

XXV LATER WRITERS ON RASA ... 241-60

v1.c3.30

Śaradātanaya 241-2; Śiṅgabhūpāla 242-4; Bhānudatta 245-54; Other writers; Rūpa and Jiva Gosvāmin 255-6; Viśvanātha Cakravartin 256-7; Kavikarṇapūra 257-8; Kavicandra 258-9. Bibliographies and Commentaries 242, 244, 251-4, 259-60.

v1.c3.31

XXVI KEŚAVA MIŚRA AND ŚAUDDHODANI ... ... ... 261 64

v1.c3.32

Bibliography 264

v1.c3.33

XXVII APPAYYA DĪKṢITA ... ... 265-74

v1.c3.34

Commentators 270; Bibliography 271-4

v1.c3.35

XXVIII JAGANNĀTHA ... ... ... 275-281

v1.c3.36

Nāgoji or Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa 280-82.

XXIX Minor Writers ... ... 282-327

v1.c4.1

Acyuta Śarman or Acyutarāya Moḍaka 282-3; Ajitasenācārya or Ajitasenadeva Yatīśvara 283-84; Aṇuratnamaṇḍana or Ratnamaṇḍana Gaṇi 284-5 Anantārya 285; Ananta 285; Amṛtānanda Yogin 285; Allarāja or Mallarāja 286; Indrajit 286; Kacchapeśvara Dīkṣita 286; Kandālayārya 286-7; Kalyāṇa Subrahmaṇya Sūri 287; Kānticandra Mukhopādhyāya 287; Kaśīlakṣmaṇa Kavi 287-8; Kṛṣṇa Bhaṭṭa or Jayakṛṣṇa Maunin 288-9; Kṛṣṇa Dīkṣita or Kṛṣṇa Yajvan 289; Kṛṣṇa Śarman 289; Keśava Bhaṭṭa 290; Gaṅgānanda Maithila 290-1; Gaṅgārāma Jaḍi (or Jaḍin) 291; Gadādhara Bhaṭṭa 291; Gokulanātha Maithila 291-2; Gauranārya 292; Ghāsīrāma Paṇḍita 293; Caṇḍidāsa 293; Candracūḍa 293; Cirañjīva or Rāmadeva Cirañjīva Bhaṭṭācārya 294; Jayamaṅgala 294-5; Jinavallabha Sūri 295; Jīvanātha 295; Tirumala or Trimalla Bhaṭṭa 295-6; Trilocanāditya 296; Tryambaka 296; Dāmodara Bhaṭṭa Harṣe 296; Devaśaṅkara 297; Dharmadāsa Sūri 297-8; Dharmasudhi or Dharma Sūri 298-9; Narasiṃha or Nṛsiṃha Kavi 299-300; Narasiṃhācārya or Veṅkaṭa Nṛsiṃha Kavi 300; Narahari Sūri 300; Nārāyaṇa Deva 301; Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita 301; Puñjarāja 301; Puṇḍarīka 301; Puṇḍarīka Rāmeśvara 301; Puruṣottama Sudhindra 302; Prabhākara Bhaṭṭa 302-3; Baladeva 303;

