Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c87: IX. Writers On Kavi-Siksa

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c87

Language
English

IX. Writers On Kavi-Siksa

v2.c87.1

The small group of writers who deal with the theme of *kavi-śikṣā* ("education" of the poet) does not, strictly speaking, come directly under general Poetics, but deserves notice, partly from the reputation and authority enjoyed by some of these authors but chiefly because it displays a peculiar tendency which emphasises one aspect of Poetics as a discipline, namely, its practical object which developed side by side with the theoretical consideration of general principles. These treatises do not deal with the conventional topics of Poetics, with its theories, dogmas and definitions, but they are meant chiefly as manuals to guide the poet in his profession, their primary object being *kavi-śikṣā* or instruction of the aspiring poet in the devices of the craft. It is difficult, in the absence of data, to determine the origin of this school, but the attitude adopted is significant, being almost co-extensive with what may be supposed to have been the original standpoint of Poetics itself as a more or less mechanical ‘Ars Poetica’ ¹. The ancient as well as the modern writers on general Poetics, no doubt, touch occasionally upon the question of the practical training of the poet ²; and it is not improbable that this, in course of time, formed the object of a separate study and multiplied these convenient hand-books, of which necessarily we possess comparatively late specimens.

v2.c87.2

¹ See above pp. 42-43 and footnote.

v2.c87.3

² See above pp. 52f.

v2.c87.4

Kṣemendra’s two works, *Aucitya-vicāra* and *Kavi-kaṇṭhābharaṇa*, which may be conveniently grouped here, are curious and valuable in many respects. In his theory of *aucitya* or propriety, he takes as his thesis, mainly, Ānandavardhana’s treatment of the same question with reference to *rasa* which is crystallised in the oft-quoted verse from the *Dhvanyāloka* : “There is no other circumstance which leads to the violation of *rasa* than impropriety ; the supreme secret of *rasa* consists in observing the established rules of propriety”³. To depict *rasa*, it is necessary to observe the rules of propriety ; and the subject, which is anticipated by Bharata (who, for instance, speaks of the proper employment of *anubhāvas*), may take various forms according as it relates to the subject-matter, the speaker, the nature of the sentiment evoked or the means employed in evoking it. We have already noted that this theme has been discussed topically at some length by the formulators of the *dhvani*-theory, by Mahima-bhaṭṭa, as well as by most post-*dhvani* writers who consider it generally in connexion with *rasa-doṣas*. Kṣemendra develops and pushes the idea to its extreme, and speaks of *aucitya* as the essence of *rasa* (*rasa-jīvitabhūta*), and as having its foundation in the charm or aesthetic pleasure (*camatkāra*)

v2.c87.5

³ *anaucityād ṛte nānyad rasa-bhaṅgasya kāraṇam | prasiddaucitya-bandhas tu rasayôpaniṣat parā ||*

v2.c87.6

underlying the relish of *rasa*. The *alaṃkāras* and *guṇas* in poetry are justified by and receive their respective significance from this element, which may, therefore, be fittingly regarded as the ‘soul’ of poetry⁴. That which is suitable or conformable to another is called *ucita* in its relation to that object⁵. This *aucitya* may have application with reference to various points in a poem, such as a word (*pada*), a sentence (*vākya*), the sense of the composition as a whole (*prabandhārtha*), its literary excellences (*guṇas*) its poetic figures (*alaṃkāras*), the *rasa* or the sentiment in a poem, the employment of the verb (*kriyā*), the use of the case (*kāraka*), of the gender (*liṅga*), of the number (*vacana*), of preposition, adjective, particles (*upasarga*), or considerations of time and place (*deśa* and *kāla*) etc. ; and the cases of application are dogmatically summarised as twenty-seven in number (*śl.* 8-10). The treatment of each of these cases is accompanied by profuse illustrations of every point from the works of various poets, the favourite method being first to cite examples of verses which comply with a rule and then adduce one or two examples of verses which do not do so. There is hardly anything original in the theory itself; for though it rightly insists upon a standard of propriety in poetic expression, it ultimately resolves itself into assuming a more or less variable criterion of taste or personal appreciation, which Ānandavardhana and others admit as *sahṛdayatva*, but which is bound to be, as it is, rather vaguely defined and therefore incapable of exhaustive formal treatment. It is really the province of taste or criticism, rather than of Poetics proper.

v2.c87.7

⁴ ed. Kāvyamālā, pt. i, pp. 115-16.

v2.c87.8

⁵ *ucitaṃ prāhur ācāryāḥ sadṛśaṃ kila yasya yat*, explained by the gloss as *yat kila yasyānurūpaṃ tad ucitam ucyate*.

v2.c87.9

At the same time, the fact must not be overlooked that works of this nature in Sanskrit, ostensibly meant as they are for the guidance of the aspiring poet, display, in their discussion of what is right and proper in poetry, a tendency towards genuine criticism, taken apart from the beaten paths of orthodox Poetics ; and they set up in their naive way a standard, whatever it may be, of taste and critical judgment. No doubt, most writers on general Poetics, betray some critical acumen and give us a great deal of critical or semi-critical matter while considering the application of a rule or principle, especially in the chapters on *doṣa* and *guṇa* ; but their outlook is often and necessarily limited by their confining themselves to rigid rules and specific definitions⁶. Kṣemendra's work, in this respect, possesses a unique value, and the part of his treatment which discusses the illustrative verses is extremely interesting as an evidence of “appreciation” which is comparatively rare in Sanskrit. Kṣemendra deals out praise and censure, within his limits, as a true critic who is no respecter of persons; even the honoured names of Amaru, Kālidāsa or Bhavabhūti make no difference. In more than one instance, he illustrates two sides of a question, regarding both merit or defect laid down by a rule, by different verses from his own work; and in some cases he does not hesitate to go against orthodox opinion⁷. Whatever may be the intrinsic value of his critical dicta, some of which may appear too trivial or crude to us, he shows a wide acquaintance with the whole range of classical Sanskrit Poetry and an undoubtedly cultured taste.

v2.c87.10

⁶ The growth of artificial poetry, we have seen, made the technical analysis of rhetoric, and instruction of it, a necessity : but rhetoric involves (and sometimes becomes identical with) criticism ; and it is almost impossible for Ālaṃkārikas, who also theorised on principles, not to busy themselves with the forms and general phenomena of literature. Thus most works, whether on general poetics or on rhetoric, did involve some amount of criticism which could not be avoided. It must also be borne in mind that our modern ideas of Aesthetics, Poetics or Rhetoric are not sharply distinguished in these old authors, nor was there any well-defined notion of the respective spheres of these

v2.c87.11

⁷ e. g. while discussing the question of propriety of the contents of a composition, he cites (p. 120) from *Kumārasambhava* viii—which canto he accepts as Kālidāsa’s—and severely censures the poet’s manner of describing the amours of Hara and Pārvatī in terms of ordinary dalliance, against the authority of Ānandavardhana who defends (p. 137) it against the imputation of vulgarity.

