Sandesha Rasaka

SR No.: 002918
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Abdul Rahman, Jinvijay, H C Bhayani
Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan
Publication Year: 1945
Total Pages: 282
Language: Sanskrit, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 17 MB

Page 108

GRAMMAR
be रगणs. ' But this appears to be an overstatement, since in the CK. itself two tagas-one forming a part of the strophe दायण (CR.32 ) and another in the allied strophe चंदार्याणि ( Cr. 39 ) do not abide by that rule. They have amphimacer (1) in the 4. only. And to this point our stanzas also subscribe. They regularly end in an amphimacer. The other three have various forms, but the forms ✓ and are studiedly avoided. This means that the middlemost mora of every is invariably short, which fact results in giving an amphimacer rhythm to the metre. The defining or illustrating stanza in a given by the Sc., GL. and KD. also bear out these results. Only the stanza in the Ch. neither regularly ends in, nor can it be said to have an amphimacer rhythm. It is obvious that in this case the Cк. presents one extreme, the Ch. the other. With this varying treament of कामिनीमोहन at one place as a मात्रवृत्त, at another as a वर्णवृत्त, cf. a similar treatment of for (see § 16).
59
There on SR. 82 names the metre as for which CK. 32 (with some variants) is quoted. Now, it is the metre defined and called at CK. 10 that is identical with the metre of SR. 82, etc., while CK. 32 deals not with
MET,
but with a strophe made up of a दोहा followed by a कामिनीमोहन. But SR. 82, 83, 85 are not strophes. So they aught to have been called, not, but at and accordingly instead of CK. 32, CK. 10 ought to have been quoted.
Against this it can be urged that though the constituted text of the CK. 32 cannot be made to support the view that calls SR. 82 a, still the text of CK. 32 as quoted by the has a variant for the first of the second line (for for अइकोमल जण° ) which obviously means that a कामिनीमोहन with or without being headed by a can be called . However, this cannot be the original reading, as it is not attested in any of the three 'good' Mss. used by VELANKAR for his edition of the CK. and besides, it strikes at the very root of the method of nomenclature in the CK., in accordance with which when it is prefixed
1 PP. II 127 defines a quia having fours to each line. But it is named there as लच्छीहर.
2 SR. 81 is a Ter, but it does not form a unit with the following aft from the view point of syntax or sense and hence it fails to make up a strophe,