Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Sanskrit Poetics c6: Part II. The origin and growth of Poetics

History of Sanskrit Poetics c6

Language
English

Contents

Part II. The origin and growth of Poetics

c6.1

1. Early poetic efforts. It is extremely difficult to give an accurate definition of poetry and try to distinguish it from other forms of literature. But true poetry (leaving aside the question whether a work clothed in prose is poetry or not) is distinguished at least by three things, viz. by a certain peculiar diction, by its subject matter and by the spirit in which it approaches the handling of its themes. Judged from this stand-point, the most ancient monument of the Indo-Aryan languages, viz. the Ṛgveda, contains, though it is mainly a religious book of fervent prayers, a great deal of true poetry. Many of the hymns, particularly those addressed to Uṣas, exhibit fine specimens of poetry. For example, *vide* the following : अत्रातेव पुंस एति प्रतीची गर्तारुगिव सनये धनानाम् । जायेव पत्य उशती सुवासा उषा हस्रेव नि रिणीते अप्सः ॥ ऋ. I. 124. 7. This verse contains four *Upamās*, the last two of which may occur in the poetry of any country. In ‘द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिष्वजाते । तयोरैकः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्त्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति ॥’¹ (ऋ. I. 164. 20) there is a fine idea, which would be regarded as the figure *atiśayokti* of the first kind (निगीर्याध्यवसानं तु प्रकृतस्य परेण यत् ) by Sanskrit *alaṅkārikas*. In ‘द्वादशारं न हि तज्जराय वर्वर्ति चक्रं परि द्यामृतस्य’ (ऋ. I. 164. 11), it may be said that the figure is *vyatireka*. One may trace the desire for *śleṣa* in such Vedic passages as ‘स्वसुर्जाः शृणोतु नः’ (Ṛg. VI. 55. 5) and ‘यत्रा सुपर्णा अमृतस्य’ etc. (ऋ. I. 164. 21 explained in निरुक्त III. 12 in two ways).²

c6.2

¹ About this mantra the काव्यमी. of राजशेखर says “उपकार-कत्वादलङ्कारः सप्तममङ्गम्’ इति यायावरीयः । ऋते च तत्स्वरूपपरिज्ञानाद्वेदार्थानवगतिः । यथा—द्वा सुपर्णो...अभिचाकशीति।” (p. 3). The रसग. (p. 316) says ‘इयं चातिशयोक्तिर्देपि दृश्यते यथा—द्वा सुपर्णा...शीति ।’. Another example of this kind of *atiśayokti* is चत्वारि शृङ्गा त्रयो अस्य पादा द्वे शीर्षे सप्त हस्तासो अस्य । त्रिधा बद्धो वृषभो रोरवीति महोदेवो मर्त्यां आ विवेश ॥ ऋ. IV. 58. 3, explained in निरुक्त 13. 7 and in the महाभाष्य (vol. I. p. 3); in ऋ. X. 63. 10 (=वाज. सं. 21. 6) यज्ञ or द्युलोक is spoken of in terms of a नौका.

c6.3

² In the शतपथब्राह्मण we find that there is a pun on the words हित (placed, beneficial) and वर्ष (year and rainy season)

c6.4

In Ṛg. X. 146. 1 (अरण्यान्यरण्यासौ या प्रेव नश्यसि । कदा ग्रामं न पृच्छसि न त्वा मीरिव विदन्तिः ॥) there is उत्प्रेक्षा, which resembles the one in लिम्पतीव तमोऽङ्गानि० discussed by the काव्यादर्श (vide p. 88 above) and in Ṛg. II. 35. 13 (सो अपां नपादनम्लातवर्णोऽन्यस्यवेह तन्वा विवेश) also there is a fine उत्प्रेक्षा.

c6.5

Prof. Charu Deva Sastri in his valuable paper on ‘Bhartṛhari and the Vākyapadīya’ (Proceedings, 5th All India O. Conference pp. 630-655) points out at p. 650 that भर्तृहरि in his महाभाष्यटीका states that one and the same object can be compared to itself (which is the figure अनन्वय) in the following कारिका ‘दस्युहेन्द्र इवेत्येतदैन्द्र मन्त्रे प्रयुज्यते । अन्यत्र दृष्टकमेन्द्रो यथेत्यस्मिन् विवक्षितैः’। Prof. Charu Deva sets out the mantra as ‘इन्द्र इव दस्युहये भव क्षेत्राणि सृज’, but does not state whence it is taken. The मन्त्र means ‘O Indra, you are praised like Indra,¹ may you be killer of dasyus like Indra, create fields for us.’

c6.6

¹ This मन्त्र is found in मैत्रायणीसंहिता IV. 12. 73 as ‘इन्द्र इव दस्युहा भवाः क्षेत्राणि संजय ।’.

c6.7

Dr. De (in H. S. P. vol. I. p. 341) says ‘Undue emphasis appears to have been laid on the use of poetic figures in Vedic Literature by Kane in I. A. XLI, 1912, p. 12cf.’. He is wrong. I put forward my thesis rather briefly and modestly. Therefore, I am obliged to elaborate it here. In the first place, reference must be made to the dialogues in the Ṛgveda, some of which are highly poetic and imaginative and all of which must be regarded as precursors of the later classical dramas. The following dialogues may be referred to: Ṛg. III. 33 (Viśvāmitra and the rivers); X 10 (Yama and Yamī), X. 108 (Sarama and Paṇis); I. 165 and 170 (Indra, Maruts and Agastya); I. 179 (Agastya and Lopāmudrā and pupil); IV. 18 (Indra, Aditi and Vāmadeva); IV. 42 (Indra and Varuṇa); VII. 33 (Vasiṣṭha, his sons and Indra); VIII. 100 (Nema Bhārgava and Indra); X. 28 (Indra and wife of Vasukra); X. 51-53 (Gods and Agni); X. 86 (Indra, Indrāṇī and Vṛṣākapi). Some of these are obscure or enigmatic and one or two like X. 86 are almost unintelligible. Ṛg. X. 119 in a monologue (in which the poet fancies that Indra being intoxicated with Soma offerings muses to himself). Similarly, Ṛg. I. 24 is a soliloquy of in I. 3. 1. 25 and II. 2. 3. 7 (S. B. E. vol. 12 pp. 77, 315) respectively and on महिषी (crowned queen, she-buffalo) in VI. 5. 3. 1 (S. B. E. vol. 41 p. 235).

c6.8.1

Śunaḥśepa whose story is developed in the Ait. Br. Beautiful similes are found by the hundred in the Ṛg. Vide Prof. H. D. Velankar's exhaustive treatment of similes in the 4th and 5th Maṇḍalas of the Ṛg. in J.B.B.R.A.S. vol. 14 pp. 1-47 and vol. 16 pp. 1-42, ‘Figures of speech in the Ṛgveda’ Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. 17 pp. 61-83 (translated from A. Bergaigne's Article) and pp. 259-288 by Mr. A. Venkatasubbiah; Abel Bergaigne's ‘La Syntaxe des comparaisons Vediques’ (1886) translated in Annals B.O.R.I. vol. XVI pp. 232-261 by Mr. A. Venkatasubbiah, ‘Figures of speech in Ṛgveda’ by Mr. P. S. Sastri in Annals B.O.R.I. vol. 28 pp. 34-64. The Ṛgvedic poets not only indulge in such figures of speech as Upamā, Atiśayokti and Rūpaka (as in Ṛg. III. 27. 15, IX. 64. 1 वृषा सोमः), but they appear to have had some ideas about a theory of poetics, as the following brief statement will show. They are fond of the repetition of the same letters or words which create an appearance of what is called anuprāsa in later times, e.g. रक्षाणो अग्ने तव रक्षोभी रारक्षः (IV. 3. 14), प्रतार्थने प्रतरं न आयुः (IV. 12. 6), अब्जा गोजा ऋतजा अद्रिजा ऋतम् (IV. 40. 5), वयमग्ने वनुयाम त्वोता वसवो (V. 3. 6); repetition of the same word at the beginning of several pādas in IV. 23. 3-5 or in several pādas as in Ṛg. IV. 40. 5 हंसः शुचिषद्वसुरन्तरिक्षसद्धोता वेदिषदतिथिर्दुरोणसत्’; Ṛg. V. 27. 4) ददच्चा सनि यते ददन्मेधामृतायते) and Ṛg. 76. 2 दिवाभिपित्वेडवसा गमिष्ठा प्रत्यवर्ति दाशुषे शंभविष्ठा);