v2.c87.12

studies. The theorists drew their ideas of poetry mainly from existing classical Sanskrit literature which, though magnificent in partial accomplishment, was not fully equipped for purposes of general criticism. The absence of any other literature for comparison—for later Prakrit and allied specimens are mainly derivative—was a serious drawback. This will explain partially why their outlook is so limited, and their principles and definitions so stereotyped.

v2.c87.13

If the common saying that a bad poet often turns out to be a good critic carries any wisdom in it, it is very apt in the case of Kṣemendra whose critical powers cannot indeed be ignored.

v2.c87.14

Kṣemendra’s other work, *Kavi-kaṇṭhābharaṇa*⁸, though less interesting, is equally remarkable for its refreshingly novel treatment. Kṣemendra postulates two impulses for the attainment of poetic capacity, viz., divine help (*divya-prayatna*) and individual effort (*pauruṣa*). The first includes prayer, incantation and other heavenly aids; but from the latter standpoint, he classifies three groups of persons⁹ with whom instruction in the art of poetry is concerned, viz., those who require little effort (*alpa-prayatna-sādhya*), those who require great effort (*kṛcchra-sādhya*), and those in whom all effort is fruitless (*asādhya*), and sums up by saying that the capacity for poetry is vouchsafed only to the fit and few. The next chapter discusses with illustrations the question of borrowing or plagiarism, a theme which is just touched upon in the third chapter of the *Dhvanyāloka*, but which is dealt with extensively by Rājaśekhara¹⁰. Kṣemendra divides poets from this point of view into those who imitate the general colour of a poet's idea (*chāyópajīvin*), those who borrow a word or a verse-line (*padaka-* and *pada-upajīvin*), or an entire poem (*sakalópajīvin*) and lastly, those who are taken by the whole world as legitimate sources (*bhuvanópajīvya*, e.g., Vyāsa). Then he lays down elaborate rules for regulating the life, character and education of the poet. This is followed by a discussion of *camatkāra* or poetic charm, without which, we are told, no poetry is possible, and the illustration (by means of examples draw from the works of various poets) of its ten-fold aspect, according as it appeals with or without much thought (*avicārita-ramaṇīya* or *vicārya-māṇa-ramaṇīya*¹¹), resides in a part or in the whole composition, appertains to the sound, the sense or both, or relates to the poetic figure, to the sentiment, or to the well known nature of the theme. Then we come to the treatment of the excellences and defects with reference to the sense (*artha*), the verbal expression (*śabda*), or the poetic sentiment (*rasa*) involved; and the work is rounded off by fixing the extent of knowledge which a poet must possess and giving a long list of the arts and sciences in which he must be proficient, which is thus set forth: *tatra tarka-vyākaraṇa-bharata-cāṇakya-vātsyāyana-bhārata-rāmāyaṇa-mokṣópāyātmajñāna-dhātuvāda-ratnaparīkṣā-vaidyaka-jyautiṣa-dhanurveda-gaja-turaga-puruṣa-lakṣaṇa-dyūténdrajāla-prakīrṇeṣu paricayaḥ kavi-sāmrājya-vyañjanaḥ*. This rapid summary of the contents of this work will show that it hardly puts forward any special claim as a work of great theoretic importance, but that its value consists not in its substance but in its treatment of practical issues, in its careful and minute illustration of every point by examples taken from previous poets, with not a little amount of knowledge and critical discernment.

v2.c87.15

⁸ A sketch of this work will be found in Kṣemendra's *Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa* by J. Schönberg (Wien, 1884), pp. 9f. The five *saṃdhis* or sections of this work deal respectively with the following themes: (i) attainment of poetry by an unpoetical person (*akaveḥ kavitvāptiḥ*), (ii) instruction of the poet already gifted (*śikṣā prāpta-giraḥ kaveḥ*), (iii) the faults and excellences of poetry, (iv) familiarity which a poet should possess with other arts and sciences as a source of charm to his poetry (*paricaya-cārutva*).

v2.c87.16

⁹ Cf Vāmana I. 2. I-5 ; Rājaśekhara IV.

v2.c87.17

¹⁰ In Ānandavardhana's opinion, the province of poetry is unlimited, in spite of the fact that hundreds of poets have composed works for centuries; but the thoughts of two inspired poets may bear certain resemblance, which may be like that between an object and its reflection, between a thing and its picture, or between two human beings. The first two kinds of resemblance should be avoided, but the third is charming (iii 12-13).

v2.c87.18

¹¹ Rājaśekhara attributes a dictum to Udbhaṭa which says that the sense may be *vicārita-sustha* or *avicārita-ramaṇīya*, according as it is found in the *śāstra* or the *kāvya* respectively. See above p. 75, fn 29.

v2.c87.19

The *Kāvya-kalpalatā-vṛtti* of Arisiṃha and Amaracandra and the *Kavi-kalpalatā* of Deveśvara, written in imitation of that work, need not detain us long. They are essentially treatises on the composition of verses, including a practical treatment of prosody and rhetoric. They furnish elaborate hints on the construction of different metres, on the display of word-skill of various kinds, on *jeux de mots* and tricks of producing double meaning, conundrums, riddles, alliterative and rhyming verses, and various other devices of verbal ingenuity, concluding with a chapter on the construction of similes and enumeration of parallelisms for the purpose of ordinary comparisons. It gives also a list of *kavi-samayas* or conventions observed by the poets, and states in detail what to describe and how to describe it. These decadent treatises, therefore, offer such adventitious aids for ready-made poetry, as may—to take a particular point—be afforded, for instance, by a modern rhyming dictionary or works of similar nature.

v2.c87.20

A summary of the main topics dealt with in the *Kāvya-kalpalatā* and its *vṛtti* will make the standpoint clear and give an idea of the general scope and nature of such works. The first *pratāna* of this work is called *chandaḥ-siddhi* (prosody) and consists of five sections on (i) the construction of the *anuṣṭup* metre (*anuṣṭup-śāsana*). (ii) enumeration of the principal metres, shifts in grammatical forms of the verb, Prakrit loan-words (where Hemacandra seems to be superficially quoted), transmutation of one's own or another poet's ideas into the same or different metres, conversion of one metre into another, caesura (*yati*), the whole section being generally entitled *chandóbhyāsa*. (iii) use of expletive particles and words for filling up the verse (*chandaḥ-pūraṇa*), such as *śrī*, *sam*, *sat*, *drāk*, *vi*, *pra* etc. (*sāmānya-śabdaka*). (iv) argumentation, pointed sayings, subjects of laudation or vituperation, interrogations e.g. in *kula-śāstrādi*, *sva-śāstrādhyayana-prathā* etc. (*vāda*). (v) subjects for descriptive poetry, and how to describe the king, his ministers, the prince, the army, battle and hunting, as well as a city, a village, a garden, a lake and so forth; enumeration of the kavi-samayas (*varnya-sthiti*). The second chapter, called *sabda-siddhi* treats of etymology, derived meanings of compounds, alliteration and rhyme in the middle of a verse, with a list of words suitable for this purpose, enumeration of *sambandhin* expressions; denoted, indicated and suggested meanings, showing the influence of the Dhvani school. The next chapter, entitled *slesa-siddhi*, upon play on words of various kinds, consists of the following sections: (i) composing of words in such a way that they can be read differently according as they are divided, with a list of *slesopayogi* words, (ii) a kind of *slesa* occuring in the description of an object by analogies, in each of which the same quality or condition has to be traced in the same words or in synonyms, (iii) cases of double meaning, produced by homonyms capable of widely different interpretations, (iv) ambiguity produced by similarity of inflections of different origins, (v) surprises of different kinds, such as verses in which the same consonant or vowel is repeated in each syllable, verses spread out in diagrams to be read in different ways, e.g. according to the move of the knight in chess etc :—a subject which is treated in some detail, for instance, in the *Vidagdha-mukha-mandana* of Dharmadasa Suri¹². The last chapter called *artha-siddhi*, is devoted to the construction of similes, ellipsis and similar figures, and gives long lists of parallelisms arising from like conditions or attributes of the objects compared, e.g. the lips may be compared to the coral, to the bimba fruit or fresh-blown twigs and so forth.

