Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 2

Author(s): G C Chaudhary
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 46

OUR ANCIENT RHETORICIANS ON PLAGIARISM IN POETRY 39
In the like manner he perceives plagiarism in the following case as well :
पादस्ते नरवर दक्षिणे समुद्र पादोऽन्यो हिमवति हेमकूटलग्ने । आक्रामत्यलय महीतलं त्वयीत्थम् भूपालाः प्रगतिमपास्य किन्नुकुयुः ।।
and पादस्ते नरवर दक्षिणे समुद्रे पादोऽन्यो हिमवति हेमकट लग्ने । इत्थं ते विधत पदद्वयस्य राज
नाश्चर्यं कथमिव सीवनी न भिन्ना ।। In both these cases the latter pocts seem to be attempting a parody of the former ones. Hence they cannot be said to be entirely devoid of initiative. It is therefore not proper that they are not vouchsafed any poetic merit and are downright decried as sheer plagiarists.
But the following similar cases are exempted by Rajasekhara from the charge of either plagiarism or adaptation (svikarana). I. अरण्ये निर्जने रात्रावन्तर्वेश्मनि साहसे । न्यासापह्नवने चैव दिव्या सम्भवति क्रिया ।।
and अरण्ये निर्जने रात्रावन्तर्वेश्मनि साहसे । तण्वंगी यदि लभ्येत दिव्या सम्भवति क्रिया । यस्य केषेषु जीमूता नद्यः सर्वाङ्गसन्धिषु । कुक्षौ समुद्राश्चत्वारस्तस्मै तोयात्मने नमः ।।
and यस्य केशेषु जीमूता नद्यः सर्वाङ्गसन्धिषु ।
कुक्षी समुद्राश्चत्वारः स सहेत स्मरानलम् ॥
One can plainly see that there is no qualitative difference between the former ones and these cases. In each case the latter poet is parodying the former one. It is therefore not quite comprehensible why Rajasekhara should see plagiarism in the former and neither plagiarism por adaptation in the latter ones,
In his treatment of the plagiarism of Ideas Rājasekhara imbibes his main points from Vámana and Ānandavardhana. He divides Ideas into three classes :
(I) having another source, (II) having hidden source and (III) having no previous source. When a poet borrows his idea or expression from a former poet but skillfully manages to conceal his borrowing bis
1. Coutd.
II.