Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya Shastra

Author(s): V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology

Page 27

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
15
Vakpati emphatically asserts that the province of poetry is unlimited, though for centuries hundreds of poets have been writing. Vämana merely speaks of the kinds. of 'matter that is primarily either original or borrowed, and illustrates the varieties. He leaves out the topic of plagiarism.
Anandavardhana very ably supports the views of Vakpati by advancing cogent and convincing arguments. Naturally he is not anxious for over-much borrowing." He concedes that there may be resemblances between the works of two inspired poets. He is the first Alankärika who classifies similarities that might exist between. two works on the basis of the relation of a thing and its image, an object and a picture thereof, and corporeal equivalence. He disapproves of those similarities on the first two relations on the ground that they betray lack of originality and poverty of thought on the part of the poet-thief. He, however, approves similarity such as exists between two men as charming.
It is Rajasekhara who devotes the greatest attention to this issue of literary theft which his predecessors either omit or less completely discuss. He defines the term borrowing' or plagiarism (harana), gives an elaborate classification of the different shades of borrowing, with reference respectively to borrowing of words and borrowing of matter or ideas and adds illustrations of all the varieties. He details five.varieties of borrowing of words and thirty-two varieties of borrowing of ideas. Vamana seems to have analysed 'matter' or 'ideas' in poetry for the first time. Anandavardhana improves on the classification of Vamana by a deeper analysis. Rajasekhara goes still deeper and gives a more scientific classification taking into. consideration small shades of differences. A few of these varieties overlap. The elaborate classification given by Rajasekhara would appear to justify the criticism that. "It is an essential defect of Indian Theory in all its aspects that it tends to divisions which are needless and confusing". It may be said here in defence of Indian theorists that 'Economy of phraseology is not the end' and 'it is no use saying that the finer shades of distinctions are instances of mere hairsplitting' when there actually exsit nicer aspects and shades of difference. Anandavardhana denounces borrowing in the manner of Pratibimbakalpa as well as Alekhya-prak ya. Rajasekhara, however, . denounces Pratibimbakalpa variety but approves of the Alekhyaprakhya sort of borrowing. He cites indeed, the excellent maxim that while other thefts pass away by lapse of time the literary theft endures even to sons and grandsons, but only to advance his wife Avantisundarls excuses for appropriation. Rajasekhara does not add any remark to show his approval or disapproval of Avantisundari's excuses for plagiarism. As already mentioned above, it appears, however, that he does not acquiesce in what his wife says. But it has to be admitted that Rajasekhara allows his appropriator more than a fair latitude. He gives us divergent views on the issue of literary theft, viz., those of his Acarya, his wife Avantisundari, Surananda, Anandavardhana (whom, however, he does not mention by nime) and others whom 35 See foot-note No. 12