v1.c4.2

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa 303 ; Bālakṛṣṇa Pāyaguṇḍa 303-4 ; Bhāskarācārya 304 ; Bhāva Miśra 304 ; Bhīmasena Dīkṣita 305 ; Bhīmeśvara Bhaṭṭa 305 ; Bhūdeva Śukla 305 ; Mānasimha 305 ; Mohanadāsa 305 ; Yajñeśvara Dīkṣita 306 ; Yaśasvin Kavi 306 ; Ratnabhūṣaṇa 306 ; Ravigupta Ācārya 307 ; Rāghava Caitanya 307 ; Rājacūḍāmaṇi Dīkṣita 307-8 ; Rāma Śarman 308 ; Rāmacandra 308-9 ; Rāmacandra Nyāyavāgīśa 309 ; Rāma Subrahmaṇya 309 ; Lakṣmīdhara Dīkṣita 309-10 ; Vallabha Bhaṭṭa 310 ; Vasantarāja 310-11 ; Viṭṭhala Dīkṣita 311 ; Vidyārāma 311 ; Viśvanātha 311-2 ; Viśveśvara Bhaṭṭa 312-3 ; Viśveśvara Kavicandra 313 ; Viṣṇudāsa 314 ; Vīranārāyaṇa 314 ; Vīreśvara Paṇḍita 315 ; Vecārāma Nyāyālaṅkāra 315 ; Veṅkaṭa Nārāyaṇa Dīkṣita 315 ; Veṅkaṭācārya 316 ; Veṅkapayya Pradhāna 316 ; Veṇidatta Bhaṭṭācārya 316 ; Śaṅkhadhara 316-7 ; Śātakarṇi 317 ; Sambhunātha 317 ; Śāntarāja 317 ; Śivarāma Tripāṭhin 318 ; Śobhākaramitra 318-9 ; Śrīkaṇṭha 319 ; Śrīkara Miśra 319 ; Śrīnivāsa Dīkṣita 319-20 ; Sāmārāja Dīkṣita 320 ; Sukhadeva Miśra 320 ; Sukhalāla 321 ; Sudhākara Puṇḍarīka Yājin 321 ; Sudhīndra Yogin 321-2 ; Sundara Miśra 322 ; Somanārya 322 ; Haridāsa 322 ; Hariprasāda 323 ; Harihara 323 ; Haladhara Ratha 323.

v1.c4.3

Anonymous Works 324-7.

I Beginnings

v1.c5.1

There is an interesting passage in the *Kāvya-mīmāṃsā* in which Rājaśekhara, while giving us a somewhat fanciful account of the divine origin of Poetics, mentions at the same time the names of the supposed original exponents of the discipline. It is said that the Spirit of Poetry (*kāvya-puruṣa*), born of the Goddess of Learning (*sarasvatī*), was set by the Self-existent Being to promulgate the study of Poetics in the three worlds; and he related it in eighteen *adhikaraṇas* to his seventeen will-born pupils. These divine sages, in their turn, are said to have composed separate treatises on the portions respectively learnt by them. Thus Sahasrākṣa wrote on *kavi-rahasya*, Uktigarbha on *auktika*, Suvarṇanābha on *rīti*, Pracetāyana on *anuprāsa*, Citrāṅgada on *yamaka* and *citra*, Śeṣa on *śabda-śleṣa*, Pulastya on *vāstava*, Aupakāyana on *upamā*, Pārāśara on *atiśaya*, Utathya on *artha-śleṣa*, Kubera on *ubhayālaṃkāra*, Kāmadeva on *vainodika*, Bharata on *rūpaka*, Nandikeśvara on *rasa*, Dhiṣaṇa on *doṣa*, Upamanyu on *guṇa* and Kucamāra on *aupaniṣadika*. This tendency on the part of a Sanskrit author towards glorifying his science and thereby investing it with an ancient unalterable authority is not unusual, and such legendary accounts are often fabricated where the actual origin is forgotten; but it is curious that we do not meet with them elsewhere in Alaṃkāra literature, although they find expression in Bharata and in Vātsyāyana with regard to the origin of the allied disciplines of Dramaturgy and Erotics respectively. The historical value of this passage of Rājaśekhara may, indeed, be well doubted; but it is possible that this unique account, apart from its obviously mythical garb, embodies a current tradition, implying the actual existence, at some remote and forgotten period, of early expounders of poetic theory, some of whose names are still familiar, but most of whose works have apparently perished. Thus Suvarṇanābha and Kucamāra (or Kucumāra) are also cited with reverence by the author of the Kāma-sūtra (I. 1. 13, 17), both of them as authorities on Erotics, but the latter especially as well-versed in the particular subject of aupaniṣadika, which is thus included in Erotics as well as in Poetics.¹ The present-day text of the Nāṭya-śāstra, which goes by the name of Bharata, deals in an encyclopaedic manner with various topics, but Bharata is well known, as described by Rājaśekhara, as an authority on rūpaka. No work of Nandikeśvara on rasa has yet been discovered; but his name is associated with a number of works, mostly late compilations, on erotics, music, histrionic art, grammar and tantra.²

v1.c5.2

¹ Cf. Journal of the Department of Letters, Calcutta University, iv p. 95.

