Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c28: XX. Lexicography and Metrics

A History of Sanskrit Literature c28

Language
English

Contents

XX. Lexicography and Metrics

1. The Origin and Characteristics of Sanskrit Lexicography

c28.s1.1

THE oldest lexicographic work¹ carried out in India is recorded in the *Nighaṇṭavas*, collections of Vedic terms, of which the most important are the lists handed down to us with the *Nirukta* of Yāska.² These, however, differ in many respects from the Koças of classical literature. They were drawn up for practical purposes like the latter, but in the case of the Nighaṇṭu literature the purpose was essentially interpretation of sacred texts which were becoming more and more obscure, while the Koças were prepared to help poets to a supply of words. In accord with this we find dictionaries attributed to such poets as Bāṇa, Mayūra, Murāri, and Çrīharṣa, who composed one of terms for use in double meanings, *Çleṣārthapadasaṁgraha*.³ The Nighaṇṭus further contained not merely nominal but also verbal forms, the Koças only nouns and indeclinables, and while the former dealt with one special text, the latter are not based on any special text. In keeping with the new spirit the Koças are in verse, usually Çlokas but also Āryās, and, by incorporating expressions from many of the arts which a poet was expected to have mastered, they saved him labour. The composition of such works may have been fostered by the existence of the Dhātupāṭhas and other lists of the grammarians, but this is conjectural.

c28.s1.2

¹ On the subject see Th. Zachariae, *Die indischen Wörterbücher* (1897). Koça and Koṣa both occur.

c28.s1.3

² See S. Varma, *POCP.* 1919, ii. 68 ff. Cf. R. D. Karmarkar, *ibid.*, 62 ff.

c28.s1.4

³ Burnell, *Tanjore Catal.*, pp. 48 ff. Similarly Amara appears as a poet, Thomas, *Kav.*, p. 22; cf. above, p. 339.

c28.s1.5

Of lexica two main classes exist—synonymous, in which words are grouped by subject-matter, and homonymous (*anekārtha*, *nānārtha*), but the important synonymous dictionaries usually include a homonymous section. As the books were intended, not for reference, but for learning off by heart, the principle of alphabetic order was not considered essential; they are, accordingly, divided on various principles, often on more than one; thus the longer articles may come first, or the arrangement may be by the final consonants or the initial letters or the two combined, or the number of letters; in some cases information is given as to gender, sometimes with an appendix on it, and gender occasionally is taken into account in fixing the order. Synonyms, of course, appear in the nominative, compounded or otherwise as metre and convenience dictate; homonyms may be treated in the same way, or the different senses may be put in the locative. The older writers, of whom we have but fragments, were indifferent to order and willing to give long definitions; the later are extremely unwilling to waste space and are proportionately obscure. Moreover, the text of the lexica is seldom in a satisfactory condition.

2. The Extant Lexica

c28.s2.1

As usual in India the older works were obscured by the later, and we have only names and odd citations of important writers, such as Kātyāyana, to whom a *Nāmamālā* is ascribed, Vācaspati and Vikramāditya, authors of a *Çabdārṇava* and a *Saṃsārāvarta*, and Vyāḍi, whose *Utpalinī* is often cited, and included Buddhist terms. The fragments of a dictionary exist in the Weber manuscript found in Kashgar.¹ But one of the earliest texts preserved for us is the *Nāmaliṅgānuçāsana*² of Amarasiṅha, called usually the *Amarakoça*. Its author is also known as a poet, and was certainly a Buddhist who knew the Mahāyāna and used Kālidāsa. His lower limit of date is dubious, he is not certainly known to the *Nyāsa* of Jinendrabuddhi (A. D. 700), but the decline of Buddhism in India renders it improbable that he lived after the eighth century; his ascription to the sixth, however, rests on nothing better than the assertion that he was a jewel of Vikramāditya’s court.³ The work is synonymous, arranged in three books by subjects, with an appendix in the last on homonyms, indeclinables, and genders. Of its many commentators, special merit attaches to the works of Kṣīrasvāmin (11th cent.), Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda (1159), and Rāyamukuṭamaṇi (1431) who used sixteen earlier writers. An important supplement of rare words is afforded by the *Trikāṇḍaçeṣa* of Puruṣottamadeva, who wrote also, after twelve years’ work, the shorter *Hārāvalī*, including synonyms and homonyms; these give a rich store of very rare terms, many from Buddhist texts.¹ Perhaps as old as Amara is Çāçvata, whose *Anekārthasamuccaya*² betrays age by its arrangement of its homonyms according as the explanation takes a whole verse, a half verse, a quarter verse; indeclinables conclude the work.

