________________
BHĀMAHA ON GRAMMAR IN RELATION TO POETRY :
न स शब्दो न तद्वाच्यं न स न्यायो न सा कला । जायते यन्न काव्याङ्गमहो भारो महान्कवेः ॥
-Bhāmaha. V. 4 It is gencrally believed that Logic and Grammar need have no place in the province of Poetics. Dandin, one of the earliest and eminent rhetoricians, ignores the claim of Grammar by not treating of it and expressly brushes aside the claim of Logic in his well-known couplet :
प्रतिज्ञाहेतुदृष्टान्तहानिर्दोषो न वेत्यसौ । विचारः कर्कशः प्रायस्तेनालीढेन किं फलम् ।।
-Kāvyādarśa III. 127 It is taken for granted that a prospective poet has already mastered Grammar before taking to poetry. Rudrata? clearly mentions that a poet must equip himself with a thorough knowledge of grammar before attempting 'Sleşa'. Hemacandra, too, makes a pointed reference that in the course of study Sabdānuśāsana (grammar) precedes Kāvyānuśāsana (poetics). It would, therefore, seem that the treatment of grammar as that of logic would be altogether superfluous and uncalled for in a work of poetics.
The view that grammar has absolutely no place in poetics is, however, proved to be not quite correct by the practice of a few rhetoricians who treat of grammar in their works. Bharata (Nāțyaśāstra, XIV), Bhāmaha (Kāvyālamkāra, VI), Vāmana (Kavyalamkārastravștti, Adhikarana V), Rajasekhara (Kavyamimāṁsā, VI), Abhinavagupta (Abhinavabhārati on the Natyaśāstra, XIV) and Bhoja (Sșngāraprakāśa, Chapters I to VIII) treat of grammar. It is in the fitness of things that the rhetoricians highly prize the study of Sabdānuśāsana as Sabda (with its Artha) forms the very foundation of poetry. It goes without saying that the Sabda must be grammatically correct. It is, however, not enough for a poet that the word is grammatically
1. Kāvyālamkāra, V. 35. 2. Kāvyānuśāsana, 1. 2. and the Vrtti thereon. 3. Cf.
सर्वथा पदमप्येकं न निगाद्यमवद्यवत् । विलक्ष्मणा हि काव्येन दुःसुतेनेव निन्द्यते ॥ and
-- Bhámaha I. 11 पदमेकं वर साधु नार्वाचीननिबन्धनम् । वैपरीत्याद्विपर्यासं कीर्तेरपि करोति तत् ॥
-Bhāmaha VI. 61. Could one understand in the second half of the verse a sly reference to Dhamakirti ?