v1.c5.3

² Aufrecht i 276, ii 59, iii 206. The writer on Erotics is cited as Nandiśvara in Pañca-sāyaka (Bik. 533, Peter-

v1.c5.4

This traditional account may lead one to make the tempting suggestion of a very early systematic investigation of rhetorical issues but for the serious difficulty that there is hardly any material in the ancient literature itself to enable us to trace the origin of Poetics to a very remote antiquity. The Alaṃkāra-śāstra is never mentioned among the orthodox disciplines which constitute the so-called vedāṅgas, nor do we meet with any passage in the Vedic Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas or the earlier Upaniṣads in which we may find a real basis for a system of Poet-

v1.c5.5

son ii 110), whom Aufrecht is inclined to identify with Nandin quoted by Vātsyāyana (I.1.8); but the name Nandikeśvara is given in Rati-rahasya (ABod 218a, Schmidt Ind. Erotik 1911 pp. 46, 59). The work on histrionic art, attributed to Nandikeśvara, is known as Abhinaya-darpaṇa (ed. Poona 1874. MSS: IOC 3028, 3090; Oppert i 16, 950, 2503, 7264, ii 450, 2205, 5473; Burnell 436; ŚgS ii 304; WRAS 109; Madras Cat. 12980-85). Nandikeśvara is better known as an authority on music, and is cited as one of his sources by Śārṅgadeva (13th century) in his Saṃgīta-ratnākara (I. 1. 17) and by his commentator Kallinātha p. 47. Works on music attributed to Nandikeśvara are: Nandikeśvaranate Tilādhyāya in Weber 1729, and Bharatārṇava Āndhra-ṭīkā-sahita (Madras Cat. 13006-08), supposed to be a condensed version of Nandikeśvara's work by Sumati, treating of dramatic gestures and tāla. This probably explains why the last chapter in the existing version of Bharata's Nāṭya-śāstra (ed. Kāvyamālā) is designated nandi-bharata-saṃgīta-pustaka. The other names mentioned by Rājaśekhara cannot be connected with works, actual or traditional, on Poetics or kindred topics. Curiously enough, an Alaṃkāra-sūtra, consisting of 75 sūtras, is ascribed to Vātsyāyana himself in Hultzsch 269.

v1.c5.6

ics. The word *upamā*, for instance, is found as early as the *Ṛg-veda* (V. 34. 9 ; I. 31. 15), and Sāyaṇa explains it in the sense of *upamāna* (as in Pāṇini II. 3. 72) or *dṛṣṭānta*; but there is nothing unusual in this use of the general idea of similitude, which need not be interpreted as having a particular speculative significance. It is conceded, on the authority of Yāska and Pāṇini, that the conception of *upamā* or similitude considerably affected the Vedic language as well as its accent; but beyond this grammatical or philological interest, there is no indication of a dogma, much less of a theory, of Poetics in the Vedic times. Nor should undue emphasis be laid on the use of poetic figures in Vedic literature; for between this unconscious employment of figures of speech and the conscious formulation of a definite system, there must necessarily be a long step.