c28.s2.2

¹ Hoernle, JASB. lxii. 1. 26 ff.

c28.s2.3

² Ed. TSS. 1914–17.

c28.s2.4

³ Cf. Bhandarkar, *Vaiṣṇavism*, p. 45; Keith, IOC. ii. 303.

c28.s2.5

¹ Cf. Zachariae, *Bezz. Beitr.* x. 122 ff. (before 1150).

c28.s2.6

² Ed. Zachariae, Berlin, 1882.

c28.s2.7

Other dictionaries are decidedly later. From *c.* 950 we have the short *Abhidhānaratnamālā*³ of the poet-grammarian Halāyudha, and a century later Yādavaprakāça’s *Vaijayantī*,⁴ which is of great bulk and arranges its words by syllables, genders, and initial letters. The twelfth century gives a rich variety. Pre-eminent are Hemacandra’s works; the *Abhidhānacintāmaṇi*⁵ deals with synonyms in six sections, beginning with Jain gods and ending with abstracts, adjectives, and particles, and is supplemented by the botanic dictionary *Nighaṇṭuçeṣa*; the *Anekārthasaṁgraha*⁶ deals with homonyms in six sections, beginning with one-syllable and ending with six-syllable words arranged by initial letters and end consonants. The Jain Dhanaṁjaya wrote between 1123 and 1140 his *Nāmamālā*; Maheçvara’s *Viçvaprakāça*⁷ falls in 1111, while Maṅkha’s *Anekārthakoça*⁸ with his own comment, which uses Amara, Çāçvata, Halāyudha, and Dhanvantari, is rather later, and Keçavasvāmin’s *Nānārthārṇavasaṁkṣepa*⁹ falls about 1200. To the fourteenth century belongs the *Anekārthaçabdakoça*¹⁰ of Medinīkara, which is often cited by commentators, as well as the *Nānārtharatnamālā*, written by, or for, Irugapa, general of Harihara.¹¹

c28.s2.8

³ Ed. Th. Aufrecht, London, 1861.

c28.s2.9

⁴ Ed. G. Oppert, Madras, 1893.

c28.s2.10

⁵ Ed. St. Petersburg, 1847.

c28.s2.11

⁶ Ed. Vienna, 1893.

c28.s2.12

⁷ Ed. ChSS. 1911.

c28.s2.13

⁸ Ed. Vienna, 1897; cf. SWA. cxli. 16 ff.

c28.s2.14

⁹ Ed. TSS. 1913.

c28.s2.15

¹⁰ Ed. Calcutta, 1884.

c28.s2.16

¹¹ Çeshagiri, *Report*, 1893-4, pp. 41 f.

c28.s2.17

Of uncertain date are minor works dealing with words of one syllable, *Ekākṣarakoça*, or with words of different forms, *Dvirūpa-* or *Trirūpa- koça*, medical or astronomical or astrological glossaries. Buddhist texts revived the Vedic Nighaṇṭus, as they produced works specially written for their interpretation and in prose form; thus the best known, the *Mahāvyutpatti*,¹ gives elaborate information on many Buddhist topics, and includes verbal forms, phrases, and sentences. It is characteristic of the bitter relations between Hindus and Mahomedans that it is not until the time of Akbar that we find the Persian-Sanskrit dictionary *Pārasīprakāça*,² and in 1643 the work of the same title by Vedāṅgarāya on astronomical and astrological terms.

c28.s2.18

¹ Ed. J. P. Minayeff, BB. 13, 1911.

c28.s2.19

² A. Weber, *Über den Pârasîprakâça* (ABA. 1887).