c6.8.2

the last two seem to be efforts at यमक. The sage often says that he brings to the god a new and forceful verse, a product of his speech (प्र तव्यसीं नव्यसीं धीतिमग्नये वाचो मतिं सहसः सूनवे भरे । Ṛg. I. 143. 1). An interesting verse is Ṛg. X. 71. 2 सक्तुमिव तितउना पुनन्तो यत्र धीरा मनसा वाचमक्रत । अत्रा सखायः सख्यानि जानते भद्रां लक्ष्मीर्निहिताधि वाचि ॥ ‘When men of wisdom create by their intellect verse (lit. speech) after winnowing (words) as barley grains are sifted by means of a winnowing basket, then men of equal knowledge understand (recognize) meaning (contained in the verse); in their verses (speech) blessed glory is enshrined, (resides).¹ This makes it clear that a distinction is here made between ordinary speech and poetic speech, that poets have to pick and choose their words and that poetry leads on to bliss and glory. Ṛg. X. 125 is a sublime hymn to Vāk (put in the mouth of Vāk herself) wherein the power of speech is most effectively and picturesquely described. One half verse may be quoted here ‘यं कामये तं तमुग्रं कृणोमि तं ब्रह्माणं तमृषिं तं सुमेधाम् ॥’. Ṛg. X. 71. 4 (उत त्वः पश्यन्न ददर्श वाचमुत त्वः शृण्वन्न शृणोत्येनाम् । उतो त्वस्मै तन्वं विसस्रे जायेव पत्य उशती सुवासाः ॥) is another verse which is explained both in the Nir. I. 19 and in the महाभाष्य (vol. I. p.

c6.8.3

4) and which marks the difference between the man who does not understand the greatness of speech and him who looks more to the inner meaning of speech than to the nice words in which it may be clothed. The word ‘kāvya’ (poem) occurs several times in the Ṛgveda; e. g. III. 17 is भा देवानांभवः केतुरभे मन्द्रो विश्वानि काव्यानि विद्वान् ॥ ‘Agni! thou art the banner of the gods and knowest all poems’; vide also III. 1. 18 for ‘अग्निर्विश्वानि काव्यानि विद्वान्’; IV. 3. 16 (nivacanā kavaye kāvyanya-samsiṣam); in Ṛg. VI. 11. 3 ‘मधु च्छन्दो भनति रेम इष्टौ (the singer utters in the sacrifice a sweet verse); VIII. 3. 15 ‘उदुत्ये मधुमत्तमा गिरः स्तोमास ईरते’ (those men send forth songs of praise, that are most sweet words); the word गाथा (a verse that is sung) also often occurs in the Ṛgveda; e. g. VIII. 43 ‘तं गाथया पुराण्या पुनानमभ्यनूषत’ (with an ancient gāthā they send forth a laud towards Soma that is being washed); vide also X. 85. 6. These passages show that poems with sweet words were highly valued in those very ancient times and, though no theory of Poetics could be stated to have been evolved, the germs of it were there. The शतपथब्रा. I. 2. 5. 16 emphasizes the same points of female beauty as later classical Sanskrit poets do (एवमेव हि योषीं प्रशंसन्ति पृथुश्रोणीर्विमृष्टान्तरांसा मध्ये संग्राह्यति). This much will suffice for the different aspects of Poetry in general. As regards dramas and dramatic representation the following points have to be noted.

c6.8.4

A dramatic representation has generally four aspects viz. the dialogue, songs, music and dance. All these elements were developed in Vedic Literature. Dialogues have been already referred to. Then there were the ब्रह्मौद्यस (questions and answers) as in वाज. सं. 23. 9-12 and 45-62 explained in शतपथब्राह्मण XIII. 2. 6. 9-17 and XIII..5. 2. 12-21 (S. B. E. vol. 44 pp. 314-316 and pp. 388-90). Vide also तै. सं. VII 4. 18 and तै. ब्रा. III. 9. 5. In Vedic ritual there were several incidents that partook of the nature of the drama. First, there is a dialogue between the Adhvaryu and the vendor of Soma (vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 1143 and notes). Then in the Mahāvrata which is the penultimate day in a Sattra, there is a mock fight between a brāhmaṇa and a śūdra for a white circular skin that symbolizes the sun, and it is so arranged that it ends in a victory for the ārya. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 1244. In the same rite there was beating of drums, chanting of hymns by the priests whose wives acted as choristers and played on several musical intruments, and servants and maids danced with water jars on their heads and sang songs in which cows were lauded (ibid. pp. 1244-45). Compare for this Tai. S. VII. 5. 10. In the Aśvamedha, after the horse was sacrificed, there was an exchange of obscene abuse between the hotṛ priest and the crowned queen and the brahmā priest and the favourite wife of the king (vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 1234-35).

c6.8.5

In the Aśvamedha a brāhmaṇa and a rājanya were engaged in playing on the lute everyday for one year and they sang three songs each composed by themselves, the brāhmaṇa’s songs saying¹ ‘you donated this, you performed such and such a sacrifice,’ while the gāthās of the Rājanya stated ‘you fought this war, you won this battle’. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 1231. The Śat. Br. refers to the Uttaramandrā tune of the Viṇā. Several musical instruments are mentioned such as दुन्दुभि (Rg. I. 28. 5, VI. 47. 29, Vāj. S. 29. 55-56), गर्गर (Rg. VII. 69. 9), वाण (Rg. IX. 50. 1, IX. 97. 8, X 32. 4, Tai. S. VII. 5. 9. 2 वाणः शततन्तु-मँबति). Persons playing on वीणा, तूखव, दुन्दुभि and blowing a conch are mentioned in वाज. सं. 30. 19 and तै. ब्रा. III. 4. 13. Rg. I. 92. 4 compares Uṣas to a female dancer (नृतू) that puts ornaments on her body and bares her breast (अधि पेशांसि वपते नृतूिवा-पोर्णुते वक्ष उस्त्रेव बर्जहम् ।). Dancing is referred to in Rg. X. 94. 4-5. The Vāj. S. (30. 6) in its symbolical पुरुषमेध consigns the सूत to नृत्त and the शैलूष to गीत; compare तै. ब्रा. III. 4. 2 (where it is exactly the opposite viz. गीताय सूतं नृत्ताय शैलूषम् ). The Ait. Ār. III. 2. 5 speaks of the several parts of a वीणा which was covered in a hairy skin cover. The कौषी. ब्रा. 29. 5 says त्रिबृदै शिल्पं नृत्यं गीतं वादितमिति. Therefore, it follows that even the earlier period of Vedic Literature knew dramatic spectacles of a religious character.

c6.9

¹ This verse is explained in the Nirukta IV. 10 and in the महाभाष्य (vol. I. p. 4) at the beginning. It is also quoted in the साहित्यमीमांसा (p. 161). Vide above p. 271.

c6.10

¹ अयजतेत्यददिति ब्राह्मणो गायति...अयुध्यतेत्यमुं संग्रामजयदिति राजन्यो...तिस्रोऽन्यो गाथा गायति तिस्रोऽन्यः ।...शतपथब्रा. XIII. 1. 5. 6.; तस्यै प्रयाजेषु तायमानेषु ब्राह्मणो वीणागाथी दक्षिणत उत्तरमन्द्रा मुदाष्नस्तिस्त्रः स्वयं संभृता गाथा गायति...। शतपथ XIII. 4. 2. 8.

c6.11

Western scholars such as Schroeder, Windisch, Oldenberg, Pischel, Konow have evolved various theories about the origin of the Sanskrit drama, all of which are criticized by Prof. A. B. Keith in S. D. pp. 13-27. The Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata shows its consciousness that the classical Sanskrit drama has its roots deep down in the Vedic age when भरत states (in नाट्यशास्त्र I. 17 Ch. ed. and in G. O. S. ed. also) that पाठ्य (recitation and dialogue), गीत, अभिनय and रस were taken from the ऋग्वेद, सामवेद, यजुर्वेद and अथर्ववेद respectively (vide p. 29 above).