v2.c87.21

¹² The subject is dealt with as early as Dandin, Rudrata, and the *Agni-purana*.

v2.c87.22

A large part of this treatment is reproduced in Keśava's *Alaṃkāra-śekhara*, as well as in Deveśvara's *Kavi-kalpalatā*, the latter work being directly modelled on the *Kāvya-kalpalatā* with considerable plagiarism of passages in extenso. These works, therefore, do not require any separate notice; and although Keśava's text deals, besides this, with the ordinary topics of Poetics, set forth as the views of his master Śaudhodani, but in substance and form following the views of Mammaṭa, Hemacandra and the Vāgbhaṭas, it thus possesses hardly any claim to originality either in theory or in treatment. Most of the works of Jaina authors, even including those of Hemacandra and the Vāgbhaṭas, are written apparently from the practical standpoint of composing a suitable text-book, and they always, in their discussion of general principles, incorporate hints on matters helpful for the practical working out of poetry ¹³.

v2.c87.23

¹³ e.g. Hemacandra, pp. 5-15, 126-135; the younger Vagbhaṭa pp. 38-68. Both borrow largely from Kṣemendra and Rājaśekara.

v2.c87.24

Although written in a fanciful style and hardly presenting one systematic theory, Rājaśekhara's *Kāvya-mīmāṃsā* may be noticed here, inasmuch as it mixes up the topics of *kavi-śikṣā* with those of Poetics proper, at the same time giving us a somewhat rambling treatment of various extraneous matters. The work is also remarkable for its varied collection of different opinions, as well as for the light it throws on the literary practices of a certain period. Its views cannot be directly connected with any particular school, but it is quite possible that its author follows in the main a tradition of opinion inherited from his literary ancestors, whom he frequently quotes as the *yāyāvarīyas*.

v2.c87.25

The origin of Poetics is attributed by Rājaśekhara to the Supreme Being and the celestials, and he claims a very high position for the discipline, which is regarded as the seventh *aṅga* without which the significance of Vedic texts cannot be grasped. The self-born Śrikaṇṭha taught this science to his sixty-four will-born disciples, among whom the most venerable was the Kāvya-puruṣa, born of Sarasvatī, and he figures as the nominal hero of this half-allegorical work. As Prajāpati set him to promulgate the science to the world, he imparted it to his seventeen divine pupils, Sahasrākṣa and others, who embodied it in eighteen separate *adhikaraṇas* on the portions learnt by each¹⁴. Our author seeks to set forth in one book, consisting of eighteen *adhikaraṇas*, the substance of these teachings, which were in his time, to some extent, lost. If we are to accept this plan of the author, only the first *adhikaraṇa* on *kavi-rahasya* exists of this ambitious work. The Kāvya-puruṣa, from whom metrical speech first began and who stands symbolically for the spirit of poetry, is the son born to the goddess of learning, Sarasvatī, as the result of her long penance on the Himālayas. In order to keep the boy company, Sarasvatī creates Sāhityavidyā as his bride who follows him and wins him over. On this slight conceit the book proceeds to set forth its peculiar doctrines, including in its desultory scope various literary remarks and dogmas, as well as topics like general geography, conventions observed by poets, a disquisition on the seasons, an account of kavi-goṣṭhī and other relevant and irrelevant subjects.

v2.c87.26

¹⁴ See Vol. I, pp. 1-2.

v2.c87.27

The work begins (ch. ii) by dividing literature (vāṅmaya) into śāstra (both human and revealed) on the one hand, and kāvya, on the other. It enumerates the different śāstras and defines their nature and form, including under the revealed śāstras the Vedas, the Upaniṣads, and the six aṅgas (the Yāyāvarīyas taking Alaṃkāra-śāstra as the seventh), and comprehending the Purāṇas, Itihāsa, Ānvikṣikī, the two Mīmāṃsās and the Smṛtis under human śāstras. It then mentions fourteen (or eighteen) vidyā-sthānas, bringing under it several technical and philosophical disciplines. The meanings of the terms sūtra, vṛtti, bhāṣya, samīkṣā, ṭīkā, pañjikā, kārikā and vārttika, which are the different forms or styles of the śāstras, are then explained, incidentally giving an etymological definition of sāhitya-vidyā¹⁵. Then, after a digression on the fable of the Kāvyapuruṣa, the author goes on to deal with the different kinds of pupils to whom a knowledge of the science can be imparted, viz., *buddhimān* and *āhārya-buddhi*, the latter of who may be again *anyathā-buddhi* and *durbuddhi*, and discusses in this connexion the force of *śakti* (genius), *pratibhā* (poetic imagination), *vyutpatti*, (culture) and *abhyāsa* (practice). The Yāyāvarīyas think that *śakti* is the only source of poetry and gives rise to *pratibhā* and *vyutpatti*; but others hold that the aid of concentration (*samādhi*) and practice (*abhyāsa*) is also required. The *pratibhā*¹⁶ may have a twofold aspect, according as it is creative (*kārayitrī*) or discriminative (*bhāvayitrī*). The creative faculty may be natural (*sahaja*), adventitious (*āhārya*) or acquired by instruction (*aupadeśika*), and poets are accordingly classified as *sārasvata*, *ābhāyasika* and *aupadeśika*. The discriminative faculty (*bhāvakatva*) is distinguished from the poetic (*kavitva*). The *bhāvaka* may be either ‘the discontented’ (*arocakinaḥ*, i.e., who possesses the faculty but requires to be guided), ‘those feeding on grass’ (*satṛṇabhyavahāriṇaḥ*, i.e., the vulgar person absolutely devoid of the faculty¹⁷), ‘the envious’ (*matsariṇaḥ*), and lastly, ‘the really discerning’ (*tattvābhiniveśinaḥ*) who is rare.

