Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c5.27

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.