c6.12

In the Baud. Gṛ. I. 4. 5 (Mysore ed.) and in the Hir. Gṛ. I. 24. 6 we come across the following verse which refers to Cakravāka birds that are symbols of tender conjugal love and concord in classical Sanskrit ‘चाक्रवाकं संवननं यन्नदीभ्य उदाहृतम् । यदिस्तौ देवगन्धर्वौ तेन संवननौ स्वः ॥’ (the husband says this to the wife on the 4th night after monthly illness starts). Vide S. B. E. vol. 30 p. 198 for Hir. Gṛ. and H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 224 on सीमन्तोन्नयन for references to other गृह्य sūtras.

c6.13

The Upaniṣads also, though they are devoted to the pursuit of philosophical truth, contain highly poetic passages e. g. ‘धनुर्गृहीत्वौपनिषदं महास्त्रं शरं ह्युपासानिशितं संधयीत । आयम्य तद्भावगतेन चेतसा लक्ष्यं तदेवाक्षरं सोम्य विद्धि ॥’ मुण्डकोपनि. II. 2. 3. Similarly, the verse ‘आत्मानं रथिनं विद्धि शरीरं रथमेव तु’ (कठोपनिषद् I. 3. 3) contains a good रूपक and the verses ‘इन्द्रियेभ्यः परा ह्यर्था अर्थेभ्यश्च परं मनः ।... पुरुषः परः ।’ contain the figure सार. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 1231-1233 for the recitation of narratives called पारिप्लव for one year in अश्वमेध and Śat. Br. XIII. 4. 3 (SBE. vol. 44 pp. 360-371). In the ऐत. ब्रा. (VII. 18. 10=33. 6) the story of शुनःशेप is called शौनःशेपाख्यान, which the hotṛ priest was to recite to the king in the Rājasūya sacrifice. In ऐत. ब्रा. (III. 25. 1= 13. 1) there is mention of सौपर्णाख्यान.

c6.14

2 Coming to later days, there is ample evidence to show that centuries before the Christian era poetry of a high order had been composed. It is accepted almost by all scholars that the Mahābhārata in its extant form cannot be placed later than the 2nd century A. D. and that a large portion of it may be at least as old as 500 B. C. Similarly, the रामायण has been assigned to the 4th century B. C. by some scholars (Dr. Keith in JRAS 1915 p. 320), while others (like Dr. Jacobi) would place it as far back as 600 B. C. These two epics contain highly poetical passages. Many passages are quoted from the महाभारत in the ध्वन्यालोक (pp. 153 where the verse या निशा सर्वभूतानां is quoted and p. 299 where 'भगवान् वासुदेवश्च कौर्त्यतेऽत्र सनातनः' आदिपर्व chap. I. 256 is quoted) and a few from the रामायण are mentioned (e. g. in ध्व० p. 76 रविसंक्रान्त० which is भरय० 22. 13), The महाभारत is more of a धर्मशास्त्र than a काव्य, though, as the work itself asserts in no mood of vanity, it has inspired many poets ('इतिहासोत्तमास्माज्जायन्ते कविबुद्धयः' आदिपर्व 2. 385 and 'इदं कविवरैः सर्वैराख्यानमुपजीव्यते' आदि. 2 389). The रामायण is truly a kāvya in its main purpose, its form and contents.² It abounds in elaborate descriptions and flights of fancy. For example, the highly poetical description of the sea (इसन्तमिब फेनौघैर्नृत्यत्तमिव चोर्मिभिः) in the युद्धकाण्ड (4. 115 ff), the imaginative description of the sky in सुन्दरकाण्ड (57. 1-4) and the elaborate रूपक in अयोध्याकाण्ड (69. 28 ff), may be referred to in this connection. The दशरूप (I. 68)advises the authors of dramas to draw upon the रामायण and the बृहत्कथा for their plots. The quotation 'अक्रूरो ददते मणियम्' in the निरुक्त (II. 2) seems to be taken from some secular poetic work. The sūtra of Pāṇini (अधिकृत्य कृते ग्रन्थे IV. 3. 87) and the following sūtra indicate the existence of secular works before Pāṇini's day which may have been poetic. नमिसाधु on रुद्रट (II. 8) tells us that पाणििन wrote a महाकाव्य called पातालविजय and then quotes one verse and a portion of another from that work. राजशेखर³ attributes the composition of the kāvya जाम्बवतीजय to the grammarian पाणिनि (Peterson's 4th Report LXXVI). The सुवृत्ततिलक (III. 30) says that पाणिनि excelled in the composition of the उपजाति metre. Many verses ascribed to पाणिनि in the anthologies (vide Peterson's preface to सुभाषितवलि p. 58 out of which the verse उपोदरागेण० is ascribed to पाणिनि in सद्युक्ति० p. 58, सूक्तिमु० p. 260 and शार्ङ्ग० No. 3634 and occurs in the ध्व० p. 35, without name) and the verse ऐन्द्रं धनुः is ascribed to पाणिनि in सुभा० (No. 1815) and occurs in काव्या. सु. of वामन (IV. 3. 27) and व्यक्तिविवेक p. 75. A vārtika on अधिकृत्य कृते ग्रन्थे viz. लुबाख्यायिकाभ्यो बहुलम्) shows that the class of composition known as आख्यायिका existed long before पतञ्जलि. The latter speaks of a kāvya composed by वररुचि (‘यत्तेन कृतं न च तेन प्रोक्तं 'वाररुचं काव्यं जालुकाः श्लोकाः' महाभाष्य vol. II. p. 315). On pp. 2-3 पतञ्जलि refers to certain ślokas called आञ्ज from which he quotes one verse ‘यस्तु प्रयुंक्ते’ and explains it at length on which कैयट says that they were composed by कात्यायन. Vide काव्यमी. pp. 25-27. पतञ्जलि, while commenting on the वार्तिक ‘लुबाख्यायिकाभ्यो बहुलम्’ mentions by name three works of the आख्यायिका class, viz. वासवदत्ता, सुमनोत्तरा² and मैमरथी (महाभाष्य vol. II. p. 313; see also p. 284).

c6.15

¹ गृध्रगोमायुसंवाद in शान्तिपर्व 153 verses 11, 12, 19, 65 (=cr. ed. chap. 149, verses 8, 9, 15, 60) are quoted in the काव्यप्रकाश as an example of प्रबन्धनिष्ठध्वनि. On 'या निशा' etc. the ध्व. remarks (p. 154) 'अनेन हि वाक्येन निशार्थो न जागरणार्थः कश्चिद्विवक्षितः किं तर्हि तत्त्वज्ञानावहितत्वमतत्त्वपराङ्मुखत्वं च मुनेः प्रतिपाद्यत इति तिरस्कृतवाच्यस्यास्य व्यञ्जकत्वम्'.

c6.16

² बालकाण्ड 2. 15 is the famous verse मा निषाद ... मोहितम्; 2. 18 is शोकार्तस्य प्रवृत्तो मे श्लोको भवतु नान्यथा; 40-41 'समाक्षरैश्चतुर्भिर्यः पादै-गीतो महर्षिणा ।। सोनुव्याहरणाद्यः शोकः श्लोकत्वमागतः।' Thus the बालकाण्ड states the origin of the classical Sanskrit śloka and also contains the germs of the rasa theory. The रघुवंश (14. 70) श्लोकत्वमापद्यत यस्य शोकः) echoes the words of the बालकाण्ड and so does ध्व. I. 5 p. 31 'काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थस्तथा चादिकवेः पुरा। क्रौञ्चद्वन्द्ववियोगोत्थः शोकः श्लोकत्वमागतः' and then the ध्व० (p. 32) quotes the verse 'मा निषाद०'.

c6.17

³ स्वस्ति पाणिनये तस्मै यस्य रुद्रप्रसादतः । आदौ व्याकरणं काव्यमनु जाम्बवतीजयः ।। राजशेखर quoted in सूक्ति० p. 42. Vide कवीन्द्र० Intro. pp. 51-53 for collecting together all the verses attributed to

c6.18

² सुमनोत्तरा

c6.19

पाणिनि in the several anthologies. Two questions arise: (1) Whether Pāṇini the poet is identical with Pāṇini the grammarian and (2) whether the names पातालविजय (in नमिसाधु on रुद्रट II. 8) and जाम्बवतीजय refer to the same work. On the first question opinion is divided. I think that we should rather adopt the cautious attitude so finely put by Peterson in his Intro. to सुभा० p. 58 (note). In H. I. Q. vol. 13 pp. 167-171 Mr. Krishnadeva Upadhyaya shows that the दुर्घटवृत्ति of शरणदेव composed in śaka 1095 (1173 A. D.) quotes three verses (not mentioned anywhere else, two of which are Upajātis and one अनुष्टुभ) from the 2nd, 5th and 18th cantos respectively of the जाम्बवतीविजय.