v2.c87.28

¹⁶ defined as *yā śabda-grāmam artha-sārtham alaṃkāra-tantraṃ mukti-mārgam anyad api tathā-vidham adhihṛdayaṃ pratibhāsayati sā pratibhā.*

v2.c87.29

¹⁷ Cf Vāmana I. 2. 1-3.

v2.c87.30

In the next chapter we have elaborate classifications of the poet from different points of view. Poets may be grouped generally into three classes, the *śāstra-kavi*, the *kāvya-kavi* and the *ubhaya-kavi*. The *śāstra-kavi* may either compose the *śāstra*, or produce *kāvya*-effect in the *śāstra* or *śāstra*-effect in the *kāvya*. The *kāvya-kavi* is classified elaborately, if not very logically, into eight groups, viz., *racanā-kavi*, *śabda-kavi*, *artha-kavi*, *alaṃkāra-kavi*, *ukti-kavi*, *rasa-kavi*, *mārga-kavi* and *śāstrārtha-kavi*. Then we have an enumeration of ten grades of apprenticeship through which a poet has to pass until he becomes a *kavi-rāja*, which is indeed not the highest distinction but which, according to Rājaśekhara, who was himself so designated, indicates a status even higher than that of a *mahākavi*. Elsewhere in ch. x, he gives an account of the test or literary examination of poets for such honour and recognition, in which the successful poet is conveyed in a special chariot and crowned with a fillet (*paṭṭa-bandha*). He speaks also of purity of body, speech and thought necessary for a poet, and describes the house of the poet, his attendants, his writing materials, the division of his whole day into eight parts and duties appropriate thereto. The chapter under discussion concludes with a reference to the theory of *pāka* ¹⁸, of which as many as nine varieties, named after the taste of different fruits, are mentioned.

v2.c87.31

¹⁸ See above pp. 301 fn

v2.c87.32

The next chapter deals with the word and the sentence, and their functions, grammatical, logical or otherwise. In this connexion Rājaśekhara states that a sentence possessing the literary excellences (*guṇas*) and embellished by poetic figures (*alaṃkāras*)

v2.c87.33

constitutes poetry (*guṇavad alaṃkṛtaṃ ca vākyaṃ eva kāvyam*, p. 24). If any definite conclusion can be drawn from this statement, Rājaśekhara, in general theory, appears to recognise tacitly the position of the Rīti school; for in this sentence he reproduces Vāmana's well-known dictum (*kāvya-śabdo'yaṃ guṇālaṃkāra-saṃskṛtayoḥ śabdārthayor vartate*, on i. 1. 1). This is supported also by the apparent disfavour he shows towards the view of Udbhaṭa and Rudraṭa, as well as by the marked partiality attached to the opinions of Maṅgala and Vāmana, whose classification of *rīti* is accepted on p. 31. It is true that his school lays special stress also on *rasa*⁹, and, like most writers coming after Ānandavardhana, Rājaśekhara does not fail to bring *rasa* into prominence. This makes it difficult to take his work as framed definitely for any particular system. But it is clear that his sympathies ally him with the older Rīti and Rasa schools, rather than with the new school of Ānandavardhana, who, though cited at p. 16, does not appear to have influenced his views greatly. It is probable that he is following some old tradition, which stands apart from orthodox schools, but which has many things in common with the older currents of thought and opinion.

v2.c87.34

⁹ e.g., *kiṃ tu rasavata eva nibandho yuktaḥ, na nīrasasya* p. 45.

v2.c87.35

The rest of the work, devoted to topics of a similar character, does not throw any further light on his general view of Poetics. The seventh chapter, which comes next, analyses the modes of speech on a novel basis, referring to the promulgators of different religious doctrines, into brāhma, śaiva and vaiṣṇava, with their sectarian subdivisions ; and after a brief mention of the three rītis of Vāmana²⁰, we have some remarks on the methods of reading or pronunciation of different peoples, incidentally discussing the question of appropriate language and style of gods, apsarasas, piśācas etc. The eighth chapter enumerates the sources or auxiliaries of poetry (kāvya-yonayaḥ), already referred to by Bhāmaha (i 9) and Vāmana (i. 3), such as the scriptures, the law-books, the epics, the Purāṇas etc., and gives a long list of arts and sciences, as well as philosophical systems, which contribute to the content of poetry²¹. The next chapter is concerned with the possible themes of poetry, topically referred to by Ānandavardhana (p. 146), according as it deals with incidents and personages, human, divine, or pertaining to the lower world (*pātāla*), by themselves or in different combinations. Two very interesting chapters follow on the elaborate ²² classification of the different shades of borrowing or plagiarism (*haraṇa*), with reference respectively to borrowing of words and borrowing of ideas. A verse is cited towards the end which says that there is hardly any poet who does not ‘steal’ from others, but the best of stealing is cleverly concealing the fact ²³. But mere reflection or copying of ideas is condemned as unpoetical (*so’yaṃ kaver akavitvadāyī sarvathā pratilimba-kalpaḥ pariharaṇīyaḥ*, p. 68). The true poet is said to be one who discovers something novel in the expression of words and ideas, as well as restates what is old ²⁴. The next chapter, therefore, details thirty-two different modes by which plagiarism or literary borrowing may be skilfully turned to advantage (a question which must have assumed some importance in in Rājaśekhara’s time), all the points in these interesting chapters being profusely illustrated by examples drawn from the works of various poets. This discussion is followed by three chapters on the established poetic conventions (*kavi-samaya*), with reference to countries, trees, plants, flowers etc., as well as about intangible things (e. g., a smile should always be described as white). There are two more chapters on geography (*deśa-vibhāga*) and the seasons (*kāla-vibhāga*) respectively, the former mentioning the countries, rivers, mountains etc. of India, the products peculiar to each, the colour and complexion of various peoples, and the latter describing the winds, flowers and birds, and actions appropriate to various seasons.

v2.c87.36

²⁰ Rājaśekhara's account of the origin of rītis is curious. He says that on account of the Sāhityavidyā's wanderings through various countries, different poetic forms evolved themselves, the important among them being the three rītis mentioned by Vāmana.

v2.c87.37

²¹ These are: śruti, smṛti, itihāsa, purāṇa, pramāṇa-vidyā, samaya-vidyā, rāja-siddhānta-trayī (artha-śāstra, nāṭya-śāstra and kāma-śāstra), loka, viracanā (=kavi-manīṣā-nirmitam kathā-tantram artha-mātram vā), and prakīrṇaka (miscellaneous, like hasti-śikṣā, ratna-parīkṣā, dhanur-veda etc.). In ch. x. he speaks of (i) kāvya-vidyās, viz., nāma-dhātu-pārāyaṇa (=grammar) abhidhāna-kośa (lexicon), chando-viciti (prosody) and alaṃkāra (poetics), (ii) 64 kalās, called upa-vidyās (accessory studies) and (iii) kāvya-mātaraḥ, viz., kavi-sannidhi, deśa-vārttā, vidagdha-vāda loka-yātrā, vidvad-goṣṭhī, and purātana-kavi-nibandha.

