The Target of Criticism in Bhamaha’s Kavyalankara IV 39–47
Summary
The Target of Criticism in Bhāmaha’s Kavyālaṅkāra IV 39–47 re‑examines a long‑standing debate about whom Bhāmaha criticises when he illustrates poetic faults (doṣa) in the fourth pariccheda of his treatise. Verses 39–47 describe an incident in which King Udayana is captured by enemies using a wooden elephant, which Bhāmaha labels nyāya‑virodha — behaviour contrary to the codes of statecraft. T. Ganapati Sastri and S.K. De argued that Bhāmaha was attacking Bhāsa’s play Pratijñā‑Yaugandharāyaṇa; P.V. Kane suggested that Bhāsa merely dramatised a popular legend from the Bṛhatkathā and that Bhāmaha’s real target was the implausibility of the incident itself. N.M. Kansara surveys these views, weighing textual and chronological evidence. He notes that Bhāmaha defines nyāya (order or statecraft) as the teachings on the three goals of life and nyāya‑virodha as actions violating these codes. Bhāmaha criticises Udayana’s travelling without adequate escort, his incognito visit to the enemy’s realm, his failure to consult ministers and the use of a dummy elephant — all contraventions of political prudence. Kansara compares Bhāmaha’s description with details in Bhāsa’s drama and in other Udayana stories preserved in Jain texts and the Kathāsaritsāgara. He finds inconsistencies: Bhāsa’s play describes Udayana accompanied by soldiers, undermining the claim that Bhāsa ignored statecraft. Moreover, multiple dramas based on Udayana existed, making it unlikely that Bhāmaha singled out Bhāsa. Kansara concludes that Bhāmaha was criticising a then‑current narrative version of Udayana’s capture rather than any specific author. The article thus clarifies that Bhāmaha’s remark addressed the propriety of the story within poetics and politics rather than serving as a polemic against Bhāsa. Kansara emphasises that situating poetic criticism within its socio‑political context avoids anachronistic attributions and reveals the broader concerns of early Sanskrit poetics.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
Kansara’s investigation suggests that Bhāmaha did not single out Bhāsa but criticised a generic retelling of the Udayana legend that contravened statecraft. The analysis resolves a misdirected scholarly dispute and illustrates how early poetics treated narrative plausibility as part of ethical and political discourse. Recognising this helps situate Bhāmaha’s criticism within a larger tradition of evaluating literature through the lens of proper royal conduct.