c6.20

1. राजशेखर quoted in the सूक्तिमु. p. 43 says ‘यथार्थता कथं नास्ति मा भूदरुचेरिह। व्यधत्त कण्ठाभरणं यः सदा रोहणप्रियः॥’. Vide Peterson's Intro. to सुभा. pp. 108-109 for verses attributed to वररुचि in the anthologies.

c6.21

2. For the story of सुमन, a rich merchant of Rājagṛha, and his wife उत्तरा, vide ‘Poona Orientalist’ vol. 7 pp. 197-200. पतञ्जलि mentions the word सौमनोत्तरिकः (one who studies the आख्यायिका सुमनोत्तरा) in vol. II. p. 284 on पाणिनि IV. 2.60

c6.22

He refers to two works dealing with the death of Kaṃsa and the humiliation of Bali and dramatic representations of these themes (vol. II. p. 34 and p. 36).¹ In another passage he makes a reference to the wives of actors ‘व्यञ्जनानि पुनर्नटभार्यावद्भवन्ति । नटानां स्त्रियो रङ्गं गता यो यः पृच्छति कस्य यूयं कस्य यूयमिति तं तं तव तवेत्याहुः’ (vol. III. p. 7). The महाभाष्य contains many quotations from the works of poets that went before it, some of which possess poetic charm, e.g. ‘असि द्वितीयोनुससार पाण्डवम्’ and ‘सङ्कर्षणद्वितीयस्य बलं कृष्णस्य वर्धताम्’ (vol. I. p. 426); जघान कंसं किल वासुदेवः (vol. II. p. 119); जनार्दनस्त्वमात्मचतुर्थ एव (vol. III. p. 143): प्रिया मयूरः प्रतिनर्त्तीति and यदत्त्वं नरबर नर्त्तीति हृष्टः (vol. III. p. 338); एति जीवन्तमानन्दः (vol. I. p. 277); वरतनु संप्रवदन्ति कुक्कुटाः² (vol. I. p.283). The verse³ एति etc. occurs in the युद्धकाण्ड (129. 2 where it is called लौकिकीगाथा). On the sūtra रसादिभ्यश्च (पा. V. 2. 95) the Mahābhāṣya gives the example रसिको नटः (vol. II. p. 394), thereby indicating that there were even then in the air some ideas about the relation of rasas to actors. In the days of the महाभाष्य also the face of a charming young woman was compared to the moon, since he cites the example चन्द्रमुखी देवदत्ता (vol. I. p. 397) and remarks that though the moon has many good points what is conveyed here is प्रियदर्शनता. On ‘उपमानानि सामान्यवचनैः’ पा. II. 1. 55 we have ‘चन्द्रमुखी देवदत्तेति बहवश्चन्द्रे गुणा या चासौ प्रियदर्शनता सा गम्यते (महा- भाष्य). The महाभाष्य also says ‘यदारम्भका रङ्गं गच्छन्ति नटस्य श्रोश्यामः ग्रन्थिकस्य श्रोश्यामः’ (vol. I. p. 329 on ‘आख्यातोपयोगे’ पा. I. 4. 29).¹ This example clearly shows that पतञ्जलि here refers to actors who deliver dramatic dialogues on the stage (रङ्ग), and not to any shows concerned with pantomimes. On पा. II. 4. 77 (vol. I. p. 495,) the महाभाष्य cites ‘अगासीन्नटः’ showing thereby that a नट also sang. Why the same meaning should not be taken in the case of Pāṇini’s sūtra ‘पाराशयशिलालिभ्यां भिक्षुनटसूत्रयोः’ (IV. 3. 110) is not clear to me. Western scholars like Keith obstinately and persistently refuse to hold that the Naṭasūtra referred to by Pāṇini is some work on actors and dramaturgy (vide ‘Sanskrit Drama’ pp. 31, 291) but that all that Pāṇini meant are rules on pantomimes. No works dealing with pantomimes alone have been discovered so far.

c6.23

¹ महाभाष्य says ‘इह तु कथं वर्तमानकालता कंसं घातयति बलिं बन्धयतीति चिरहते कंसे चिरबद्धे च बलौ । अत्रापि युक्ता । कथम् । ये तावदेते शोभनिका नामैते प्रत्यक्षं कंसं घातयन्ति प्रत्यक्षं च बलिं बन्धयन्तीति । चित्रेषु कथम् ।...ग्रन्थिके षु कथम् । यत्र शब्दगडुमात्रं लक्ष्यते । तेऽपि तेषामुत्पत्तिप्रभृत्या विनाशाद्द्व्यौच्चाशाः सतो बुद्धिविषयान् प्रकाशयन्ति’ । vol. II. p. 36. This refers to three separate matters. शोभनिका (explained by कैयट as कंसानुकारिणां नटानां व्याख्यानौपाध्यायाः) represent the killing of कंस; pictures paint these incidents and thirdly poets compose works describing their actions. पतञ्जलि says that some of the actors have their faces coloured red and others black.

c6.24

² In औचित्यविचारचर्चा (कारिका 24) क्षेमेन्द्र quotes as कुमारदास’s the verse ‘मयि विजहीहि दृढोपगूहनं त्यज नवसङ्गमभीह वल्लभम् । अरुणकरोद्गम एष वर्तते वरतनु संप्रवदन्ति कुक्कुटाः॥’, where the महाभाष्य quotation is taken up as if for समस्यापूरण. The verse मयि विजहीहि occurs as an example of शब्दालङ्कारगति under सर. क. II. 26. p. 151.

c6.25

³ Vide I. A. vol. 14 pp. 326 ff and Indische Studien vol. XII pp. 293-496.

c6.26

¹ उपयोग means नियमपूर्वकविद्यास्वीकारः. In such a case the आख्याता (i. e. वक्ता) is put in the ablative as in उपाध्यायादधीते.

c6.27

In I. H. Q. vol. 17 pp. 196-206 Dr. Wijesekera cites evidence from ancient Buddhist works for the early existence of drama. At. p. 197 he quotes a passage from theं गामणिसंयुत्त (IV. p. 306) wherein a नटगामणि (the leader of naṭas) asks the Blessed One ‘योऽसौ नटो रंगमज्झे समज्जमज्झे सञ्चालिकेन जनं हासेति रमेति &c.’ (that naṭa who on the stage or in an arena makes people laugh and delights them by a mixture of truth and falsehood). On p. 200 he quotes from the Dialogues of Buddha a passage where नृत्य, गीत, वादित, प्रेक्षा, आख्यान and शोभानगरक are mentioned. The preceding brief discussion shows that from at least 500 B. C. to 100 B. C. a great deal of poetical material of a secular character had been accumulated in classical Sanskrit. This must have naturally led to speculations about the functions and objects of poetry, the classification of different kinds of poetry and literary works like आख्यायिकाs, the enunciation of rules about the standard form of certain classes of composition, in short, to attempts, more or less crude, to establish a theory of Poetics and literary criticism. From this time forward the two processes, viz. composition of secular poetry and the elaboration of rules, must have proceeded hand in hand.

c6.28.1

3. Early beginnings of Poetics. Epigraphic records of the 2nd century A. D. and onwards show that before that period a theory of Poetics had been evolved. Vide on this part of the subject and in general for the development of Poetics my articles in I. A. for 1912 pp. 124-128 and pp. 201-208 and on the epigraphic material in Buhler’s essay ‘Die Indische Inschriften etc.’ (translated by Prof. Ghate in I. A. for 1913 pp. 29, 137, 172, 188, 230, 243). In ‘seven Brāhmī Inscriptions from Mathurā’ E. I. vol. 24 pp. 199 ff. Prof. Lüders says that in one of them occurs a verse in the भुजङ्गविजृम्भित metre and that therefore it must be conceded that *Kāvya* poetry was fully developed before 1st century B.C. The Inscription of रुद्रदामन् at Junagad (dated 150 A.D.) sheds very great light on the stage Poetics had reached by that time. Vide ASWI vol. II p. 128 and E. I. vol. VIII. p. 36 for the inscription. The preserved portion contains only two verbs, it is written in prose with long compounds, it is full of alliteration and other tricks with words. A brief quotation will convey an idea of the nature of the inscription: सर्वक्षत्राविष्कृत-वीरशब्दजातोत्सेकाविधेयानां यौधेयानां प्रशसोत्सादेन... शब्दार्थगन्धर्व्वन्यायानां विद्यानां महतीनां पारणधारणविज्ञानप्रयोगवाप्तविपुलकीर्तिना... स्फुटलघुमधुरचित्रकान्तशब्दसमयोदारालङ्कृतगद्यपद्य... यमधिगतमहाक्षत्रपनाम्ना नरेन्द्रकन्यास्वयंवरानिकमाल्यप्राप्तदाम्ना महाक्षत्रपेण रुद्रदाम्ना (p. 44). This shows that in or before the second century A. D.

