A History of Sanskrit Literature c23.s1.11

c23.s1.11

Rājaçekhara devotes much attention to an issue which his predecessors less completely discuss, the issue of the borrowing of phrases and ideas by one poet from another. Ānandavardhana¹ is not anxious for overmuch borrowing; the province of poetry is unlimited, though for centuries hundreds of poets have been writing. There may be resemblances between the works of two inspired poets; of such similarities we must disapprove those in which we have such a relation as that of a thing and its image, or an object and a picture thereof, but similarity such as exists between two men is not to be condemned. Rājaçekhara¹ gives us divergent views on the issue of borrowing phrases or part or even the whole of a stanza, and though he discriminates between mere stealing and appropriation his views turn out to be lax. He cites indeed the excellent maxim that while other thefts pass away by lapse of time the theft of words endures even to sons and grandsons, but only to cite his wife Avantisundarī's excuses for appropriation, whether in words or matter. Thus he may say, 'I have a reputation, he has none; I enjoy a secure position, he is a climber; this is inappropriate in him, appropriate in me, his words are like a tonic, mine like wine, that is, our styles are different; he ignores specialities of dialect, I attend to them; no one knows that he is the author; the author lives a long way off; the book he wrote is obsolete; this is the work of a mere barbarian.' These excuses were evidently duly availed of by later writers in Sanskrit, and they are too well known in modern practice to render serious condemnation in point. Rājaçekhara's own view is stated in the doctrine that 'there is no poet that is not a thief, no merchant that does not cheat, but he flourishes without reproach who knows how to hide his theft. One poet is a creator, another an adapter, another a coverer up, another a collector. He who here sees something new in word, sense, phrase, and writes up something old, may be accounted a great poet.' As regards theft of matter Rājaçekhara propounds a doctrine which attained acceptance, and is summed up by Hemacandra.² The relation of imaging is condemned, being defined as 'the case where the sense is entirely the same but there is a setting in other expressions. In the case of the copy the subject is made to appear different by a moderate elaboration of particulars, and this is a superior form to the previous. Corporeal resemblance is the case where, with difference of subject, there is apprehension of identity because of great similarity; even clever poets produce such works. In the form named 'foreign city entrance', there is identity in substance, but the garnishing is widely different and even excellent poets adopt this mode. There is, of course, another side to this process; Bāṇa distinctly condemns in the preface to his *Harṣacarita* the poet who modifies phrases and hides the signs of authorship, as a thief, worthy of condemnation.¹