c28.s2.20

In 972 Dhanapāla wrote for his sister Sundarī the *Pāiyalacchī* (*Prākṛtalakṣmī*) *Nāmamālā*,³ a Prākrit dictionary which was used by Hemacandra in producing his *Deçīnāmamālā* ⁴ with commentary, in which he seeks to give Deçī words, that is, terms neither identic with Sanskrit (*tatsama*) nor derived thence by ordinary processes (*tadbhava*). Some of these words are referable to Sanskrit, but most are not, and their provenance is still extremely uncertain.⁵

c28.s2.21

³ Ed. G. Bühler, *Bezz. Beitr.*, iv. 70 ff.

c28.s2.22

⁴ Ed. R. Pischel, BSS. 17, 1880.

c28.s2.23

⁵ Jacobi, *Bhavisattakaha*, pp. 62 f., 65 f., 69; Grierson, MASB. viii. 2 (*The Prakrit Dhātvādeśas*). His theory of semi-Tatsamas (JRAS. 1925, pp. 221 f.) is certainly too widely stated.

c28.s2.24

The scientific value of this lexicographical work cannot be said to be high, nor could this be expected from writers who merely aimed at a practical result. Especially in the later lexica there are cases of words being inserted which merely rest on misreadings of texts or on misinterpretations, and frequently poets have been misled to use words in incorrect senses because they were given as synonyms of some other word in one of its senses, and the synonymity has been generalized. But we are rarely in a position to decide definitely on these points.

3. Treatises on Metre

c28.s3.1

The Brāhmaṇas already show interest in matters metrical,⁶ and sections of the *Çāṅkhāyana Çrautasūtra*, the *Nidāna Sūtra*, the *Ṛk-Prātiçākhya*, and Kātyāyana's *Anukramaṇīs* to the *Ṛgveda* and the *Yajurveda* deal with metre. The topic ranks as the Vedāṅga Chandas, and a Sūtra of this name is ascribed to Piṅgala,¹ the importance of which for the classical literature has already been mentioned, for the work is far more concerned with classical than Vedic texts. The text ascribed to Piṅgala² on Prākrit³ metres is much later. Piṅgala adopts the system of algebraic symbols, using *l* for a short (*laghu*), *g* for a long (*guru*) syllable, *m* for a molossus, and so on. He is clearly earlier than chapters xiv and xv of the *Nāṭyaçāstra* which deal with metre, and the section of the *Agni Purāṇa*⁴ on this topic is derived from Piṅgala. Yet it must be said that neither he nor either of these texts describes fully or accurately the Çloka metre as we know it from the texts. We must, therefore, be uncertain whether his work was the guide by which the poets steered their course. What is clear is that we have no certainly early text other than his. The *Çrutabodha*⁵ is attributed to Kālidāsa, but there is no ground for the ascription. It illustrates, while describing, the verses. Vararuci is also sometimes credited with this text. More definite is the fact that a chapter (civ) in the *Bṛhatsaṁhitā* of Varāhamihira describes metres simultaneously with planetary movements, and that Bhaṭṭotpala in his comment cites a textbook by an Ācārya. The view⁶ that Daṇḍin wrote on metre is uncertain, though Bhāmaha may have done so, and from Kṣemendra we have the *Suvṛttatilaka*.⁷ In book i he describes, with verses from his own works as illustrations, the metres; in ii he deals with defects in metre with many useful citations; and in iii he discusses the use of metre according to the nature of the work, poetry, science, or a combination in which one or the other predominates. He ends by demanding variety of metres from poets, but admits that great writers have often preferred some special metre, as did Pāṇini the Upajāti, Kālidāsa the Mandākrāntā, Bhāravi the Vaṅçasthā, Bhavabhūti the Çikhariṇī, &c.

c28.s3.2

⁶ Cf. Weber, IS. viii; SIFI. viii; H. Jacobi, ZDMG. xxxviii. 590 ff.; xl. 336 ff.

c28.s3.3

¹ Ed. with Halāyudha's comm. (*c.* 950), KM. 81, 1908.

c28.s3.4

² Ed. KM. 41, 1894. It is dated not before the fourteenth century by Jacobi, *Bhavisattakaha*, p. 5.

c28.s3.5

³ Cf. Ratnaçekhara's *Chandaḥkoça*; Schubring, ZDMG. lxxv. 97 ff.

