16: Alaṃkāra-śāstra according to Hemacandra (12th century)

Hemacandra (12th cen. A.D.), the versatile Jaina scholar, has composed a treatise on Sanskrit Poetics known as the Kāvyānuśāsana. In this work consisting of eight (08) chapters he has chiefly compiled the basic doctrine put forth by his predecessors. He follows Mammaṭāclosely in his doctrine regarding alaṃkāras.

He uses ‘samalaṃkārau ca’ in place of ‘analaṃkṛtīpunaḥ kvāpi’ in his definition of kāvya to improve upon Mammaṭā. He furnishes a general definition of alaṃkāras in the first chapter of his work—

aṅgāśritāalaṃkārāḥ/
  —Kāvyānuśāsana (of Hemacandra) 1.13.

He clarifies his view in the following vṛtti—

rasasyāṅgino yadaṅgaṃ śabdārthau tadāśritāalaṃkārāḥ /
te ca rasasya sataḥ kvacidupakāriṇaḥ, kvacidanupakāriṇaḥ/
rasābhāve tu vācyavācakavaicitryamātraparyavasitābhavanti/
  —Kāvyānuśāsana (of Hemacandra) 1.13 (‘Alaṃkāracūḍāmaṇi’ vṛtti).

According to Hemacandra rasa is the soul of poetry and has to be regarded as ‘aṅgī’. The word and the sense are its ‘aṅgas’ or constituents. Figures of speech or alaṃkāras are solely dependent upon word and sense. Alaṃkāras are embellishments which rest upon the ‘aṅga’ or body of poetry and they do not have any direct connection to the soul of poetry i.e. rasa. The alaṃkāras sometimes lend charm to rasa. But in the absence of rasa these figures of speech merely render the words and sense some picturesque variation. If the figures do not heighten the effect of the inner sentiment of rasa they should not be employed by the poet at all.

Hemacandra further opines that even if these figures are taken out of a poem, they do not harm or spoil the charm or beauty of that poem at all—

nacālaṃkṛtīnāpoddhārāhārābhyāṃ vākyaṃ duṣyati puṣyati vā/
  —Kāvyānuśāsana (of Hemacandra) 1.14 (Viveka).

In his commentary ‘Viveka’, Hemacandra cites several example verses to show that figures are not at all essential for poetry to yield charm.

Hemacandra opines that a figure of speech should always be employed only at the proper time and only at a place where they are suitable to a certain sentiment.

A figure should neither be harmful to a rasa nor should it be employed in a verse without any obvious purpose—

tatparatve kāle grahatyāgayornātinirvāhe nirvāhe'pyaṅgatve rasopakāriṇaḥ/
  —Kāvyānuśāsana (of Hemacandra) 1.14.

Also—

alaṃkārāiti vartate / tatparatvaṃ rasopakārakatvenālaṃkārasya niveśo, na vādhakatvena, nāpi tāṭasthyena /
  —Kāvyānuśāsana (of Hemacandra) 1.14 (‘Alaṃkāracūḍāmaṇi’ vṛtti).

Hemacandra quotes a number of verses to support his view-point. For example, the verse ‘calāpāṅgāṃ dṛṣṭiṃ spṛśasi’ quoted from the first act of Kālidāsa’s Abhijñānaśakuntala illustrates the role of a figure of speech in heightening the effect of a rasa. Here, the figure of speech svabhābokti heightens the effect of śṛṅgārarasa which is predominant in the verse. On the other hand, the verse ‘srastaḥ sragdāmaśobhāṃ tyajati’ illustrates as to how a figure of speech spoils the effect of the rasa. Here, the figure of speech utprekṣā along with its auxiliary figure arthaśleṣa creates an atmosphere of karuṇarasa and thus spoils the predominant sentiment śṛṅgāra.