v1.c5.7

The first evidence of a definite, if somewhat crude, activity in this direction is traceable in the *Nighaṇṭu* and *Nirukta*. From the investigation of the peculiarities of the general form of language, which began early, attention was apparently directed to the analysis of the poetic forms of speech; but the question was still regarded entirely from the linguistic point of view. The term *alaṃkāra* in the technical sense does not occur in the *Nirukta*, but Yāska uses the word *alaṃkariṣṇu* in the general sense of ‘one in the habit of adorning’, which Pāṇini explains in III. 2. 136 and which is apparently the meaning of the word occuring in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* (xiii. 8. 4. 7; iii. 5. 1. 36), and in the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad* (viii. 8. 5). But in the *Nighaṇṭu* iii 13, a list is given of particles of comparison relating to the Vedic *upamā*, comprising twelve varieties, which are illustrated in the *Nirukta* i 4, iii 13-18 and ix 6. Six of these varieties, viz., those indicated by the particles *iva*, *yathā*, *na*, *cit*, *nu* and *ā*, are discussed in connexion with Yāska’s treatment of *upamārthe nipātas* or particles indicative of comparison (i 4), and partly included in what he designates as *karmópamā* in iii 15. Then Yāska mentions *bhūtópamā*, in which the *upamita* becomes the *upamāna* in character, and *rūpópamā*, where the *upamita* resembles the *upamāna* in point of form. The fourth variety occurs where the particle *yathā* is used. Then comes *siddhópamā*, in which the standard of comparison is well established and known to surpass every other object in a particular quality or act, and is characterised by the suffix *vat*. The last variety is *luptópamā* or suppressed simile, also called *arthópamā* (equivalent to the *rūpaka* of later theorists), which is illustrated in iii 18 (also ix 6), where the example is given of the popular application of the terms *siṃha* and *vyāghra* in a laudatory and *śvan* and *kāka* in a derogatory sense. The term *upamāna* itself is used by Yāska, but only to denote these particles of comparison (vii 31). The significance of comparison in general is also referred to in i 19, ii 6, iii 5, iv 11, v 22 and vii 13. Incidentally Yāska quotes (iii 13) the grammarian Gārgya's definition of *upamā*¹, which is important from our point of view. As explained by Durgācārya, it lays down that *upamā* occurs when an object which is dissimilar is reckoned, through similarity, with an object having similar attributes². It also states as a general rule that the standard of comparison should be superior in merit and better known than the object of comparison; but the reverse case is also admitted and illustrated (iii 14-15) by two examples from the *Ṛg-veda*. The definition, too wide as it is, recalls Mammaṭa's similar dictum, and undoubtedly establishes a very early, but more or less definite, conception of the poetic *upamā*.

v1.c5.8

¹ *athāta upamā yad atat tat-sadṛśam iti gārgyaḥ, tad āsām karma jyāyasā vā guṇena prakhyātamena vā kanīyāṃsam vāprakhyātam vopamimite'thūpi kanīyasā jyāyāṃsam.*

v1.c5.9

² *evam atat tat-svarūpeṇa guṇena guṇa-sāmānyād upamīyate ityevam gārgyūcāryo manyate.*

v1.c5.10

By the time of Pāṇini, this conception of *upamā* seems to have been tacitly recognised, and we find him using in this connexion the technical terms *upamāna*³, *upamita*⁴ and *sāmānya*⁵ as well as general expressions like *upamā*⁶ (used in the sense of the rhetorician's *upamāna*), *aupamya*⁷, *upamārthe*⁸ and *sādṛśya*¹. It is noteworthy that in nearly fifty *sūtras* distributed all over his work, Pāṇini incidentally discusses, from the grammarian's point of view, the influence of the conception of comparison on the language, in the varied dominion of affixes, including case and feminine suffixes, *kṛt*, *taddhita* and *samāsānta* terminations², in the making of compounds³ and in accent⁴. The same influence is also traceable in the idea of *atideśa*, a term which is not used by Pāṇini himself but which is made clear by his commentators, and which may be translated as ‘extended application by analogy or similarity’. Kātyāyana, in several *vārttikas*⁵, follows Pāṇini in noting the same influence of the idea of similitude, while Śāntanava in his *Phiṭ-sūtra* discusses it in connexion with accentuation.⁶ In the *Mahābhāṣya* on II. 1. 55, Patañjali has defined and illustrated Pāṇini's use of the term *upamāna*.⁷ A *māna* or measure, he says, is that which is employed in ascertaining a thing unknown; *upamāna* is approximate to the *māna* and determines the thing not absolutely (but approximately), *e.g.*, when we say ‘a *gavaya* is like a cow’.⁷ Strictly speaking, a writer on Poetics will not accept the example adduced by Patañjali as an instance of poetic *upamā*¹, inasmuch as the characteristic charmingness essential in a poetic figure is wanting in such a plain expression; but this grammatical analysis of the general idea of comparison is an early and near approach to the technical conception of Poetics.²