c28.s3.6

⁴ cc. 328–34. For Bharata see Regnaud, AMG. ii.

c28.s3.7

⁵ Ed. Haeberlin, 9–14.

c28.s3.8

⁶ Jacobi, IS. xvii. 442 ff.

c28.s3.9

⁷ Ed. KM. ii. 29 ff.

c28.s3.10

Hemacandra as usual has written a compilation, the *Chando*- *nuçāsana*,¹ while Kedāra Bhaṭṭa's *Vṛttaratnākara*,² which describes 136 metres and was written before the fifteenth century, has been widely used, and the *Chandomañjarī*³ of Gaṅgādāsa is also well known.⁴

c28.s3.11

¹ Bühler, *Hemachandra*, pp. 33, 82.

c28.s3.12

² Ed. Bombay, 1908. Mallinātha (cf. p. 435) uses it.

c28.s3.13

³ BSGW. vi (1854), 209.

c28.s3.14

⁴ Nārāyaṇa wrote in 1545 the *Vṛttaratnākara*; Dāmodara a *Vāṇībhūṣaṇa* (IOC. i. 305).

4. The Metres of Classical Poetry

c28.s4.1

Our authorities leave us wholly in the dark regarding the development of metre between the Vedic and the classical periods of Sanskrit, and it is hardly very profitable speculating exactly why there grew up in Sanskrit poetry the use of metres with a determined length of quarter-stanzas or lines, each line being built exactly on the same model, while the first two and the last two lines were more closely combined than the second and the third, between which a complete caesura was essential. We can, it is true, in the case of both the Çloka⁵ and the Triṣṭubh and Jagatī styles⁶ see the process of hardening going on slowly in the Vedic and epic literature, doubtless under the growing desire for symmetry which was offended by the freedom of the Vedic and epic verses. The definite rules regarding the close of the line came to be applied throughout, and, when this was complete, longer lines were essayed on the same principle. In these longer lines we find operative a principle which is dropped in the Triṣṭubh and Jagatī styles, that of caesuras in definite places, which were doubtless felt to be made necessary if the verses were to retain elegance of form; the definitions of the metres are careful to make it clear where these caesuras are to be, and normally good poets insist on having full caesuras at these points, that is the end of an inflected word, though weak caesuras, at the end of some member of a compound or of a prefix, may legitimately occur,⁷ and caesuras may be obscured by Sandhi.

c28.s4.2

⁵ GN. 1909, pp. 219 ff.; cf. Hopkins, *Great Epic*, pp. 219 ff.

c28.s4.3

⁶ GN. 1915, pp. 490 ff.; cf. Hopkins, *op. cit.*, pp. 273 ff.; GN. 1919, pp. 170 ff.

c28.s4.4

⁷ Halāyudha, IS. viii. 462-6. He allows even, e. g., *Kamalen|ālokyate*; Jackson, *Priyadarśikā*, pp. xcvi f.

c28.s4.5

Metres measured by number of syllables and, except in the case of the Çloka, strictly regulated as to the quantity of the syllables, are thus predominant in classical poetry. But, probably from popular poetry, there came to be used metres in which only the sum total of the morae was absolutely fixed, there being indeed certain restrictions as to the mode in which these morae could be made up, but such restrictions allowing a variation in the number of syllables, the Mātrāchandas. The most common form of this type is the very simple Vaitālīya consisting of two half-verses of 30 morae each, 14 plus 16 in the two lines of each half-verse, made up as follows: ⏑⏑ ⏑⏑ ⏑⏑ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⎼ || ⏑⏑ ⏑⏑ ⎼ ⏑⏑ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⎼. If each line is lengthened by a long syllable we have the Aupacchandasika metre. More complex is the case of the Āryā,¹ which is recognized by metrical treatises as a Gaṇa-cchandas, the number of morae and the number of feet (*gaṇa*) being fixed. Thus the ordinary form of the Āryā has 7½ feet to the half-verse with 4 morae in each, 30 in all; the 4 morae can take the forms ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑, ⎼ ⎼, ⎼ ⏑ ⏑, ⏑ ⏑ ⎼; in the second and fourth feet ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ is also permitted; in the sixth only ⏑ | ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ or ⏑ ⎼ ⏑, while the last is monosyllabic. The second half-verse in the most usual form has in the sixth foot one short syllable, giving 27 morae, but we can have the position reversed, 27 plus 30 morae, Udgīti; or 30 plus 30, Gīti; or 27 plus 27, Upagīti; or 32 plus 32, Āryāgīti. If there is no caesura after the third foot the verse ranks as Vipulā; if in the second, fourth, and sixth feet the amphibrach is essential, as Capalā.

