Indian Antiquary Vol 41

SR No.: 032533
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 320
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 39 MB

Page 212

208
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[SEPTEMBER, 1912.
Chitra.-Bharata, Bhimaha and Udbhata do not refer to Chitrabandbas at all. Dandin does not give a general definition of Chitra, but he dilates upon some of its varieties, such as Gomůtrika, Sarvatobhadra, etc. It is by no means to be supposed that these tricks with words were favourite with later poets. Many of these Chitrabandhas occur as early as Bharavi, who cannot be later than A.D. 600, as he is bighly praised together with Kálidasa in an inscription dated A. D. 634.5 Magha also indicates that in his day * Mahu-kedvya was expected to show such Chitrabandhas as Sarvatobhadra, Chakra, Gomůtrik,66 etc. Mágba cannot be later than A, D. 750,66 as he is quoted by Vâmana in his Kavydlakdra-sútravritti (under IV. 3. 10, the verse Ubhau yadi, Magha III. 8). It is in Rudrata and Bbôja that we have perhaps the fullest treatment of them. The Kapyanusósana of Vågbhata and the Vagbhadlankdra give a pretty full treatment of Chitrabandhas. Mammata and Ruyyaka refer to them, but dispose of them in a few words.
Section VI.-The number of Arthalam keras. Unlike Sabdálankaras, the number of Arthalankáras has generally been large and has been subject to great fluctuations. We may safely affirm that as a general rule, the more ancient a writer is, the fewer is the number of figures treated of by him. Bharata speaks of only four Alankdras. Dandin, Bhatti, Bhimaha, Udbhata, and Vamana treat of from thirty to forty figures. Mammața speaks of more than sixty, while Ruyyaka adds a few more. The Chandrdloka (13th century) speaks of a hundred figures of speech, to which the Kuvalayananda adds about a score more. This is the highest number known to us. Jagannatha prefers a smaller number of figures, although he is later than the author of the Kuvalaydnanda. If for some slight difference a different figure of speech were to be defined, there would be no end of figures, as remarked by Dandin.57
Section VII.-Basis of Division. In the ancient writers there is no basis of division. Dandin, Bhimaha, Vâmana and Udbhata give no classification of the figures of sense. They generally first speak of Upamâ and some other Alankdras based upon it and the rest are treated of at random; e. g., Dandin puts Vibbávaná between Vyatireka and Samasokti. It is Rudrata who first gives a fourfold division of Arthalah Aras 58 Mammata seems to have had in view no scientific basis of division. The Alankára-sarvasva gives, first of all, the figures based upon aupamya (resemblance); then those based upon virodha (contradiction); then those based upon érinkhald (chain), such as Karanamála Mâlâdipaka, Ekâvali; then the figures based upon tarka-nydya, kávya-nyaya and loka-nydya; then the figures based upon the apprehension of a hidden sense; and lastly those based upon the combination of figures such as Sankara and Sansrishti. The Ek dvali, the Pratáparudriya and the Sahityadarpana generally follow this classification. Jagannatha also speaks of figures based upon aupannya, virodha, and brinkhald. From Kdvyalinga downwards he does not mention any express basis of classification; but appears to have followed in the main the Alainkára-sarvasva.
In the limited space at our disposal it is not possible to enter on a historical treatment of even a few figures of sense. A volume will have to be allotted to this purpose. It should be noted that, although by A. D. 600 abont thirty figares had been named and defined, there is a good deal of divergence as to the exact scope of each figure. The nomenclature of the Arthalainkdras showg great variations. Svabbávokti is also called Jati by some ; Yathasamkhya is called Krama; some figures such as Nipuņa (mentioned by Bhatti), Lesa mentioned by Dandin) are rarely defined by other writers. The Viseshokti of Vamana is quite different from the same figure as defined by others. Very divergent views were held as regards slesha. We pass over the full examination of such points; because otherwise we shall have to enter into minute technicalities of the Alaihdraádstra, which it is not our present purpose to do.
54 The Aiholo Inscription : see Ep. Ind., Vol. VI, p. 7.
# Vishamarh Sarvalobhadra-chakra-gomåtrikd-dibhik | Slokairiva malakavyam wydhais-tadabhavad-balam Sibu XIX. 41.
64 With regard to Magha's date, so now the Vasantgadh insoription of Varmalata (Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, DD. 189-90).-D. E. B.
07 To'chadyapi vikalpante kasutan kartoyena vakshyati 11 K. D. II. 1. 88 Arthasy-dlath kard Vastavam-au pamyam-atilayat-slechal