c6.28.2

*काव्य* had been divided into *गद्य* and *पद्य*, that some of the *guṇas* that figure in later works had been already named (*vide* स्फुट,¹ मधुर, कान्त, उदार, which correspond to प्रसाद, माधुर्य, कान्ति and उदारता of the काव्यादर्श), both *गद्य* and *पद्य* were required to be *अलङ्कृत* (that is endowed with figures of speech). The नाट्यशास्त्र 17. 102, 106, 107 (K. M. ed. 16. 103, 107-108 and GOS. ed. 16. 104, 110, 112), define माधुर्य, उदात्त, कान्त. The composer of this inscription was evidently trying to come up to the standard of a good poet laid down in the works on Poetics of his day and therefore this inscription represents at least a mediocre attempt at what a *kāvya* was in those days required to be. The Nasik Inscription of Siri Pulumāyi, which is somewhat earlier than that of रुद्रदामन्, though in Prakrit, exhibits the same traits (Bombay Gazetteer vol. 16 p. 550 and E. I. vol. 8 p. 60 No. 2). In the first two centuries of the Christian era both Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions were engraved and followed the same pattern of literary style. The Ayodhyā Śuṅga Inscription of धन (देव or भूति), who was the sixth from Senāpati Puṣyamitra is in Sanskrit (E. I. vol. 20 p. 54) and the Inscription of रुद्रदामन् has been cited above already. The Inscription of Khāravela (referred to above on p. 19 and n 3) is in Prākrit, shows all the traits of the Ins. of रुद्रदामन् and mentions गन्धर्ववेद, नट, गीत, वादित्र and उत्सवसमाज. A quotation from it and one from the Nasik Ins.

c6.28.3

in the 19th year of Siri Pulumāyi are given below.¹ It will be noticed that they are full of alliteration, the language is forcible and sonorous and there are long compounds, which were the essence of prose according to somewhat later works like the काव्यादर्श (ओजः समासभूयस्त्वमेतद्गद्यस्य जीवितम् । I. 80) which dictum was probably based on older prose works now lost that were imitated by the writers of the early inscriptions in Sanskrit and Prakrit. Vide for other comparatively old Sanskrit Inscriptions, Dr. R. C. Majumdar’s ‘Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East’ (vol. 1, book III. p. 1, the Vo-Chanh Rock Inscription from Champā in Sanskrit of the 2nd or 3rd century A. D. containing two वसन्ततिलका verses), I. H. Q. vol. 16 p. 484 (Dr. G. Coedés), vol. 17 pp. 107-110 (Dr. D. C. Sarkar for same as to date); the Pikira grant of Pallava king सिंहवर्मन्, son of युवमहाराज विष्णुगोप and grandson of महाराजस्कन्दवर्मन् II in Sanskrit prose with long compounds. An inscription of the 4th century A. D. contains a panegyric of the great Emperor समुद्रगुप्त by हरिषेण (vide Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, No. 1 p. 8). The prose of this प्रशस्ति rivals the style of Bāṇa. This प्रशस्ति tells us that ‘the title कविराज has been applied to समुद्रगुप्त on account of the composition of many kāvyas that were the source of inspiration to learned men’.

c6.28.4

A brief quotation will be helpful : ‘कृपणदीनानाथातुरजनोद्धरणसमन्त्रदीक्षा- धुपगतमनसः समिद्धस्य विग्रहवतो लोकानुग्रहस्य धनदवरुणेन्द्रान्तकस मस्य स्वभुजबलवि- जिताने कनपतिविभवप्रत्यर्पणनित्यव्याप्तायुक्तपुरुषस्य निशितविद्वन्मतिगान्धर्वललितै- र्विडितत्रिदशपतिगुरुतुम्बुरुनारदादिविद्वज्जनोपजीव्यनेककाव्यक्रियाभिः प्रतिष्ठितकवि- राजशब्दस्य etc.’ These inscriptions therefore show that long before the 4th century, Poetics had made a good deal of progress. There are other indications of great antiquity that point in the same direction. The निघण्टु (III. 13) collects twelve phrases from the Ṛgveda and calls them उपमा (such as इदमिव, इदं यथा, अग्निर्वत्, तद्वत्). The निरुक्त, while commenting on this part of the निघण्टु cites a scientific definition of उपमा from गार्ग्य, a predecessor of यास्क, and remarks that in the Ṛgveda a superior object is sometimes compared with an inferior one (though the general rule is that the उपमान is superior to or more well-known than the उपमेय) अर्थात उपमा यदतत्तत्सदृशमिति गार्ग्यस्तदासां कर्म ज्यायसा वा गुणेन प्रख्याततमेन वा कनीयांसं वाप्रख्यातं वोपमिमीतेऽथापि कनीयसा ज्यायांसम्’ (III. 13). The निरुक्त then cites Ṛg. X. 4. 6 (तनूत्यजेव तस्करा वनर्गू &c., where the arms are compared to desperate thieves) and Ṛg. X. 40. 2 (कुह स्विद्दोषा कुह वस्त्रोश्विना &c., where the Aśvins are compared to the levir having intercourse with his brother’s widow).

c6.28.5

यास्क foreshadows the later distinction between पूर्णा and लुप्ता simile in the words ‘लुप्तोपमान्यथोपमानीत्याचक्षते’ (निरुक्त III. 18). A complete Upamā has four constituent elements, उपमान, उपमेय (or उपमित), the common property (सामान्य) and the word expressive of the relation (such as इव, तुल्य). Long before Pāṇini these technical words had become fixed in the language. The followsng sūtras will make this clear : ‘उपमानानि सामान्यवचनैः’ and ‘उपमितं व्याघ्रादिभिः सामान्याप्रयोगे’ (पा. II. 1. 55-56); तुल्यार्थैरतुलोपमाभ्यां तृतीयान्यतरस्याम्’ पा. II. 3. 72; ‘उपमानादाचारे’ पा. III. 1. 10 (क्यच् स्यात्); ‘तेन तुल्यं क्रिया चेद्वतिः । तत्र तस्येव’ पा. V. 1. 115-16. Pāṇini refers to the Naṭasūtras composed by Śilālin and कृशाश्व (‘पाराशयशिलालिभ्यां भिक्षुनटसूत्रयोः’ and ‘कर्मन्द- कृशाश्वादिभिः’ IV. 3. 110-111). There is nothing left to show what these contained, but if they were to deserve the highsounding designation of a sūtra, it is not unlikely that they gave (however crudely) instruction as to what the business of an actor was, how he could work upon the emotions of the audience (i. e. in short some theory of rasa). The Vedāntasūtras name two alaṅkāras viz. उपमा and रूपक (‘अत एव चोपमा सूर्यकादिवत्’ III. 2. 18 and ‘भानुमानिकमप्येकेषां शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतदर्श- यति च' I. 4. 1). The बुद्धचरित of अश्वघोष (not later than 3rd century, as it was translated into Chinese about 414-421 A. D. and probably of the 1st or 2nd century A.

