Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya Shastra

SR No.: 007023
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology
Publication Year: 1983
Total Pages: 216
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 22 MB

Page 29

"
Sanskrit Sahi yaśästra
The Sanskrit writers classify the cases of plagiarism according to the object appropriated, word, phrases, idea, use of metre, subject and so forth. This classification is, as far as it goes, all right. The basis of this classification is, however, purely external. The Alankarikas do not take into account deeper psychological principles for the classification "ranging from unconscious suggestion, positive and negative to habitual harpyism and careers which are one long appropriation clause"
"Alpha of the Plough" expresses some what similar ideas to those of Avantisundari when he writes:
17
You must be a big man to plagiarise with impunity. Shakespeare can take his "borrowed plumes" from whatever humble bird he likes....Burns can pick up a lilt in any chap-book and turn it to pure gold without a "by your leave". These gods are beyond the range of our pettifogging meums and tuums. Their pockets are so rich that a few coins that do not belong to them are no matter either way. But if you are a small man of exiguous talents and endeavour to eke out your poverty from the property of others you will discover that plagiarism is a capital offence..".
Sanskrit writers have anticipated clearly or vaguely the following ideas of Western writers :
"Borrowed thoughts, like borrowed money, only show the poverty of the borrower". A grass-blade of their (poets') own raising is worth a borrow-load of flowers from their neighbour's garden'. Borrowed garments never keep one warm.. Nor can one get smuggled goods safely into kingdom come. How lank and pitiful. does one of these gentry look, after posterity's customs officers have had the plucking of him". It is conceded that 'borrowing without beautifying is plagiarism'. But all plagiarism is not improper. If the later poet transmutes into his own precious. metal the less refined ore of other poets, it is no plagiarism. If you improve what you borrow or what you do still betters what is done you are not open to the charge of plagiarism. A later poet may find a model from his predecessor and then. proceed to write. "With a touch here and a touch there, now from memory, new from observation, borrowing here an epithet and there a phrase-adding, uptracting, heightening, modifying, substituting one metaphor for another, developing what is latent in suggestive imagery, laying under contribution the wide domain of existing literature he may toil on and produce his precious mosaic. He certainly cannot be accused of plagiarism." "Plucking of verbal flowers can hardly come within the scope of plagiarism. For that accusation to hold there must be some appropriation of ideas or at least of rhythm and form. Often the appropriation may be so transfigured as to rob it of any element of discredit."
If the borrowing illustrates the later poet's faultless taste, his nice artistic sense, his delicate. touch and his consummate literary skill, he cannot be accused of 36 It is to be remembered here that in most of the excuses which the Sanskrit theorist accepts, there is a good deal of human nature and that they have often prevailed in practice everywhere.
3