v1.c5.11

³ II. 1. 55 ; III. 1. 10, 2. 79, 4. 45 ; V. 4. 97, 137 ; VI. 1. 204, 2. 2, 72, 80, 127, 145, 169.

v1.c5.12

⁴ II. 1. 56.

v1.c5.13

⁵ II. 1. 55 ; II. 4. 5 ; VIII. 1. 74.

v1.c5.14

⁶ II. 3. 72.

v1.c5.15

⁷ I. 4. 74 ; IV. 1. 69 ; VI. 2. 113.

v1.c5.16

⁸ VIII. 2. 101.

v1.c5.17

¹ II. 1. 6-7 ; VI. 2. 11.

v1.c5.18

² I. 4. 79 ; II. 3. 72 ; III. 1. 10, 2. 79, 4. 45 ; IV. 1. 69, 4. 9 ; V. 1. 115-16, 2. 39, 3. 96, 106, 4. 97, 137.

v1.c5.19

³ II. 1. 7, 31, 55-6 ; VI. 2. 11.

v1.c5.20

⁴ V. 1. 18 ; VI. 1. 204, 2. 2, 11, 72, 80, 113, 127, 145, 169 etc.

v1.c5.21

⁵ on I. 3. 21 ; II. 1. 55, 2. 24, 4. 71 ; III. 1. 10 etc.

v1.c5.22

⁶ e.g. II. 16, IV. 18.

v1.c5.23

⁷ *Mānam hi nāmānirjñāta-jñānārtham upādīyate nirj-

v1.c5.24

¹ *go-sadṛśo gavaya iti nupamā*, *Citr. mīm.* p. 6.

v1.c5.25

² The conception of *upamā* appears to be fully established in Bhartṛhari’s *Vākyapadīya*, e.g. i. 63.

v1.c5.26

A special interest attaches to these rules of Pāṇini and the dicta of early grammarians, inasmuch as they form the basis of what may be termed the grammatical sub-division of the figure *upamā* into direct (*śrautī*) and indirect (*ārthī*) simile as well similes based on *kṛt* and *taddhita* suffixes, recognised as early as Udbhaṭa’s time. Thus the authority for the *śrautī upamā*, in which the notion of comparison is conveyed by particles like *yathā*, *iva*, *vā* or by the suffix *vat*, when *vat* is equivalent to *iva*, is supposed to be based on two rules of Pāṇini (V. 1. 115-16), which lay down that the suffix *vat* is applied to the standard of comparison in the locative or genitive case and takes the place of the case-ending and *iva*, as well as to a noun which should otherwise be in the instrumental case in the sense of *tena tulya* (like that), if the similarity consists in an action and not in quality. Thus we get *hatam artham jñāsyāmiti, tat-samīpe yan nṛtyantāya mimīte tad nupamānam, gour iva gavaya iti*, ed. Kielhorn I p. 397.

