Text 8.30

देशः सोऽयम् अराति-शोणित-जलैर् यस्मिन् ह्रदाः पूरिताः
  क्षत्राद् एव तथा-विधः परिभवस् तातस्य केश-ग्रहः ।
तान्य् एवाहित-शस्त्र-घस्मर-गुरूण्य् अस्त्राणि भास्वन्ति मे
  यद् रामेण कृतं तद् एव कुरुते द्रोणात्मजः क्रोधनः ॥

deśaḥ so'yam arāti-śoṇita-jalair yasmin hradāḥ pūritāḥ
  kṣatrād eva tathā-vidhaḥ paribhavas tātasya keśa-grahaḥ |
tāny evāhita-śastra-ghasmara-gurūṇy astrāṇi bhāsvanti me
  yad rāmeṇa kṛtaṃ tad eva kurute droṇātmajaḥ krodhanaḥ ||

deśaḥ—place; saḥ ayam—the very; arāti—of enemies; śoṇita—[in the form] of the blood; jalaiḥ—with the waters; yasmin—in which [place]; hradāḥ—the pools; pūritāḥ—were filled [by Paraśurāma]; kṣatrāt eva—from the same class of “Kṣatriya”; tathā-vidhaḥ—which was in that way; paribhavaḥ—the insult; tātasya—of the father; keśa—the hair; grahaḥ—[the insult, in the form of] grabbing; tāni—those ones (the well-known); eva—same; ahita—[thrown] by enemies; śastra—of weapons; ghasmara—devourers; gurūṇi—great; astrāṇi—missiles; bhāsvanti—effulgent; me—of mine; yat—which; rāmeṇa—by Paraśurāma; kṛtam—was done; tat—that; eva—exactly; kurute—does; droṇa-ātma-jaḥ—the son of Droṇa; krodhanaḥ—angry.

[In Kurukṣetra, Aśvatthāmā, seeing his father’s severed head grabbed on the hair by Dṛṣṭadyumna in the same location where Kārtavīryārjuna’s sons grabbed Paraśurāma’s father by the hair before decapitating him,^[1] addresses Karṇa:]

This is the place where the pools were filled with water in the form of the blood of enemies. The insult from a Kṣatriya is similar: the grabbing of the father’s hair. Those same awesome and effulgent mystic missiles that consume the weapons of enemies are in my possession, and my rage has arisen. I, the son of Droṇa, will do exactly what Paraśurāma did. (Veṇī-saṃhāra 3.33) (Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 208)

atra prabandhaucityād eva varṇa-samāsau.

In this verse, the phonemes and the style of compounding occur only because of the suitability of the literary work (a drama).

Commentary:

Mammaṭa does not illustrate the current topic. He showed the above verse only in the previous chapter as an example of the fault called pratikūla-varṇa (adverse phonemes).^[2] The verse does not contain hard phonemes although the context is raudra-rasa, and normally long compounds would be expected. Perhaps he did not know that the verse is from the drama called Veṇī-saṃhāra.

Here Mammaṭa expounds: kvacid vaktṛ-vācyānapekṣāḥ prabandhocitā eva te. tathā hi, ākhyāyikāyāṃ śṛṅgāre’pi na masṛṇa-varṇādayaḥ kathāyāṃ raudre’pi nātyantam uddhatāḥ, nāṭakādau raudre’pi na dīrgha-samāsādayaḥ. evam anyad apy aucityam anusartavyam, “Sometimes the threefold construction is only suitable to the literary work, without considering the speaker or the literal meaning of the text. For instance, in an ākhyāyikā (historical narrative, such as Bāṇa’s Harṣa-caritam), soft phonemes and so on are not used, even in śṛṅgāra-rasa. In a kathā (a novel, such as Bāṇa’s Kādambarī), the construction should not be too haughty, even in the context of raudra-rasa. In a play, and so on, there is no long compound, and so on, even in raudra-rasa. Other instances of appropriateness are to be looked into in this way” (Kāvya-prakāśa, end of chapter 8).

Govinda Ṭhakkura comments that other such instances of appropriateness occur in a verse of the familiar kind of poetry: evaṃ muktakādy-aucityam anusaraṇīyam (Kāvya-pradīpa). He says that although the rasa is the foundation of the suitability, there is freedom to think when the rasa is not firmly implemented: tatra muktakeṣu kave rasavattvābhiniveśitve rasāśrayam aucityam, yathā, śūnyaṃ vāsa-gṛham ity ādau. rasa-niveśābhāve tu kāma-cāraḥ. (Kāvya-pradīpa)

Sometimes the construction of mādhurya merely reflects the nature of the literal sense:

vidhāya puṣpāvacayaṃ calantyā
  mañjīra-nādo mada-khañjanākṣyāḥ |
mando’py amandaṃ harim añjanābhaṃ
  kuñje-śayaṃ jāgarayāñcakāra ||

“After picking flowers, the girl whose eyes are like excited wagtail birds was going. Although feeble, the sound of her anklets abruptly woke up Hari, whose luster resembles dark blue eyeliner. He was taking rest in the pleasure grove” (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 6.21).

Sometimes the construction of softness occurs by itself and without an underlying rasa,

līlālasa-lalitāṅgī laghu laghu lalanā-lalāma-mauli-maṇiḥ |
lalitādibhir ālibhir vilasati lalita-smita-rādhā ||

“Rādhā has a lovely smile. She is the jewel of eminent women. Her charming body became languid because of an amusement which is repeatedly done slowly. Now She enjoys light recreation with Lalitā and other friends” (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 6.4).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Kārtavīryārjuna stole Jamadagni’s wish-fulfilling cow. Paraśurāma killed Kārtavīryārjuna (Bhāgavatam 9.15). Afterward, Jamadagni, Paraśurāma’s father, was killed by Kārtavīryārjuna’s sons (Bhāgavatam 9.16.11-12). Eventually, in Samanta-pañcaka, the former name of Kurukṣetra, Paraśurāma created nine pools filled with the blood of Kṣatriyas (Bhāgavatam 9.16.19). Thousands of years later, Paraśurāma imparted the knowledge of his weapons to Droṇa; Dṛṣṭadyumna as well was taught by Droṇa (Mahābhārata). During the Kurukṣetra War, Droṇa, the commander-in-chief of the Kurus’s side, lost the will to live because, having heard a half-lie from Yudhiṣṭhira, he thought that his son Aśvatthāmā had died. Dṛṣṭadyumna, the commanderin-chief of the Pāṇḍavas’s side, seized the opportunity: He decapitated Droṇa and returned to camp with the proof of his act.

[2]:

raudre yathā, “deśaḥ…” atra hi vikaṭa-varṇatvaṃ dīrgha-samāsatvaṃ cocitam (Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 208 vṛtti).