On an Anonymous Hemistich Cited in Vāmana’s Kavyālankāra-sūtra-vṛtti
Summary
Biswanath Bhattacharya’s brief note investigates an anonymous Sanskrit half‑verse (hemistich) quoted in Vāmana’s Kavyālankāra‑sūtra‑vṛtti as an illustration of the poet’s definition of the sarvanāman function. The citation—"tavapi nīlotpala‑patra‑cakṣuṣo mukhasya tad‑reṇu‑samāna‑gandhinaḥ"—appears in the context of explaining how the word ‘tad’ can logically refer to the upamāna (object of comparison) rather than the upameya. Bhattacharya traces the same hemistich in commentaries by Pūrṇasarasvati and Ṛṣi‑putra Parameśvara on Kālidāsa’s Meghadūta, observing minor variants in readings. He notes that Pūrṇasarasvati cites the verse with the compound "tavasyā nīlotpala‑cārū‑cakṣuṣo" and that Parameśvara’s version contains additional elaborations. The author compares these variants and analyses their grammatical implications, particularly the function of the compound nīlotpala‑patra as an adjective referring to a blue‑lotus leaf‑like eye. Despite the textual parallels, Bhattacharya concludes that the source of the full verse remains untraced. He suggests that the hemistich may belong to a lost kāvya or a lesser‑known poet and emphasises that more manuscript research is needed. The note also briefly comments on the metre (varṇastha) and mentions that the verse fits the gana pattern of ja‑ta‑ja‑ra. By documenting this fragment and its transmission, the article contributes to the study of Sanskrit literary history and highlights the importance of tracing anonymous citations in ancient commentaries.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
Bhattacharya concludes that although the anonymous hemistich quoted by Vāmana has been preserved with minor variations in later commentaries, its original source remains unidentified. The verse demonstrates the subtlety of Sanskrit compounds and the pedagogical method of illustrating grammatical rules with poetic examples. By collating the available versions and analysing their structure, the author illustrates the challenges of reconstructing lost literary fragments and underscores the need for continued manuscript investigation.