v1.c5.27

the forms *mathurāvat* (=*mathurāyām iva*) *pāṭaliputre prākāraḥ*, *caitravat* (=*caitrasya iva*) *maitrasya gāvaḥ*, as well as *brāhmaṇavad* (=*brāhmaṇena tulyam*) *adhīte*, but not *caitravat kṛśaḥ*. In the same way, we have compounded simile like *kumbhāviva stanau*, according to the *vārttika* (*ivena samāso vibhaktyalopaḥ*) on Pāṇini II. 4. 71, which is, therefore, taken as an instance of compounded direct simile (*samāsagā śrautī upamā*). Similarly, the ending *kyac*, according to Pāṇini III. 1. 10, is applied to a noun in the objective case, which is expressive of *upamāna* in the sense of ‘behaviour’ (*ācāra*), and gives us a simile in phrases like *pauram janam sutīyasi*; while the next rule of Pāṇini lays down that the suffix *kyan* may be applied to a noun in the nominative case in the sense of ‘behaving like’ and forms the basis of a simile in such expressions as *tava sadā ramaṇīyate śrīḥ*. It is needless to cite more examples, for this will be sufficient to indicate that some of the speculations on poetic speech can be traced back to the early grammatical analysis of the same ideas, as well as the fact that even in the age of Pāṇini, some of these conceptions appear to have been well established and to have considerably influenced his enquiry. It must be admitted that these tentative sallies of the grammarians are not definite enough to indicate the existence of a system, but the stock of notions, thus indirectly relating to Poetics, though not large, yet throws an interesting light on the genesis of later speculations on poetic speech.

v1.c5.28

If any deduction is permissible from the name ‘*Alaṃkāra*’ (lit. embellishment) given to the discipline as well as from the contents of the earliest existing works on the subject, it will appear that the science started *a posteriori* out of the very practical object of analysing poetic embellishments of speech with a view to prescribe definite rules of composition; but it cannot be doubted that it received a great impetus from the highly developed enquiry into the forms of language made by the grammarians. From internal evidence as well as from the testimony, which admits of little doubt, of some of the ancient authorities on Poetics, it is clear that the theoretical background of the discipline was, to some extent, founded on the philosophical speculations on linguistics, so that Grammar, one of the oldest and soundest sciences of India, was its god-father and helped it towards ready acceptance. Ānandavardhana speaks of his own system as being based on the authority on the grammarians, to whom he pays an elegant tribute as the first and foremost thinkers (*prathame hi vidvāṃso vaiyākaraṇāḥ, vyākaraṇa-mūlatvāt sarva-vidyānām*, p. 47); while Bhāmaha, one of the earliest known formulators of poetic theory, not only devotes one whole chapter to the question of grammatical correctness—a procedure which is followed by Vāmana—but also proclaims openly the triumph of the views of Pāṇini (vi 63). Apart from such details as the linguistic analysis of the idea of comparison referred to above, it can be easily shown that some of the fundamental conceptions of poetic theory, relating to speech in general, are avowedly based on the views of the grammarians to the exclusion of other schools of opinion. Thus the question whether the convention (*saṃketa*), whereby the expressed meaning of a word (*abhidhā*) is to be understood, is accepted by a reference to the views of the grammarians on this point. The grammarians hold, in opposition to the Naiyāyikas, Saugatas and Mīmāṃsakas, that the import of a word is either *jāti*, *dravya*, *kriyā* or *guṇa*, as expressed by the dictum *catuṣṭayī śabdānāṃ pravṛttiḥ*, cited from the *Mahābhāṣya*¹ by Mukula (p. 4) and Mammaṭa (*Svp.* p. 2.) Indeed, the whole analysis of the two functions of word and its sense, called *abhidhā* and *lakṣaṇā*², are borrowed from the grammatico-philosophical ideas already elaborated by the grammarians; and even the new aesthetic system of Ānandavardhana, in establishing the third function of *vyañjanā* attempts to seek an authority for its theory on the analogy of the quasi-grammatical theory of *sphoṭa*, which is associated with the name of the pre-pāṇinian grammarian Sphoṭāyana, and which we find fully developed in the *Vākyapadīya*

v1.c5.29

¹ I have not been able to trace this sentence in the *Mahābhāṣya*, but its purport has been sufficiently explained at the very commencement of that work. Cf. also *Kumārasambhava* ii 17, where this view is clearly mentioned, although Mallinātha would explain the *catuṣṭayī pravṛtti* with reference to the four *vivartas* of *vāc*.