c28.s4.6

¹ Apparently originally sung; cf. Jacobi, ZDMG. xxxviii. 599 ff.; cf. xl. 336 ff.; SIFI. VIII. ii. 84 ff.

c28.s4.7

Of the metres measured by syllables, Akṣaracchandas, the following have been mentioned as found in classical poetry, and their schemes are given below, each consisting normally of four lines of the type given, with caesuras indicated by perpendicular lines:

c28.s4.8

Acaladhṛti: ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ (16)
Anavasitā: ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⎼ ⎼ ⎼ ⏑ ⏑ ⎼ ⎼ (11)
Aparavaktra²: ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⎼ (11) || ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⎼ (12) *bis*
Açvalalita: ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⎼ | ⎼ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⎼ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⎼ (23)

c28.s4.9

² On the origin of this metre from the Puṣpitāgrā, cf. Hopkins, *Great Epic of India*, p. 340.

c28.s4.10

Indravajrā: --⏑--⏑⏑-⏑-⏓ (11) Upendravajrā: ⏑-⏑--⏑⏑-⏑-⏓ (11) Upajāti, a combination of stanzas of lines of Indravajrā and Upendravajrā Utsara: -⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑- (15) Udgatā¹: ⏑⏑-⏑-⏑⏑⏑-⏑ | ⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑-⏑- (10+10) = *a*+*b* ——⏑-⏑⏑-⏑- | ⏑⏑-⏑-⏑⏑⏑-⏑-⏑- (11+13) = *c*+*d* Upajāti, mixture of Indravajrā and Vaṅçasthā lines Kalahaṅsa: ⏑⏑-⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-- (13) Kusumavicitrā: ⏑⏑⏑⏑-- | ⏑⏑⏑⏑-- (12) Kokilaka (Narkuṭaka, Avitatha): ⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑-⏑ | ⏑⏑-⏑⏑ | -⏑⏑- (17) ⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑- | ⏑⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑- ⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑- Kṣamā: ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑- | -⏑--- (13) Citralekhā: ⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑- | ⏑⏑⏑+-⏑- (17) Jaladharamālā: ---- | ⏑⏑⏑⏑---- (12) Jaloddhatagati: ⏑-⏑⏑⏑- | ⏑-⏑⏑⏑- (12) Tanumadhyā: ---⏑⏑-- (6) Tāmarasa (Lalitapada): ⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-- (12) Tūṇaka: -⏑-⏑-⏑- (7) || ⏑-⏑-⏑-⏑- (8) *bis* Toṭaka: ⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑- (12) Triṣṭubh, mixtures of Vātormī, Çālinī, Indravajrā, Vaṅçasthā lines Daṇḍaka: ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑+17 (---) and variants Dodhaka: -⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-- (11) Drutapada: ⏑⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-- (12) Drutavilambita: ⏑⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑- (12) Dhīralalitā: -⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑- (16) Dhṛtaçrī: ⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑- (21) Nandana: ⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑- | ⏑-⏑--- (18) Puṣpitāgrā: ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑-⏑-- (12) || ⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑-⏑-- (13) *bis* Pṛthvī: ⏑-⏑⏑⏑-⏑- | ⏑⏑⏑-⏑--- (17) Prabhā: ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑----⏑- (12) Prabhāvatī: ---⏑- | ⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑-⏑- (13) Pramadā: ⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑- (14) Pramāṇikā: ⏑-⏑-⏑-⏑- (8) Pramitākṣarā: ⏑⏑-⏑-⏑⏑-⏑⏑- (12) Praharaṇakalitā: ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑- | ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑- (14) Praharṣiṇī: --- | ⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑-⏑-- (13) Bhadrikā: ⏑⏑⏑⏑-⏑-⏑-⏑- (11) Bhujaṅgaprayāta: ⏑--⏑--⏑--⏑-- (12) Bhujaṅgavijṛmbhita: ---------- | ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑- | ⏑-⏑-⏑- (26)

c28.s4.11

¹ Cf. Jacobi, ZDMG. xliii. 464 ff.; SIFI. viii. ii. 108 ff.