c6.28.6

D.) was composed at a time when some theory of poetics had already been in vogue. Each canto has at the end a verse or verses in a different metre. The author is very much after alliteration (I. 14, 15; V. 26), employs such a frightful jingle as हरितुरगतुरङ्गः (V.87) and is very fond of यथासंख्य (V. 42 and IX. 16). The बुद्धचरित III. 51 employs the word रसान्तरम्. Similar remarks apply to Aśvaghoṣa's another Mahākāvya, the Saundarananda. In X. 2 there is अनुप्रास and in X. 11 there is यमक 'चलत्कदम्बे हिमवन्नितम्बे तरौ प्रलम्बे चमरौ ललम्बे ।'. Compare नाट्यशास्त्र 17. 84 (इली बलो लली &.); the same verse is K. M. ed. 16.85 and GOS. vol. II chap. 16. 84 p. 330. Prof. H. Lüders published in 1911 fragments of a drama of Aśvaghoṣa called सारिपुत्रप्रकरण which had nine Acts. That shows that ancient dramas on which the rules of the नाट्यशास्त्र were most probably based were lost or forgotten when later dramas like those of भास and कालिदास took the field. Sabhāparva 11. 36 speaks of नाटकऽ 'नाटका विविधा काव्याः कथाख्यायिका रिकाः'. अश्वघोष uses the technical words हाव and भाव ('भावज्ञानेन हावेन चातुर्योपसम्पदा । बुद्ध० IV. 12). Vide नाट्य० 24. 8-10 for भाव and हाव. नाट्यशास्त्र (GOS. ed. vol. III.) chap. 22. 6-8 are: देहात्मकं भवेत्सत्त्वं सत्त्वाद्भावः समुत्थितः । भावात्समुत्थितो हावो हावाद्धेला समुत्थिता ।। वागङ्गमुखरागैश्च सत्त्वेनाभिनयेन च । कवेरन्तर्गतं भावं भावयन्भाव उच्यते ।।. It was shown above (p. 47) that the नाट्यशास्त्र must have been composed not later than 300 A. D.

c6.28.7

It contains a full exposition of the rasa theory, of dramaturgy and of four figures of speech and gunas. कालिदास is fond of अनुप्रास and employs यमक in रघुवंश IX. Bhāravi (who is mentioned in the Aihole Inscription) cannot be placed later than about 580-590 A.D. and in the 15th sarga of Kirātārjunīya exemplifies such चित्रबन्धs as गोमूत्रिका (verse 12), सर्वतोभद्र (25), एकाक्षर (verse 14 in which the only consonant that occurs is न्), different kinds of यमकs (verses 35, 37, 52), a verse with three applications (45).

c6.29

¹ कौटिल्य II. 10 p. 71 (शासनाधिकार) says अर्थक्रमः, सम्बन्धः, परिपूर्णता माधुर्यमौदार्यं स्पष्टत्वमिति लेखसम्पत् and defines the last three as ‘सुखोपनीतचार्वर्थशब्दाभिधानं माधुर्यम्। अग्राम्यशब्दाभिधानमौदार्यम्। प्रणीत-शब्दप्रयोगः स्पष्टत्वमिति’। Compare वामन’s काव्या. सू. III. 2. 11, 13, 14 of which अग्राम्यत्वमुदारता is very close to कौ.

c6.30

¹ महाराजेन...पसथसुभलखनेन चतुरन्तलुठितगुखोपहतेन कलिंगाधिपतिना सिरिखारवेलेन...ततो लेखरूपगणनाववहारविधिविसारदेन सवविजावदातेन नववसानि योवराजं पसासितं......सवपासएडपूजको सवदेवायतनसंस्कारकारको अपतिहतचकिवाहि-निबलो_चकधुरगतचको...राजा खारवेलसिरि । E. I. vol. 20 at pp. 79-80; Nasik Ins. No. 2 in Bombay Gazetteer vol. 16 at p. 550 and E. I. vol. 8 at p. 60 ‘राजनो गोतमितपुतस हिमवतभदरपवतसमसारस...सवराज-लोकमडलपतिगहीतसासनस...दिवसकरविबोधितकमलविमलस दिसवदनस...पटिपुखचद-मडलससीकपियदसनस...सुविभततिवगदेसकालस पोरजननिविसेससुखदुखस...सकय-वनपल्हवनिसुदनसे धमोपचितकरविनियोगकरस &c.’

c6.31

1. In the 15th sarga of the किरातार्जुनिय we have एकाक्षरपाद in verse 5, एकाक्षर in all pādas in verse 14, सर्वतोभद्र and various kinds of यमकs and verse 45 has three meanings. It has been shown above (pp. 119-20) that भारवि flourished about 580-590 A. D. at the latest.

c6.32

Subandhu in his वासवदत्ता alludes in various places to topics of Poetics. He boasts of his skill in weaving a web of puns on each syllable (प्रत्यक्षर—श्लेषमयप्रबन्धविन्यासवैदग्ध्यनिधिर्निबन्धम्.), speaks of वक्रोक्ति, of the soul of poctry, of the composition of an excellent poet in which the expletives तु and हि do not occur and which is divided into long sections and contains Vaktra metre (‘अग्रहेणापि काव्यजीवज्ञेन’ pp. 113-114 of Hall’s ed., ‘सत्कविकাব্যबन्ध इवानवद्यतुहिनिपातः’ p. 134, ‘दीर्घोच्छ्वाससरचनाकुलं सुश्लेषवक्त्रघटनापटु सत्कविवचनमिव’ p. 184). He speaks of शृङ्खलाबन्ध, उत्प्रेक्षा and आक्षेप (p. 136) and on p. 41 we have a मालादीपक ‘यस्य समरभुवि भुजदण्डेन कोदण्डं कोदण्डेन शरा...आसादितम्’ and यमक on p. 53 and pp. 203-14. In the Intro. to हर्षचरित by the present author (pp. 11-12, 1918 A. D.) it was held that Subandhu was probably earlier than Bāṇa. He still sticks to that view. In P. O. vol. XI pp. 29ff. it is shown that जिनभद्र in विशेषावश्यकभाष्य refers to वासवदत्ता and तरङ्गवती and that according to an ancient ms. that work of जिनभद्र was finished at Valabhi in śaka 531 (609 A.D.) when king Silāditya was reigning. It is most probable that जिनभद्र is referring to the वासवदत्ता of सुबन्धु. If so, सुबन्धु cannot be later than the last quarter of the 6th century A. D. बाण speaks of such puzzles as अक्षरच्युतक, मात्राच्युतक, बिन्दुमती, प्रहेलिका &c.; he knew the difference made between कथा and आख्यायिका (उच्छ्वासान्तेप्यखिलास्ते येषां वक्त्रे सरस्वती । कथमाख्यायिकाकारा०, हर्षचरित Intro. verse 10)¹, he speaks of श्लेष, उत्प्रेक्षा, उपमा, दीपक, जाति (हरन्ति कं नोऽज्ज्वलदीपकौपमैः &c. in कादम्बरी) and श्लेषप्रायमुदीच्येपु...उत्प्रेक्षा दाक्षिणात्येषु गौडेश्वरचरडम्बरः ॥ in the हर्षचरित), he extols a prince as the source or fountain of the ambrosial rasas of kāvyas (‘आगमः काव्यामृतसानाम्’ कादम्बरी 1st para). Thus by 600 A. D., we find that numerous figures had been defined, rules had been laid down for the guidance of poets and various classes of composition such as कथा and आख्यायिका had distinctive forms. Works dealing with Poetics are extant that were composed about the time of (or a little later than) Bāṇa (such as those of दण्डी and भामह).

c6.33

¹ Vide p. 107 above for Bāṇa’s words saying that the कादम्बरी was a कथा and हर्षचरित was a आख्यायिका. It is strange that Dr. De (in H. S. P. vol. I. p. 67) remarks ‘Bāṇa designates his Harṣacarita as a Kathā and his Kādambarī as Ākhyāyikā.’ There is either a slip of the pen here or Dr. De has altogether forgotten the last Intro. verse of the कादम्बरी ‘द्विजेन...धिया निबद्धमतीद्वयी कथा’ and Bāṇa’s son’s words ‘याते दिवं पितरि तद्वसैवं सार्धं विच्छेदमाप भुवि यस्तु कथाप्रबन्धः । and verse 6 ‘चित्रा कथाघटनाय मयापि वाक्षी. The 19th Intro. verse to the हर्षचरित is ‘तथापि नृपतेर्भक्त्या...करोम्याख्यायिकाम्भोधौ जिह्वाप्लवनचापलम् ॥’. Nothing could be clearer than this.