v1.c5.30

² Cf. *Mahābhāṣya* on VIII. i. 12

v1.c5.31

Some of these ideas, again, are more or less recognised in the different philosophical systems, which concern themselves with *śabda* or speech in general, in connexion with the question of scriptural revelation and interpretation. The theory of *sphoṭa*, which, however, has only a far-fetched relation to Poetics, has also its significance in some systems of philosophy; and the idea of manifestation, implied in the *vyañjanā-vṛtti*, which consists not in the expression of something new but in the manifestation of something already existing, is not altogether unfamiliar to Indian speculation. A similar train of thought meets us in the Sāṃkhya idea of causation (i 117-18), in which the effect is not produced but is already comprehended in the cause and therefore can only become manifest. We find another analogy in the general idea of the Vedântin's *mokṣa* or liberation, which consists of a condition, not to be produced but to be made manifest or realised, by the removal of enveloping obstacles.¹ The theory relating to the other two functions of words (*abhidhā* and *lakṣaṇā*), which play such an important part in poetic speculation, had already engaged the attention, not only of the philosophical grammarians, but also of the philosophers themselves, especially the Naiyāyikas and the Mīmāṃsakas. The Naiyāyikas, for instance, hold that by denotation (*abhidhā*) of a word, we understand not only the individual (*vyakti*), but also the genus (*jāti*) and the quality (*guṇa*)¹; while the Mīmāṃsakas maintain that it signifies primarily (*jāti*), and the *vyakti* is understood by implication (*ākṣepa*) through its inseparable connexion with *jāti*.² The *Nyāya-sūtra*, again, gives an exhaustive list of the relations through which a word may be used in a secondary sense, the idea of secondary sense, variously called *gauṇa*, *bhākta*, *lākṣaṇika* or *aupacārika artha*, being tacitly admitted in almost all the systems.³ Indeed, the theories of Poetics on these points are considerably mixed up with the doctrines of the Nyāya and Mīmāṃsā schools; and even Bhāmaha’s early work devotes a considerable space to the discussion of the logic of poetry and the expressive functions of words.

v1.c5.32

¹ It is noteworthy that the *Vedânta-sūtra* makes a direct use of the term *rūpaka* in the technical sense (I. 4. 1), upon which Appayya Dīkṣita remarks: *bhagavatā bādarāyaṇena "nānumānikam apyekeṣām iti cen na śarīra-rūpaka-vinyastagṛhīter darśayati ca" iti śārīraka-sūtre rūpakam aṅgīkṛtam* (Citr. mīm. p. 54 ed. *Kāvyamālā* 1907). cf also *Vedânta sūtra* iii. 2. 18.

v1.c5.33

¹ *Nyāya-sūtra* II. 2. 68

v1.c5.34

² *Pūrva-mīmāṃsā* I. 3. 33 ff.

v1.c5.35

³ *Vedānta-sūtra* II.3.16, III.1.7; *Nyāya-sūtra* II.2.64, also I.2.11, 14, 35; *Sāṃkhya-sūtra* V 67 etc.