c28.s4.12

Bhramaravilasita : –––– | ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑– (11) Mañjarī : ⏑⏑–⏑– | ⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑– (14) Mañjubhāṣiṇī : ⏑⏑–⏑– | ⏑⏑⏑–⏑–⏑– (13) Maṇiguṇanikara : ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑ | ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑– (15) Mattamayūrā : –––– | –⏑⏑––⏑⏑–– (13) Mattā : –––– | ⏑⏑⏑⏑–– (10) Madhyakṣamā : –––– | ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑ | –––– (14) Mandākrāntā : –––– | ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑– | –⏑––⏑–– (17) Mahāmālikā (Vanamālā) : ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑–⏑–– | ⏑–⏑––⏑– (18) Mālatī : ⏑⏑⏑⏑––⏑⏑–⏑– (12) Mālinī : ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑–– | –⏑––⏑–– (15) Meghavitāna : ⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑⏑–– (10). Meghavisphūrjita : ⏑– –––– | ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑– | –⏑––⏑–– (19) Rathoddhatā : –⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑–⏑– (11) Rukmavatī : –⏑⏑–– | –⏑⏑–– (10) Rucirā : ⏑–⏑– ! ⏑⏑⏑⏑–⏑–⏑– (13) Lalitā : ––⏑⏑––⏑⏑–⏑– (12) Vaṁçapattrapatita : –⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏑⏑– | ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑– (17) Vaṁçasthā : ⏑–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏑ (12) Upajāti, stanzas of Indravañçā and Vañçasthā lines Vasantatilaka : ––⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–– (14) Vātormī : –––– | ⏑⏑––⏑–– (11) Vidyunmālā : –––– | –––– (8) Vilāsinī : ⏑⏑⏑⏑––⏑–⏑–⏑–⏑⏑⏑– (17) Vaiçvadevī : ––––– | –⏑––⏑–– (12) Çārdūlavikrīḍita : –––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏑⏑– | –––⏑⏑– (19) Çālinī : –––– | –⏑––⏑–– (11) Çikhariṇī : ⏑––––– | ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑––⏑⏑⏑– (17) Çuddhavirāj : ––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑– (10) Çrīpuṭa : ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑– | –⏑–– (12) Sumānikā : –⏑–⏑–⏑– (7) Suvadanā : ––––⏑–– | ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑– | ––⏑⏑⏑– (20) Sragdharā : ––––⏑–– | ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑– | –⏑––⏑–– (21) Sragviṇī : –⏑––⏑––⏑––⏑– (12) Svāgatā : –⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑–– (11) Hariṇapluta : ⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑– || ⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑– (*a* = 11 ; *b* = 12) *bis* Hariṇī : ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑– | –––– | ⏑–⏑⏑–⏑– (17)

c28.s4.13

The rules observed in the Çloka are strict. Each half-verse is composed of two lines of eight syllables, and the whole falls naturally into four feet of four syllables each. The fourth must be a diiambus ; if the second is ⏑––⏓, then all possible forms of the third are permissible save ⏓⏑⏑⏓, while in the first in this case the only restriction is that it must not be –⏑⏑⏓ or ⏑⏑⏑⏓.

c28.s4.14

If, however, the second foot assumes any other shape, there are definite restrictions affecting the first foot, born of the desire to prevent undue monotony of metre. In these cases the same restrictions apply to the third foot as in the normal form. This gives us for the first two feet of the irregular forms, Vipulās :

c28.s4.15

Vipulā I - - / - -
” II - - -
” III - - - | - -
” IV - | - -

c28.s4.16

The use of Vipulās seems to be mainly a question of individual taste and style, and, as has been mentioned, the writers on metre show no real comprehension of the rules of the metre.¹

c28.s4.17

¹ On the specific characters of the metres see A. S. Bhandarkar, POCP. 1919, i. pp. clvi f. In Vipulas I and II a long final is normal.

Linked texts (31)