c6.34.1

4. The name of the śāstra. The earlier works on Poetics are generally designated Kāvyālaṅkāra, e.g. the works of भामह, वामन and रुद्रट. These works were so called probably because alaṅkāras played the most prominent part in the treatment of poetics in them (following the maxim प्राधान्येन व्यपदेशा भवन्ति). वामन in his काव्या. सू. tells us that the word अलङ्कार is used in two senses, viz. (I) a thing of beauty and (II) a figure of speech (अलङ्क्रियते अनेन). According to him it follows that a work on Poetics is called काव्यालङ्कार because it points out and explains the things of beauty in a kāvya, which make us prize the latter ‘काव्यं ग्राह्यमलङ्कारात् । सौन्दर्यमलङ्कारः । काव्या. सू. I. 1. 1-2 (वृत्ति—अलङ्कृतिलङ्कारः । करणव्युत्पत्त्या पुनरलङ्कारशब्दोपमादिषु वर्तते ।). The कामधेनु remarks : योयमलङ्कारः काव्यग्रहणहेतुत्वेन उपन्यस्यते तद्व्युत्पादकत्वा- च्छास्त्रमपि अलङ्कारनाम्ना व्यपदिश्यत इति शास्त्रस्यालङ्कारत्वेन प्रसिद्धिः प्रतिष्ठिता स्यादिति सूचयितुमयं विन्यासः कृतः काव्यं ग्राह्यमलङ्कारादिति. This is more or less scholastic. Even in those early works that are not designated as अलङ्कार, figures of speech loom very large as in the काव्यादर्श of Daṇḍin, three fourths of which is taken up by the explanation and elucidation of figures of speech (of śabda and artha). The काव्यादर्श says ‘यथास्मध्यमस्माभिः क्रियते काव्यलक्षणम् ॥” (I. 2)... The ध्व. (pp. 11 and 13) speaks of writers on Poetics as काव्यलक्षण- विधायिनः. Though in I.

c6.34.2

1 भामह calls his work काव्यालङ्कार, at the end (VI. 64) he says ‘अवलोक्य मतानि सत्कवीनामवगम्य स्वधिया च काव्यलक्षम ।.’ The ध्व० also (in I. 3) speaks of काव्यलक्ष्मविधायिभिः (as having explained Upamā and other figures of expressed sense). Another name for Poetics is sāhitya. This word seems to have been used in early works in three different but allied senses, though in modern times it is generally employed for Poetics. In the verse साहित्यसङ्गीतकलाविहीनः the word साहित्य appears to have been used in the sense of काव्य. In the verse साहित्यपाथोनिधिमन्थनोत्थं कर्णामृतं रक्षत हे कवीन्द्राः (बिल्हण’s विक्रमाङ्कदेवचरित I. 11), it will be noticed that साहित्य means ‘literature in general’ and kāvya is said to arise like nectar from the ocean of साहित्य (i.e. काव्य is the quintessence of साहित्य). प्रतीहारेन्दुराज eulogising his teacher मुकुल and his proficiency in the मीमांसा and other śastras speaks of him as ‘साहित्यश्रीमुरारेः’. Here obviously the word साहित्य stands for साहित्यशास्त्र (as in the case of मीमांसा, व्याकरण and तर्क that precede the word साहित्यश्रीमुरारेः). मुकुल in the explanation of the kārikā पदवाक्यप्रमाणेषु तदेतत्प्रतिबिम्बितम् । यो योजयति साहित्ये तस्य वाणी प्रसीदति ॥’ अभिधावृत्ति० p. 22) remarks ‘व्याकरणमीमांसातर्कसाहित्यत्मकेषु चतुर्षु शास्त्रेषूपयोगात्’. राजशेखर (काव्यमी. p. 4) says ‘पञ्चमी साहित्यविद्येति यायावरीयः । सा हि चतसृणामपि विद्यानां निष्यन्दः ।’. मङ्ख says ‘विना न साहित्यविदाऽपरत्र गुणः कथञ्चित्प्रथते कवीनाम् ।’ श्रीकण्ठचरित II. 12).

c6.34.3

These passages establish that sometime before 900 A.D. (when राजशेखर flourished) the word साहित्य came to be used in the sense of ‘the science of Poetics’. How much earlier it was employed in that sense it is difficult to say. The word साहित्य seems to be derived from सहित (meaning ‘together’). When poetry came to be defined as ‘शब्दार्थौ सहितौ काव्यं,’ the science of poetic criticism that propounded this definition was naturally called साहित्य. राजशेखर gives this etymology “शब्दार्थोयथावत्सहभावेन विद्या साहित्यविद्या’ (काव्यमी. p. 5). Similarly, the व्यक्तिविवेकटीका (p. 36) remarks ‘न च काव्ये शास्त्रादिवदर्थप्रतीत्यर्थं शब्दमात्रं प्रयुज्यते सहितयोः शब्दार्थयोस्तत्र प्रयोगात् । साहित्यं तुल्यकत्तवेनान्यूनातिरिक्तत्वम् ।’. भामह says ‘शब्दार्थौ सहितौ काव्यं’ (I. 16) and the वक्रोक्तिजीवित (I. 8 and 17 quoted above on p. 227) does the same. The शिशुपालवध says ‘शब्दार्थौ सत्कविरिव द्वयं विदानपेक्षते’ (II. 86). In order to constitute real काव्य, the साहित्य of शब्द and अर्थ is required to possess peculiar charm. This will be discussed later. Therefore the use of the word साहित्य arose probably after the 7th or 8th century A. D. In J. O. R., Madras, vol. IX. pp. 128-134, in ‘Some concepts of Alaṅkāraśāstra’ pp. 264-267 Dr. Raghavan puts forward the theory that, before the days of दण्डी and भामह, क्रियाकल्प was the name of Sanskrit Poetics. He relies upon the list of 64 कलाs mentioned in वात्स्यायन’s कामसूत्र and upon the words in the रामायण, उत्तरकाण्ड chap. 94.

c6.34.4

7 (क्रियाकल्पविदश्चैव तथा काव्यविदो जनान्). There is absolutely no proof that the chapter 94 is a genuine part of the रामायण, but Dr. Raghavan holds without hardly any objective evidence that that chapter is genuine or an old part of the epic. Granting for argument that the उत्तरकाण्ड passage is genuine, it does not prove that the śāstra was called क्रियाकल्प. काव्यविद् by itself might mean ‘he who knows the science of Poetics’; compare साहित्यविदा quoted above. So क्रियाकल्पविदः may have to be construed otherwise. Further, in an appropriate context क्रिया may mean काव्यक्रिया and क्रियाकल्प may mean the procedure of how a काव्य was to be composed and not the whole शास्त्र of Poetics. The word कल्प apart from its technical meaning of ‘śrauta sacrifices’ (as in कल्पसूत्र) simply means ‘procedure’. The word क्रिया by itself means also rites on and after death as in विष्णुपुराण III. 13. 34 (पूर्वाः क्रिया मध्यमाश्च तथा चैवोत्तराः क्रियाः ।). There are many works called क्रियापद्धति which deal only with rites on death and after death (e. g. D. C. ms. No. 118 of 1879-80, 207 of 1884-87, 156 of 1880-81, 99 of 1884-86). If क्रिया by itself (apart from the context) meant (before भामह and दण्डी) काव्य, why was it necessary to say काव्यक्रियाभिः in समुद्रगुप्तप्रशस्ति quoted above and in नाट्यशास्त्र 22. 23 (मया काव्यक्रियाहेतोः प्रक्षिप्ता द्रुहिणाज्ञया)? This verse occurs in K. M. ed. 20, 23 and in GOS. ed. 20. 24 vol. III. p. 90 where अ. भा.

c6.34.5

explains ‘काव्यस्य क्रिया काव्यरूपतापादनं तदेव हेतुः ततः’ In the कामसूत्र I. 3. 16 sixty-four kalās are enumerated which maidens had to learn secretly (अभ्यासप्रयोज्याश्च चातुःषष्टिकान्योगान् कन्या रहस्यकाकिन्यभ्यसेत् । कामसूत्र I. 3. 14) and which were to be learnt by वेश्याs also (काम. I. 3. 20). In that list occur the following ‘संपाठ्यं मानसी काव्यक्रिया, अभिधानकोषः छन्दोज्ञानम्, क्रियाकल्पः, छलितयोगाः..’ It would be noticed that unmarried girls and courtezans were to learn along with गीत, वाद्य, नृत्य, आलेख्य the kalās mentioned above which would suffice for their own education and for attracting worthy husbands or lovers. I do not know whether in any serious work on Aesthetics in Sanskrit साहित्यशास्त्र has been or would be called a कला. All that is meant in the कामसूत्र is that the unmarried girls were to be given some guidance in composing (probably amorous) poetic pieces. As the word काव्यक्रिया is very near, it mentions simply क्रियाकल्प and (not काव्यक्रियाकल्प). कालिदास himself employs क्रिया elsewhere in the sense of ‘rite’ (कुतो धर्मक्रियाविघ्नः) and ‘intellectual attainments’ as in ‘शिष्टा क्रिया कस्यचिद्’ in मालविका० I. In the सौन्दरनन्द I. 55 we read ‘समाजैरूत्सवैरन्यैः क्रियाविधिभिरेव च । अलंचकुरलंवीर्यास्ते जगद्गाम तत्पुरम् ॥’. It is not possible to hold here that the city was decked with काव्यालङ्कारशास्त्रs, but here क्रियाविधि means the performance of religious rites. Dr. Raghavan relies on ललितविस्तर p.