v2.c87.38

²² Hemacandra (pp. 8f) and Vāgbhaṭa (pp. 12f) plagiarise and reproduce this portion of Rājaśekhara’s treatment and draw also partly from Kṣemendra (see above p. 361f). On these passages, see F. W. Thomas in *Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume*, pp. 379-383). To Ānandavardhana’s classification of three kinds of resemblance which may be found in two poets (see above p. 362 fn 10) these writers add a fourth kind, viz., “foreign-city-entrance” likeness (*parapura-praveśa-pratimatā*), i.e., where there is substantial identity, but the garnishing is widely different. And of these four kinds, the superiority is in the ascending order.

v2.c87.39

²³ *nāstyacaurah kavi-jano nāstyacauro vaṇig-janaḥ | sa nandati vinā vācyaṃ yo jānāti nigūhitum ||*

v2.c87.40

²⁴ *śabdārthôktiṣu yaḥ paśyed iha kiñcana nūtanam | ullikhet kiñcana prācyam manyatām sa mahākaviḥ ||*

v2.c87.41

This bare outline of the *Kāvya-mīmāṃsā*, so far as it is available and actually published, will make it clear that nearly the whole of its content falls, strictly speaking, outside the province of general Poetics, whose conventional topics have thus far been hardly touched upon. At the same time, some of the subjects dealt with by Rājaśekhara have been referred to, if not elaborately treated of, by even orthodox writers like Vāmana; and the unique evidence of the comparatively early work of Rājaśekhara on this topic, written ostensibly in conformity with some old tradition, will go to support the hypothesis that *sāhitya* or the art of poetry originally included in its comprehensive scope all such varied literary topics, until there was a gradual branching off of *kavi-śikṣā* as an allied but separate discipline, and a limiting of the *śāstra* itself to the discussion of more or less general principles. In themselves, however, these topics are extremely interesting and throw a great deal of light on some of the literary aspects of classical Sanskrit poetry and its practice. They are made all the more delightful reading by Rājaśekhara’s concise but easy and picturesque style, especially as it is enriched by judiciously selected and varied illustrations, very unlike the conventional illustrations one meets with in an ordinary text-book on Poetics.

v2.c87.43

TO VOLUME I

v2.c87.44

*P. 17, fn 3.* The inscription itself is written in prose having long compounds, and contains alliteration, repetition of sounds and other tricks in the approved style. The *sphuṭa*, *madhura*, *kānta* and *citra* qualities may correspond to *prasāda*, *mādhurya*, *kānti* and other excellences discussed, e.g., by Daṇḍin.

v2.c87.45

*P. 20, l. 5.* Subandhu refers (p. 146) also to *śṛṅkhalā-bandha*.

v2.c87.46

*P. 25. fn 2.* Kohala is cited also by Māṇikyacandra (p. 65). A work, entitled *Kohala-rahasya* in 13 chapters, dealing with musical modes, is ascribed to the sage Kohala (described as the son of Bharata) who reveals the subject on being requested by Mataṅga (*Madras Trm* I, C, 787).

v2.c87.47

*P. 26, fn 22 and above p. 143, fn 13.* An examination of some chapters of Abhinava's commentary on Bharata makes it clear that Abhinava discusses some readings and interpretation of some passages of Bharata's text, given by Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka and Udbhaṭa; a fact which would make it most probable that they did in fact comment upon the text. Regarding Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka the passages are not conclusive; but he might have been, for aught we know, also a commentator on Bharata.

v2.c87.48

*P. 30, l. 8.* It is difficult to say what the terms *sūtrā-nubaddha* and *anuvaṃśya ślokas* mean. The first term may signify (i) verses connected with or following upon the *sūtras*, or (ii) generally speaking, verses composed in the condensed form of a *sūtra*. It is not clear whether these verses are Bharata's own or quoted by him from some unknown source. The term *anuvaṃśya ślokas* may mean literally ‘verses handed down traditionally in the family’ (i. e., from teacher to pupil in spiritual succession); but it may also be interpreted as ‘verses connected with the same class of topics’.

v2.c87.49

*P. 35, l. 9.* Vikramô° Act iii; Mālavikā° Act i. Kālidāsa refers to the eight dramatic rasas acknowledged by Bharata. Kane notes that in Harṣa-carita iii, para 5, Bāṇa refers to *bharata-mārga-bhajana-gītam*, and in ii 4 speaks of actors acting in the *ārabhaṭī vṛtti* (discussed in Bharata xx 54f). Aśvaghoṣa uses the terms *hāva* and *bhāva* (iv 12) in the sense they have in dramaturgic rasa-systems.

v2.c87.50

*P. 39.* Māṇikyacandra says (p. 8) that the Hṛdaya-darpaṇa-kāra spoke of *vyañjanā-vyāpāra* as being essentially a case of subordination of sound and sense (*nyagbhāvita-śabdārtha-svarūpatā*); a statement which agrees literally with what Ruyyaka says (p. 9) regarding the view of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka. The verse *śabda-prādhānyam* is ascribed to Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka also by Māṇikyacandra (p. 4).

v2.c87.51

*P. 39, fn 2.* Read this footnote along with the correction made in this volume, p. 192, fn 16. Abhinavagupta, in his *Locana* p. 188, attributes a similar view to the Bhaṭṭa or Prābhākara school, which may have been the source of Govinda’s mistaken statement that the Dīrghavyāpāra-vādins are *bhaṭṭamatôpajīvinaḥ*.

v2.c87.52

*P. 42, l. 3.* Read “in a metrical form with a running prose-vṛtti”. This question has been discussed again in this volume on pp. 230f.

v2.c87.53

*P. 45, l. 3.* Ānandavardhana quotes at p. 236 from Bhāmaha iii 27 (anonymously).

v2.c87.54

*P. 54, fn 1.* Kane (*HAL* p. xx) notes that Nārāyaṇa in his commentary on *Vṛtta-ratnākara* quotes (pp. 5-6) long passages from Bhāmaha which, if authentic, indicate that Bhāmaha wrote also on Metrics.

v2.c87.55

*P. 68, ll. 2 and 11.* Read ‘doṣas’ for ‘guṇas’.

v2.c87.56

*P. 70, l. 22.* Kane notes that in the commentary of Vādighaṅghala, entitled *Śrutānupālinī*, Kāśyapa, Brahmadatta and Nandisvāmin are spoken of as Daṇḍin's predecessors.

v2.c87.57

*P. 71, l. 15.* Add a further reference: Kauṭilya, Arthaśāstra I. 3. 1.

v2.c87.58

*P. 79, l. 13.* Bhaṭṭendurāja, on the other hand, apparently approved of the new doctrine of *dhvani*; for Abhinava (*Locana* p. 2) tells us that this teacher of his explained to him the *maṅgala*-verse of Ānanda's *vṛtti* in the light of the *dhvani*-theory. The only instance where the two Indurājas are confused or identified occurs in Samudrabandha p. 132; but this is no strong evidence.

