Text 9.4 [Anuprāsa]

Anuprāsa

वर्ण-साम्यम् अनुप्रासः ॥ ९.७९a ॥

varṇa-sāmyam anuprāsaḥ || 9.79a ||

varṇa—of phonemes; sāmyam—the sameness; anuprāsaḥ—alliteration.

Alliteration is the sameness of phonemes.

svara-vaisādṛśye’pi vyañjana-sādṛśyaṃ varṇa-sāmyaṃ yadi svara-sādṛśyam api syāt tarhi prakarṣāyaiva tat. yasyoccāraṇena pūrvānubhava-saṃskārodbodhas tena sāmyam iha vivakṣitam. tataś ca vargeṣu prathama-dvitīyayos tṛtīya-caturthayoś ca sāmyam, na-ṇayoḥ śa-sayoś ca rasādy-anuguṇaḥ prakṛṣṭo nyāso’nuprāsaḥ.

The sameness of phonemes means the sameness of consonants, whether the vowels are the same or not. If the vowels are the same, that sameness only serves to enhance the sameness of consonants.

What is meant here is a similarity with a consonant by uttering which there is a rise in the mind of an embellishment in the form of a perception that occurred before. Consequently, among the groups of phonemes, there is a similarity between the first phonemes and the second phonemes (k and kh, c and ch, ṭ and ṭh, t and th, p and ph) and between the third phonemes and the fourth phonemes (g and gh, j and jh, ḍ and ḍh, d and dh, b and bh), as well as a similarity between n and ṇ, and a similarity between ś and s.

Anuprāsa (alliteration) is so called because it is an eminent (pra = prakṛṣṭa) placement (āsa = nyāsa) of phonemes which is favorable (anu = anuguṇa) to a rasa-ādi.

Commentary:

Mammaṭa’s elaboration only consists of the above first and third paragraphs.^[1] In the second paragraph, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa introduces new theory. The author of Kṛṣṇānandinī explains Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s opinion: In “śaṅkaraḥ śaṅkha-nādaḥ,” the sounds ṅk and ṅkh constitute an alliteration. Similarly, there is alliteration of d and dh in “mando gandha-vahaḥ,” of ṇ and n in “reṇur dhenu-tateḥ,” and of ṃs and ṃś in “kaṃsa-vaṃśa-nisūdana.”^[2]

At first, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa vaguely refers to Viśvanātha Kavirāja’s śruti anuprāsa (alliteration for the ears), which consists of the repetition of any consonant within a group characterized by the same place of pronunciation.^[3] Those groups are as follows. The gutturals are: k, kh, g, gh, ṅ, h, and the visarga (ḥ). The palatals are: c, ch, j, jh, ñ, y, ś, and jñ. The cerebrals are: ṭ, ṭh, ḍ, ḍh, ṇ, r, and ṣ. The dentals are: t, th, d, dh, n, l, and s. The labials are: p, ph, b, bh, and m. Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa approves of this type of alliteration.^[4] Therefore, when the phonemes of one group repeatedly occur, that is called śruti anuprāsa provided those phonemes are not part of a conjunct consonant.

The rest of the theory set forth in that second paragraph is not in line with either Kāvya-prakāśa, Sāhitya-darpaṇa or Alaṅkāra-kaustubha. Namisādhu states that Kavi Śivabhadra thinks there is no difference between ṇ and n, but the context is yamaka (word rhyme) (9.20).^[5] Still, Bhoja stated that ṇ and n are nondifferent and classed such an alliteration in the upanāgara variety of his śruti anuprāsa (Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa 2.75; illustration 2.175): After all, who other than a fanatical purist would deny that there is alliteration in: “lāvaṇyavanyo” (Govinda-līlāmṛta 17.14)? Nevertheless, in the same context Bhoja said that the letters ḍ and l, as well as r and l, are nondifferent for the purpose of alliteration,^[6] whereas Viśvanātha Kavirāja and other poetical theorists accept this only in yamaka (word rhyme) and so on: yamakādau bhaved aikyaṃ ḍa-lor ba-vor la-ros tathā (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.8 vṛtti).

However, no poetical theorist of good repute has ever considered a similarity between the letters ś and s for the purpose of alliteration, although that similarity is seen in some words: Rasanā and raśanā are listed as synonyms in Medinī-kośa, even though the sense of rasanā as raśanā (string) is not etymologically explained. Similarly, in usage the name Vasiṣṭha is also spelled Vaśiṣṭha, and the words vikāsa and vikāśa are used interchangeably. In the old days, many people could not properly pronounce the letter s.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

svara-vaisādṛśye’pi vyañjana-sadṛśatvaṃ varṇa-sāmyam. rasādy-anugataḥ prakṛṣṭo nyāso’nuprāsaḥ (Kāvya-prakāśa 9.79 vṛtti).

[2]:

yasyoccāraṇety-ādi, tena śaṅkaraḥ śaṅkha-nādaḥ mando gandha-vahaḥ reṇur dhenu-tateḥ kaṃsa-vaṃśa-nisūdana ity ādāv anuprāsaḥ siddhaḥ. raṅka-saṅghaḥ prayātyayam ity ādau tu na (Kṛṣṇānandinī).

[3]:

uccāryatvād yad ekatra sthāne tālu-radādike |
sādṛśyaṃ vyañjanasyaiva chruty-anuprāsa iṣyate || (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.5)

[4]:

sāmyaṃ ca śruti-kṛtam api gṛhyate. yathā yāti rājā balāḍhya iti raṃhaḥ saṅgha iti ca. śruti-sāmyaṃ sthānaikyāt, jāti-sāmye tu mūla evodāharaṇam (Uddyota 9.75).

[5]:

yamaka-śleṣa-citreṣu ba-va-kārayor auṣṭhya-dantyauṣṭhyayor abhedo dṛśyate. yathā “tasyārijātaṃ nṛpater apaśyad abalaṃ vanam, yayau nirbhara-sambhogair apaśyad avalambanam.” tathā na-kāra-ṇa-kārayoś ca na bhedaḥ. yathā “vegaṃ he turagāṇāṃ jayann asāv eti bhaṅga-hetur agānām” iti śiva-bhadrasya. visarjanīya-bhāvābhāvayoś ca na viśeṣaḥ. yathā “dviṣatāṃ mūlam ucchettuṃ rāja-vaṃśād ajāyathāḥ, dviṣadbhyas trasyasi kathaṃ vṛka-yūthād ajā yathā.” atra hy ekatrājāyathā iti visargāntaṃ kriyā-padam, aparatra yathā-śabdo’vyayam. tathāntyor ma-kārana-kārayoś ca na bhedaḥ. yathā “prāpayāsurathaṃ vīra samīra-samaraṃhasam, dviṣatāṃ jahi niḥśeṣa-pṛtanāḥ samaraṃ hasan.” atra hi samara-raṃhasam iti māntam, hasann iti nāntaṃ padam. (Namisādhu’s commentary on Rudraṭa’s Kāvyālaṅkāra 4.4)

[6]:

ḍa-layor aikyam ity-ādi-vākyair yasyānumīyate | samāna-śrutitānyonyaṃ so’nuprāsaḥ praśasyate || (Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa 2.75); Bhoja gives different kinds of examples: sa ḍa-layor aikyena yathā… na-ṇayor aikyena yathā… ra-layor aikyena yathā…dantya-tālavyānām aikyena yathā… (Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa 2.75 vṛtti)