1. Introduction and the list of 36 Lakshanas

[I. Introductory-II. The text of Bharata on the subject: 2 recensions-III. The literature on the subject-IV. Its three names Laksana, Bhusana and Natyalamkara-V. The Dasapaksi, '10 views', on the subject in the Abhinava Bharati-VI. Probable authors of the views in the Dasapaksi-VII. Criticism of the Dasapaksi-VIII. Abhinavagupta's own view-IX. Other writers on the subject: Dandin, Dhananjaya and Dhanika, Bhoja, Saradatanaya, Jayadeva, Singabhupala, Visvanatha, Raghavabhatta, Jagaddhara, Alaka, Rucipati, Bahurupamisra, Kumbhakarna, Sarvesvara and Acyutaraya-X. Bharata's own view; the text of Bharata independently studied-conclusion-XI. Supplement table of the Laksanas in the various lists according to the different writers.] I Sahitya along with grammar and prosody finds treatment at the hands of Bharata under Vacikabhinaya, the Kavya which is the text of the drama. The Kavya, Bharata says, should have 36 Laksanas. kavyabandhastu kartavyah sattrimsallaksana fa: XVI. 169. In chapter 17, he gives a list of 36 Laksanas and defines each. In the end he calls them '1847- 'kavya- , adornments to Kavya. He does not illustrate these as he illustrates the metres and Alankaras. He does not specify their place in Kavya and does not define their difference

from Alankara. This concept of Laksana is not elaborated very much in later literature on Poetics or Dramaturgy. Abhinava opens his exposition of the topic by observing that, as a topic of Poetics, it is quite unfamiliar, Aprasiddha. gunalankaradi ( di ?) riti (riti ) vrttayasceti kavyesu prasiddho margah | laksanani (¿t?) ₫ a ofgifa | Abhi. Bha. p. 379.' Many of these look like Alankaras while some actually go by names which are Alankaras in later literature. There is no clear grasp of the exact nature of Laksana in the few writers on Dramaturgy who treat of it. Bharata certainly means them to be features of Kavya in general and not of drama only. It would seem, by Bharata mentioning them first and by giving 36 of them, Bharata considers Laksana of greater importance than Alankara. It had its day when it loomed large in the field, eclipsing Alamkara, which was poor in numbers. But gradually Laksana died in the Alankara Sastra. Writers on drama took it up, some enthusiastically defining and illustrating them, some doing so out of loyalty to Bharata and some dismissing them as having been included in Alankaras or Bhavas. This lost Paddhati of Laksana has a history of its. own which is the subject of this chapter. II In chapter 17, Bharata gives a list of 36 Laksanas, defines each and in the end indicates their character and l References to the Natya Sastra of Bharata are to the Kasi edition of that work. References to the Abhinava Bharati are to Vol. II of that work in the MS. of the Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, Madras, the corrupt text of which, I studied and reconstructed as far as possible with the help of Mm. Prof. S. Kuppuswami Sastri. The GOS Edition of the work, not infrequently, adds to the mistakes. See [Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda] LXVIII, pp. 290-321.

place in the Kavya in one verse. This portion of the Natya Sastra has two recensions, even as the portions on metres and Gunas. The text on Gunas followed by Abhinava is not the one followed by Mangala, whose fragments on the concept of Guna are available in Hemacandra and Manikyacandra. But as regards metres and Laksanas Abhinava is acquainted with both the recensions. He notes both the recensions as regards the definitions of the Laksanas and says he follows mainly the recension handed down to him through his teacher. AEG HEAG 9189997 Fqa: 1' p. 384. This '- uddesakramastu asmadupadhyayaparamparagatah | recension enumerates the Laksanas in Upajati metre; the other recension, in Anustubh metre. He adds that he will indicate the other recension also then and there. Accordingly while treating of the Laksanas, one by one, he notices the definitions in the other recension and also shows, quite arbitrarily in most cases, how both mean the same thing. Further, though both recensions have Priyavacana, Abhinava includes the Priyavacana of the Anustubh list in the Protsahana of the Upajati list, and in the Priyavacana of the Upajati list itself, he includes the Bhramsa of the Anustubh list. Garhana of the Anustubh list is twice included under Kapata and Karya of the Upajati list; similarly Prasiddhi under both Akhyana and Anuniti. Paridevana of the Upajati list is said to include two, Ksobha and Anukta siddhi, of the Anustubh list. The Kavyamala edition of the Natya Sastra has the recension followed by Abhinava, the Upajati recension. The other recension in Anustubh verses is found in the Kasi edition which also gives in the footnote the Upajati recension. The Rasarnavasudhakara and Sahityadarpana follow the Anustubh recension while Bhoja, with whom elaboration is the principle, must have been acquainted with both recensions, since he makes up a list of 64 Laksanas from both

recensions. The Dasarupa follows the Upajati recension. The two recensions differ in their enumeration as well as in the definition of each Laksana. Only 17 Laksanas are common to both. Of the definitions, eight are common to both, those of Bhusana, Aksara sanghata, Sobha, Gunakirtana, Manoratha, Prccha, Samsaya and Prapti; the definition of Karya of the Upajati list is the same as that of Garhana in the Anustubh list; five definitions agree in substance, those of Udaharana, Nirukta, Siddhi, Padoccaya and Drstanta; the difinition of Anuvrtti of the Upajati list agrees in substance with that of Daksinya of the Anustubh list. Yanca and Priyavacana of the Upajati list are defined by the same identical verse, and the definition suits the latter and not the former. There are also corruptions in the definitions in both recensions. The table at the end of this chapter shows the Laksanas according to the two lists, how Abhinava includes those of the Anustubh list in one or the other of the Upajati list, additional Laksanas in other writers, and other details.