v2.c87.59

*P. 81, fn 1.* One must also note that Vāmana v. 2. 9 = Māgha i 25. The words *yo bhartṛpiṇḍasya* cited as ungrammatical in v. 2. 28 occur in *Pratijñā-yaugandharāyaṇa* iv 3; and the verse *śaracchaśāṅka-gaureṇa* (cited in iv. 3 25) occurs in *Svapnavāsava* iv 7.

v2.c87.60

*P. 84.* Add in Bibliography of editions: "Text and translation of the last section of Vāmana's work, by Cappeller, entitled *Vāmana's Stilregeln*, Strassburg, 1880". Add also on p. 85: "A commentary by Sahadeva, quoted in the notes to the Gaekwad ed. of the *Kāvya-mīmāṃsā*, p. 5".

v2.c87.61

*P. 87, fn 2.* Also Pratīhārendurāja p. 11 = Rudraṭa viii 40; P p. 31 = R viii 89; P p. 34 = R viii 95; also Dhanika on iv 35 = R xii 4.

v2.c87.62

*P. 97, l. 10.* Pathak (introd. to *Meghadūta* p. xivf) distinguishes our Vallabhadeva from Vallabhadeva, the grandfather of Kayyaṭa; for our Vallabha, who also commented on the four standard *kāvyas*, quotes, according to Pathak, from Halāyudha and Kṣīrasvāmin, and therefore must be much later than what his identification with Kayyaṭa's grandfather would warrant. But the evidence does not seem to be conclusive, as there is nothing to show that these are cases of real borrowings, or that these late writers did not themselves borrow the passages in question from our Vallabha himself.

v2.c87.63

*P. 99, l. 2.* It is interesting that Nami quotes on ii 19 a Prakrit verse from one Hari, presumably a writer on Poetics, which mentions eight *vṛttis* (and not five of Rudraṭa).

v2.c87.64

*P. 107, fn 2.* One of these passages from *Locana* on p. 123 would imply that the earlier commentator, the Candrikā-kāra, probably made a similar distinction between the Kārikākāra and the Vṛttikāra.

v2.c87.65

*P. 110, l. 15.* Rājaśekhara, p. 15, in his only quotation from Ānanda, really cites a *parikara-śloka* of the *vṛtti* at p. 137. Kuntala, on the other hand, quoting the Prakrit verse *tālā jiamti* (*Dhva°* p. 62), which is Ānanda’s own (from his lost *Viṣamabāṇa-līlā*), appears to designate Ānandavardhana as the Dhvanikāra (see my introd. to *Vakrokti-jīvita* p. vii).

v2.c87.66

*P. 111.* Sovani’s hypothesis is further supported in a modified form by Kane (*HAL* pp. lx-lxi, lxiii-lxiv) but his arguments are hardly convincing. See the question discussed again in this volume above p. 175 fn 1, p. 178 fn 5.

v2.c87.67

*P. 117, l. 16-18.* See Pischel in *ZDMG* xxxix (1885) p. 315. Is it a commentary, entitled *Dharmottamā*, on the (*Pramāṇa-*) *viniścaya* (of Dharmakīrti) ?

v2.c87.68

*P. 118.* The *Kāvya-kautuka* is quoted by Māṇikyacandra at p. 5.

v2.c87.69

*P. 135.* The *Daśarūpaka-paddhati* by Kuravirāma is *not* a commentary on Dhanañjaya’s *Daśarūpaka*, as Hultzsch’s entry would imply. It is an independent work on dramaturgy consisting of 110 verses. See *Madras Trm* II, A, 820 (c).

v2.c87.70

*P. 146.* An inscription of Bhoja of Dhārā is noticed in the *Proceedings and Transactions of the First Oriental Conference, Poona*, p. 319 (Tilakwada Copperplate of Bhoja dated in *vikrama-saṃvat* 1103).

v2.c87.71

*P. 149.* Ratneśvara appears to have flourished in the 14th century A. D.

v2.c87.72

*P. 150.* Jagaddhara’s *°ṭīkā* is noticed also in Stein, *Jammu Cat.* p. 275.

v2.c87.73

P. 155, ll. 15-16. Mahimabhatta himself gives antara-ślokas or antarūryā (besides saṃgraha-ślokas which summarise a discussion and which may be his own) which add to the discussion and are probably adduced from external sources, indicating previous exposition of similar topics by other writers.

v2.c87.74

P. 156, ll. 18-19. The commentary is published incomplete, breaking off in the midst of the second vimarśa.

v2.c87.75

P. 160, ll. 3-4. Māṇikyacandra (p. 304) states that the six pramāṇas and sambhava of Jaimini have been accepted by Bhoja as poetic figures but Mammaṭa has not taken them as such, implying distinctly that Mammaṭa came chronologically after Bhoja.

v2.c87.76

P. 162, l. 1. Read: "Peterson is incorrect in stating that Māṇikyacandra Sūri" etc : for Māṇikyacandra remarks on this verse: *atha cāyaṃ grantho'nyenārabdho'pareṇa samāpita iti dvi-khaṇḍo'pi saṃghaṭanā-vaśād akhaṇḍāyate, sughaṭam hyalaksya-samdhi syād ityarthah* (p. 304).

v2.c87.77

P. 167. Add in Bibliography: "(k) with Māṇikyacandra Sūri's °saṃketa, in Ānandāśrama Series no. 89, Poona, 1921 : also ed. Mysore Govt. Orient. Library, Mysore, nos. 58-60"; and make necessary additions on p. 170 under Māṇikyacandra.

v2.c87.78

P. 177, fn 1. A work, called *Siddhānta-ratna-mālā* (a refutation of the dvaita view of Vedānta) is noticed in Madras *Trm* I, B, 362, and is said to have been composed by Śrīvatsalāñchana Śarman, son of Viṣṇudhvajācārya.

v2.c87.79

P. 178, l. 7. The *Kāvya-parīkṣā* consists of five chapters which correspond in the following way to Mammaṭa's work: (i) śabdārtha-nirṇaya = M 1-3, (ii) kāvya-bheda = M 4-5, (iii) doṣa-nirṇaya = M 7, (iv) guṇa-nirūpaṇa = M 8-9, (v) alaṃkāra = M 10. With a few exceptions, it gives the kārikās as well as the illustrations of Mammaṭa with appropriate observations on them. See Aufrecht in *ZDMG* xlv (1891), p. 307.

v2.c87.80

Pp. 176-77. The date of Jayarāma's *Nyāya-siddhānta*- mālā is given as *saṃvat* 1750 = 1693 A. D. He is said to have been patronised by Rājā Rāmakṛṣṇa of Krishnagar (Bengal). See S. C. Vidyabhusan, *Indian Logic*, Calcutta, 1921, pp. 477f.