c6.34.6

156 of Lefman’s edition where the word क्रियाकल्प occurs. But he begs the whole question there. In the ललितविस्तर passage¹ (B. I. ed.)

c6.35

¹ ललितविस्तर pp. 178-179 ‘लिपिमुद्रा-गणना...अक्ष्क्रीडायां काव्य-व्याकरणे ग्रन्थरचिते रूपे रूपकर्मणि...वीणायां वाद्यनृत्ये गीतपठिते...लास्ये नाट्य्ये...

c6.36

about 90 matters in which बोधिसत्त्व became proficient are enumerated. In the context where क्रियाकल्प is sandwiched between Vedāṅgas and several other lores, क्रियाकल्प can only mean श्राद्धकल्प, particularly when the word यज्ञकल्प precedes. Dr. Raghavan himself points out that the काव्यादर्श employs the word क्रियाविधि (in I. 9). Then, as Daṇḍin refers to what former writers did for the व्युत्पत्ति of people, why does Dr. Raghavan not say that क्रियाविधि was the name of the शास्त्र ? For reasons of space I do not pursue this matter much further. I do not accept the new name for the शास्त्र which he propounds as used in olden times. It has further to be noted that five great commentators of the भागवतपुराण X. 45. 36 have the reading (in the list of 64 कलाs) क्रियाविकल्प instead of क्रियाकल्प. Thus the whole edifice of क्रियाकल्प being the ancient name of the science of Poetics is raised on rather slippery foundations, viz. a doubtful reading क्रियाकल्प. श्रीधर expressaly states that his enumeration is based on शैवतन्त्र (and not on the कामसूत्र). The kalās have been variously given from ancient times. The कामसूत्र itself (I. 3. 17) states that पाञ्चाल (बाभ्रव्य) proclaimed another set of 64 kalās. The कामसूत्र states (I. 3. 17-18) ‘पाञ्चालिको च चतुःषष्टिरपरा। तस्याः प्रयोगानन्ववेत्य सांप्रयोगिके वक्ष्यामः।’ Here the meaning of कला is different, as it means ‘different modes of sexual enjoyment’. सांप्रयोगिक is the 2nd अधिकरण of कामसूत्र .Vide ‘तदान्ध्रीषु प्रायेणेति संवेशनप्रकारा बाभ्रवीयाः’ II. 6 21. कामसूत्र I. 1. 10 mentions a work of पाञ्चाल बाभ्रव्य in 7 अधिकरणs on कामशास्त्र. Vide I. H. Q. vol. VIII pp. 542-548 for different lists of kalās (Prof. Chintaharan Chakravarti), I. H. Q. vol. V. pp. 88 ff (Dr. Acharya), J.R. A. S. 1914 p. 355, the कलाविलास of क्षेमेन्द्र who furnishes two different lists in the 4th and 10th (verse 40) cantos. The नाट्यशास्त्र appears to presuppose 64 kalās (34. 44, 35. 60). In the वासवदत्ता (p. 140 of Hall’s ed.) there is a reference to 64 कलाs.

c6.37

5 The topics of the अलङ्कारशास्त्र. The next question is to consider the problems with which the science of Poetics grapples. In part I when describing the contents of several works these topics have been more or less indicated as regards each individual work. Here all these topics will be brought

c6.38

निर्घण्टौ निगमे पुराणे इतिहासे वेदे व्याकरणे निरुक्ते शिक्षायां छन्दसि यज्ञकल्पे ज्योतिष सांख्ये योगे क्रियाकल्पे वैशेषिके वैशिके अर्थविद्यायां बार्हस्पत्ये’ &c.

c6.39

together and their connection with each other will be briefly pointed out. The first problem of Poetics is to declare what poetry can do for us and for the poet also (i.e. to enumerate the प्रयोजनs of काव्य). Then the śāstra has to consider the essential qualities that constitute the equipment of a poet (i. e. काव्यहेतु has to be considered). A definition of kāvya is attempted. In defining a kāvya, reference is generally made to śabda and artha and one has also to say what constitutes the soul or the essence of kāvya (which makes काव्य what it is). It is here (about the soul of poetry) that the greatest divergence of view prevails. As śabda and artha are necessary for kāvya, the various powers of word and its relation to artha have to be discussed. This leads to the topic of the three वृत्तिs, अभिधा, लक्षणा and व्यञ्जना and their sub-divisions and the three kinds of artha, वाच्य, लक्ष्य and व्यङ्ग्य. The critic has to give the several divisions of kāvya from different stand-points, viz. into गद्य, पद्य and मिश्र (according to the external form), into the best, mediocre and inferior kāvya according to the predominance or otherwise of the most essential things in a kāvya, into दृश्य and श्रव्य, into संस्कृत, प्राकृत etc. (according to the language employed) and so on. The division into दृश्य and श्रव्य opens up the vast field of dramaturgy. Certain guṇas must always be present. As to their number (3, 10, 24 etc.) great difference of opinion prevails. As allied to this subject of guṇas, the various dictions (rītis) have to be considered. A kāvya must be free from blemishes and therefore the doṣas of pada, vākya, artha, rasa etc. have to be discussed. Lastly, certain embellishments of kāvya (either of śabda, artha or of both) are dealt with. Certain works on Poetics go beyond this and lay down practical rules (as to the conventions to be observed by poets) and give information of an encyclopaedic character (e. g. about geography, about flora and fauna etc.).

c6.40

It is by no means to be supposed that all or even many works on Poetics attempt the treatment of all these topics. The works on Poetics fall into several groups. (1) Some like the साहित्यदर्पण and the प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण traverse the whole field of Poetics (including dramaturgy). (II) Most of the well-known works on Poetics confine themselves to the topics indicated above except dramaturgy e. g. the काव्यादर्श, the काव्यालङ्कार-सूत्र of वामन, काव्यालङ्कारs of भामह, रुद्रट and वाग्भट, the काव्यप्रकाश, रसगङ्गाधर etc. In the present book also it has not been possible for reasons of space to include a full account of the works on dramaturgy except in a few cases (where the rasa theory is concerned). (III) Some works treat of only dramaturgy and the theory of rasa, such as the नाट्यशास्त्र, the दशरूपक. (IV) Many works are concerned with अलङ्कारas alone e. g. अलङ्कारसार-संग्रह, अलङ्कारसर्वस्व, कुवलयानन्द, चित्रमीमांसा. (V) A few are concerned with the exposition of some special theory of poetics, viz. the ध्वन्यालोक on the ध्वनि theory, the वक्रोक्तिजीवित, व्यक्तिविवेक. (VI) Some works deal only with the powers of words, viz. अभिधा etc. such as the अभिधावृत्तिमातृका, वृत्तिवार्तिक, शब्दव्यापारविचार. (VII) A few deal only with the theory of rasa (without treating of dramaturgy) such as the शृङ्गारतिलक, रस्तरङ्गिणी. (VIII) Several dilate upon only some special matters such as the रसमञ्जरी (where नायिकाs and their sub-divisions and other kindred topics are discussed). The यशस्तिलक vol. 1 p. 479 (3rd आश्वास verse 274, Nir. ed.) quotes ‘त्रिमूलकं द्विोत्थानं पञ्चशाखं चतुश्छदम् । योऽङ्गं वेत्ति नवच्छायं दशभूमि स काव्यकृत् ॥’. त्रिमूलकं-लोको वेदोध्यात्मं (compare व्यक्तिविवेक on p. 7 and p. 35 n 2 above); द्विोत्थानं refers to शब्दार्थौ, पञ्चशाखं to five वृत्तिs, परुषा, उपनागरिका, ग्राम्या &c.; चतुश्छदं refers to four रीतिs; अङ्गं=वृद्धं; नवच्छायं =नवरसपूर्णं दशभूमि दशगुणकम् .

First 55 of 204 passages. Read on

Linked texts (71)