v1.c5.36

We shall note in its proper place the influence of the Nyāya, Sāṃkhya and Vedānta doctrines on the poetic theory of *rasa*; but it may be pointed out here that the conception of *upamā* (here termed *upamāna*), by which is implied the general idea of analogy or comparison, plays an important part in the different philosophical systems in the discussion of the nature and criterion of knowledge. The *Maitrī Upaniṣad*, for instance, treats of three *pramāṇas* (v 10, 14), viz., perception, (*dṛṣṭa* or *pratyakṣa*), inference (*liṅga* or *anumāna*) and analogy (*upamā* or *upamāna*). Kaṇāda and Kapila, no doubt, reject analogy as an independent and authoritative evidence; but the Naiyāyikas admit it, the purpose served by it being, in their opinion, the perception of a likeness in an object not perceived before. Vātsyāyana, commenting on I.1.3, defines it in terms almost similar to those used in the already quoted passage from the *Mahābhāṣya*,¹ as *sāmīpya-mānam upamānam*. According to the Naiyāyikas, therefore, the object attained by analogy or *upamāna* consists in the recognition of the connexion between the appellation and the thing designated by it, and thus it forms the very foundation of expression. The idea of *atideśa-vākya* reappears as the means of analogical cognition, *i. e.*, as a helper of the actual perception of similarity between the well-known and the novel object at the first sight of the latter. The co-operation of the *upamāna* is also maintained to be essential in syllogistic reasoning, where it appears in the form of the syllogistic factor, called *upanaya* (1.1.32) or statement of the minor premise. A relic of this idea of *upamāna* survives in Poetics in the treatment of Bhoja (iii 50), who distinguishes the figure *upamā* from the figure *upamāna*, although this view finds no supporter except Appayya Dikṣita, who adopts *upamāna* as a separate poetic figure.² It is needless to dilate more on this point; but the idea of *upamāna*, together with that of *atideśa*, is similarly dealt with by the Mīmāṃsakas. They, however, consider that the *upamāna* refers to an object, already familiar to us, as being similar to another object which is seen for the first time; or in the words of Upavarṣa, quoted by Śabarasvāmin, the *upamāna* or analogy, being similarity, produces an idea respecting an object that is not present, just as the sight of a *gavaya* revives the memory of a cow.¹

v1.c5.37

¹ P. 7 *ante*.

v1.c5.38

² *Kuvalay.* ed. N. S. P. 1913 p. 174. Nāgeśabhaṭṭa takes it as included in the figure *upamā* itself, and Vāmana appears to deal with one of its varieties (viz., *anubhūta-viṣaya*) as an instance of what he calls *tattvākhyānopamā* or descriptive simile (IV. 2. 7).

v1.c5.39

¹ *upamānam api sādṛśyam a-sannikṛṣṭe'rthe buddhim utpādavat, vathā gavaya-darśanam go-smaraṇam*, on I. 1. 15.

v1.c5.40

Although these speculations have an indirect bearing on Poetics and might have suggested and helped to develop some of its fundamental theories, they cannot be taken as a definite basis of any deductions as to the antiquity of the discipline itself. It is striking indeed that we have no direct or indirect reference to Poetics as a *śāstra* in early texts, although at the end of the 9th century Rājaśekhara speaks of a tradition which makes it the seventh *aṅga*. Poetics is omitted in the enumeration of the different branches of study in the well-known passage in the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad* (VII. 1. 2. 4, ed. Böhtlingk). Āpastambha (II. 4, 11), speaks of the usual six *aṅgas*, but Yājñavalkya (i 3) enumerates in all fourteen *śāstras*, to which the *Viṣṇupurāṇa* adds four more, in which Poetic is not mentioned at all. In a similar list in the *Lalita-vistara*¹, there is a reference to *kāvya-karaṇa-grantha* and *nāṭya*, which may be taken to imply Poetics and Dramaturgy respectively, but the designation ‘Alaṃkāra’ is not met with until we come to *Śukra-nīti* which includes it, in company with *Artha-śāstra*, *Kāma-śāstra* and *Śilpa-śāstra*, among thirty-two different *śāstras*. It has been pointed out by Rhys Davids² that the old Pāli texts, *Aṅguttara* (i 72, iii 107) and *Saṃyukta* (i 38, ii 267), there are references to a similar study. These passages are interesting historically as being opposed to the science, but they do not expressly or by implication mention it as Alaṃkāra-śāstra.³

First 120 of 1,900 passages. Read on

Linked texts (77)