v2.c87.81

P. 187, *l.* 1. On Jagadīśa Tarkālaṃkāra, see S. C. Vidyabhusan, *op. cit.* p, 469f.

v2.c87.82

P. 187, *l.* 13. Devanātha is described as the son of Govinda. One Devanātha appears to have been a logician of Bengal who upheld the views of Mammaṭa against the adverse criticism of Viśvanātha. See Madras *Trm* II, C, 1570 ( extract ) : II, A, 819.

v2.c87.83

P. 194, *l.* 18. Māṇikyacandra’s *saṃketa* which was composed in 1160 A.D., quotes the *Alaṃkāra-sarvasva* of Ruyyaka, which should therefore have been written somewhat earlier than this date.

v2.c87.84

P. 196. The *Sahr̥daya-līlā* consists of four *ullekhas*: (i) *guṇa*, describing the ten excellences (e. g. *rūpa, varṇa, prabhā* etc.) of a woman, (ii) *alaṃkāra*, speaking of the ornaments of gold, pearls etc., unguents, flowers worn by a woman, (iii) *jīvita*, dealing with youth which is the essence of womanly charm, and (iv) *parikara*, treating of the parapharnelia of beauty.

v2.c87.85

P. 227, *fn.* 3. Śiṅgabhūpāla, however, unmistakably refers to our Vidyādhara when he says ( p. 206 ) : *utkalādhipateḥ śṛṅgāra-rasābhimānino narasiṃhadevasya cittaṃ anuvartamānena vidyādhareṇa kavinā* etc. Trivedi (introd. p. xxiii) comes to the conclusion that Vidyādhara was patronised by Keśarī Narasimha 1282-1307, or by Pratāpa Narasimha 1307-1327 A. D.

v2.c87.86

P. 230. It is curious that Nārāyaṇa, who describes himself as a descendant of our Kumārasvāmin, gives the genealogy of his ancestor thus in his commentary on *Campū-rāmāyaṇa* (Madras *Catalogue*, xxi, Kāvya, p. 8212) : Mallinātha→Kapardin→{Mallinātha Peddubhaṭṭa→Kumārasvāmin. He speaks of Peddubhaṭṭa as a mahāmahōpādhyāya, a commentator on the *Naiṣadha* and as having been bathed in gold by Sarvajña (*Śiṅgabhūpāla* ?).

v2.c87.87

P. 230 *Ratna-śāṇa*. This commentary, as it appears from the colophon of a Ms of this work, noticed in *Madras Trm* II, C, 1923, was composed by Tirumalācārya, son of Rāmānujācārya of Sukavaṭa family and disciple of Vātsya Rāmānujācārya. He is said to have lived in Rāmatīrtha (near Koṭipallī in the Godāvarī district).

v2.c87.88

P. 244. *Śiṅgabhūpāla*. M. T. Narasimhiengar in his ed. of *Subhāṣita-nīvī* states that Śiṅgama Nāyaḍu, our author was a contemporary of Prauḍha Devarāja of Vijayanagara (1422-1447); but P. R. Bhandarkar in his *Note on Śiṅgabhūpāla* (*Proc. of the First Oriental Conference, Poona*, vol. ii, 1916, p. 425) doubts the correctness of this date.

v2.c87.89

P. 244. *Śiṅgabhūpāla* also wrote a work, entitled *Saṃgīta-sudhākara*, which appears to have been a commentary on the *Saṃgīta-ratnākara* of Śārṅgadeva.

v2.c87.90

P. 250. Kane (*HAL* p. cxviii) points out that as Bhānu’s father Gaṇeśvara was a Maithila, he was very likely the Gaṇeśvara Mantrin, brother of Vireśvara, whose son Caṇḍeśvara composed the *Vivāda-ratnākara* and weighed himself in gold in 1315 A. D. If this indentification is correct, it would support our approximation of Bhānu’s date. The terms Gaṇanātha, Gaṇapati and Gaṇeśvara having been interchangeably employed, need not present any difficulty. A MS of *Rasa-taraṅgiṇī* noticed in *Madras Trm* II, A, 823 (b) calls Bhānudatta *gaṇanātha-tanaya-maithila-bhānudatta*.

v2.c87.91

P. 252. *Rasika-rañjana* comm. of Vrajarāja. It appears from *Madras Cat.* xx, Kāvya, p. 8008, that Vrajarāja wrote an independent poem, entitled *Rasika-rañjana*, in three *stavakas*, describing feminine attractions and charms.

v2.c87.92

P. 255. A tradition in Bengal gives *saṃvat* 1550 = 1493 A. D. and *saṃvat* 1625 = 1568 A. D. as the dates respectively of Rūpa Gosvāmin’s birth and death. His *Dāna-keli-kaumudī* is dated in 1549 A. D. (*Madras Catalogue*, xxi, Kāvya, no. 12521, p. 8407).

v2.c87.93

*P. 257.* One of Kavicandra’s known dates is 1661 A. D., because the *Cikitsā-ratnāvalī* is so dated, and it describes itself expressly as the work of Kavicandra of Datta-kula, Dīrghāṅka-nagara, son of Kavikarṇapūra and grandson of Vidyāvīśārada, and a vaidya of Sudhīra on the banks of the Ganges (the Hoogly ?). It also mentions the names of his two sons as given here.

v2.c87.94

*P. 260.* Add Bibliography under *Alaṃkāra-kaustubha*: “Ed. with an anonymous commentary, and a gloss by Śivaprasāda Bhaṭṭācārya Sāhitya-śāstrī, Rajsahi (Varendra Research Society), Vol. I, 1923 (ch. i-v), in progress”.

v2.c87.95

*P. 273.* Dharānanda, author of *Sudhā* commentary, also wrote commentaries on the *Anargha-rāghava* (Madras Cat. xxi, Kāvya, no. 12444, p. 8355) and *Mṛcchakaṭika* (composed in 1814 A. D., *ibid*, no. 12625, p. 8475). In the last-named commentary, he gives his genealogy and an account of himself, from which we learn that he was the son of Rāmabala of Bharatapura and grandson of Ṭhākura of Vasiṣṭha-gotra, and a worshipper of Hanumat and disciple of Paramānanda.

v2.c87.96

*P. 278, fn 1.* There is a reference in *Citramīmāṃsā-khaṇḍana* to a matter to be dealt with in the *nidarśanālaṃkāra-prakaraṇa* (p. 101), which Jagannātha obviously contemplated writing. It is curious that in the same work (p. 12) Jagannātha says: *viśeṣas tu udāharaṇālaṃkāra-prakaraṇe rasagaṅgādharād avaseyaḥ*, although the treatment of *udāharaṇa* is wanting in the existing text of *Rasagaṅgādhara*.

v2.c87.97

*P. 284.* Ratnaśekhara Sūri composed his *Kriyā-ratna-samuccaya* (ed. Jaina Yośovijaya Granthamālā Series) in *saṃvat* 1466 = 1410 A. D.

v2.c87.98

*P. 286.* Indrajit. Bühler mentions (*ZDMG* xlii p. 543) a work on Alaṃkāra, called *Rāmcandra-candrikā* by Indrajila (is it Indrajit ?), the date of which is given as 1712 A. D.

v2.c87.99

*P. 286.* Kandalayārya. The author tells us that he lived in the court Veṅkaṭa-bhūpati, son of Soma-bhūpati (and Giryāmāmbā), who was the son of Nallareḍḍi of Muṣṭipalli ( also called Pākanāḍu ) family and of Miṭimilla-gotra. He resided in Boruvalli in Naḍigaḍḍa country which lies between the Tuṅgabhadrā and Kṛṣṇā. The work is in ten ullāsas, as follow : (i) upodghāta (ii) kāvya-lakṣaṇa (iii) dhvani-prakaraṇa (iv) rasa-prakaraṇa (v) doṣa-prakaraṇa (vi) guṇa-prakaraṇa (vii-ix) kāvya-viśeṣa-prakaraṇa (x) nāyaka-prakaraṇa.

v2.c87.100

P. 289. Ragunātha-bhūpālīya. It was written in honour of the author’s patron, whose name it bears in its title, after the manner of Vidyānātha, who is referred to as Vidyāpati in the introductory part. It consists of eight vilāsas, dealing with (i) nāyaka-guṇa (ii) kāvya-svarūpa (iii) saṃlakṣyakrama-vyaṅgya (iv) asaṃlakṣyakrama-vyaṅgya (v) guṇībhūta-vyaṅgya (vi) śabdālaṃkāra (vii) arthālaṃkāra (viii) guṇa.

v2.c87.101

P. 294. Cirañjīva’s Kāvya-vilāsa was composed in 1703 A. D. The author’s genealogy, as above, is given by himself in his Vidvanmoda-taraṅgiṇī. His grandfather Kāśīnātha is said to have lived in Rādhāpura in Gauḍa country.

v2.c87.102

P. 298-99. Sāhitya-ratnākara. The ten taraṅgas of this work deal with (i) granthārambha (ii) vācaka-śabdārtha-vṛtti (iii) lakṣaṇā-śabdārtha-vṛtti (iv) vyañjaka-śabdārtha-vṛtti (v) guṇa (vi) śabdālaṃkāra (vii) arthālaṃkāra (viii) doṣa (ix) dhvani-bheda (x) rasa.

v2.c87.103

P. 299. Nañjarāja-yaśo-bhūṣaṇa. The alias of the author was Abhinava-Kālidāsa, and he describes himself as the friend of Abhinava-Bhavabhūti (alias Ālūra Tirumala Kavi). The work is in seven ullāsas, dealing with (i) nāyaka (ii) kāvya-svarūpa (iii) dhvani (v) doṣa-guṇa (vi) candrakalā-kalyāṇa ( a short typical drama) (vii) alaṃkāra.

v2.c87.104

Pp. 307-8. Rājacūḍāmaṇi Dīkṣita. In his poem Rukmiṇī-kalyāṇa (in 10 sargas) he states that he composed it when king Raghunātha ( son of Acyutendra and grandson of Cinnadeva or Cinnacevva) was ruling at Tanjore; and his two dramas, Ānandarāghava and Kamalinī-kalahaṃsa were staged in the court of the same prince. The ten ullāsas of his *Kāvya-darpaṇa* deal with (i) kāvya-svarūpa (ii) śabdārtha (iii) vyaṅgyārtha-svarūpa (iv-vi) kāvya-bheda (vii) doṣa (viii) guṇa (ix) śabdālaṃkāra (x) arthālaṃkāra.

v2.c87.105

P. 308. Rāmacandra’s *Nāṭya-darpaṇa*. For an account of this work, see Lévi in *JA*, cciii, 1923 (Octobre-Décembre).

v2.c87.106

P. 309. Rāma Subrahmaṇya. A work, called *Alaṃkāra-śāstra-vilāsa*, is ascribed to him in *Madras Trm* II, C, 1802, 1805 (extracts). This work refers to the *Sāhitya-darpaṇa*, and quotes (not correctly) Vidyānātha’s *Pratāparudrīya*. It must be a very late work. The author appears to have written also some philosophical works noticed in the Catalogue cited above.

v2.c87.107

P. 311. The *Śṛṅgāra-rasa-maṇḍana* of Viṭṭhaleśvara is not a work on Alaṃkāra as mistakenly entered here, but really a lyric poem (mostly in imitation of Jayadeva), erotico-religious in character, dealing with the amours of Kṛṣṇa. Ed. Bombay, *saṃvat* 1975 (=1919 A. D).

v2.c87.108

P. 310-11. *Vasanta-rājīya Nāṭya-śāstra*. See notice of a MS of this work in *Madras Trm* I, A, 295 (b), where the stanzas (missing in Burnell and *IOC*), giving the author’s genealogy, state that Vasantarāja, who ruled over Kumāragiri, was the son of Annapota and grandson of Vemabhūpati. Kāṭayāvema was the son of Kāṭayabhūpati by his wife Doḍḍāmbā, who was the daughter of Vemabhūpati. For a discussion of his genealogy and time, see introd. to *Pārvatī-pariṇaya* in ed. Śrī Vāṇī Vilāsa Press, 1906.

v2.c87.109

P. 327, *l. 17*. Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa is the real author of the work which bears the name of his patron. He also wrote the *Pārvatī-pariṇaya* (usually ascribed to Bāṇa), the bhāṇa *Śṛṅgāra-bhūṣaṇa* (ed. N. S. P.), and a *Śabdaratna-nighaṇṭu*, besides the prose *Vemabhūpāla-carita*. For an account of the author and his time, see introd. to his two plays, ed. Śrī Vāṇī Vilāsa Press.

v2.c87.110

P. 316. Veṅkaṭācārya. The author describes himself as the disciple of his uncle Śrīnivāsācārya, and says that he flourished in the court of Veṅkaṭa-nāyaka, son of Bahiri Pāmi. Our Veṅkaṭa may be the same as Bucci Veṅkaṭācārya, author of *Vedānta-kārikāvalī*, and his uncle and preceptor Śrīnivāsa was probably the author of *Jijñāsā-darpaṇa*.

v2.c87.111

P. 317. *Alaṃkāra-cintāmaṇi*. This work is in five *paricchedas*, and was composed, as two verses added at the end indicate, on Sunday, the 7th day of the bright fortnight of Māgha in the year *vibhava* (?) śaka 1730.

v2.c87.112

P. 327, *l.* 17. The *Alaṃkāra-maṇi-hāra* is published in the Mysore Govt. Oriental Series, nos. 56-58.

v2.c87.113

P. 342, *l.* 5. Read “successors” for “predecessors”, and add the names of Vatsa and Kohala. See *Nāṭya-śāstra* xxxvii 24. Bharata himself refers to the opinions of “others” (*e. g.* pp. 48, 109).

v2.c87.114

P. 342, *l.* 25. On the other hand, erotic theories were perhaps not unknown to Bharata; and where the themes are common to the two writers, there is considerable similarity of treatment, *e. g.*, Bharata xxiii 15f and Vātsyāyana vi. 5. 29f.

Linked texts (62)