^{page 830 note 1} These two verses illustrate 3a and 3b respectively.

^{page 830 note 2} “Tasyā eva ca aparaṁ nāmadheyaṁ Komaleti.”—Commentary.

^{page 831 note 1} “Śabdānām anupalabhymānnsuptiṅām. Padānām upalabhyamānasuptīṅām.”—Com.

^{page 831 note 2} Verses 16–20 illustrate 15a, 15b, 14a (down to ‘dvayoh’), 14b (from ‘dvayor vaika’), and the rest of 14, respectively. In verse 16, the reading ‘ivābhānti’ is that of Alaṅkārasarvasva (p. 23) where the verse occurs. The MS. gives ‘ivodbhrãṁsi,’ which seems impossible. For the datives in verse 17, see Pāṇini, i, 4. 37.

^{page 831 note 3} The MS has ‘pushṭya.’ I suggest ‘pushpa.’

^{page 831 note 4} “Danturayāmāsuḥ mahattvāc chuklatvāc ca unnatadantā iva chakruḥ.” —Com.

^{page 832 note 1} This and the three following verses illustrate, respectively, verse 22 (first quarter), the rest of 22, 23a, and 23b. The commentator gives a very curious explanation of the expression ekadeśavṛtti in verse 23. He says: “Ekades'avṛtti ityatra hi ekadā anyadā īs'aḥ prabhavishṇur yo 'sau vākyārthas tadvḥttitvaṁ Rūpakasyābhimatam.” He goes onto say that Udbhaṭa explained the expression in the same way when it occurred in a verse, defining viśeshakti, in his Bhāmahavivaraṇa. The verse in question, “Ekadeśasya vigame,” is given in full, under ‘Udbhaṭa,’ in the first section of these Notes.

^{page 832 note 2} This line is quoted on pp. 36 and 207 of Abhinavagupta's Locana. In the second instance the reading is ‘śaradīva.’

^{page 832 note 3} The three verses illustrate ādi, madhya, and anta respectively.

^{page 833 note 1} In Alaṅkārasarvasva (p. 92), where this verse is quoted, the reading is “Pade pade Vibhānti.”

^{page 834 note 1} Verses 46 and 47 are to be taken together.

^{page 834 note 2} The MS. reads “Sadadya.” Compare iv, 14.

^{page 835 note 1} I suggest this reading. That of the MS. is ‘Ivodarapratītāpi.’ There is no colophon at the end of the text, but the Commentary has the following: “Iti mahāśrīpratīhārendurājaviracitāyām Udbhaṭālaṅkārasārasaṅgrahalaghuvṛttau prathamo vargaḥ.” There is a similar one at the end of each chapter of the Commentary.

^{page 835 note 2} Abhinavagupta (Locana, p. 36) combines this line with 3a, making the latter read thus in its second half: “sa ākshepo dvidhā mataḥ.” The same two in combination form Mammaṭa's definition of Ākshepa, except that he reads “Nishedho vaktum ishṭasya” as the first half of line one. In the Alankāravimarśinī (p. 114), our 3a, altered in accordance with the reading of Abhinavagupta and Mammaṭa, appears as the first line of a verse, and is ascribed by Jayaratha to Bhāmaha. His second line is—“Ekarūpatayā śeshā nirdiśyante yathākramam.” It should be noted that our verse 6 is a part of the definition of Ākshepa; that of Arthāntaranyāsa begins with 7.

^{page 836 note 1} This verse, which forms a necessary part of the definition, has been accidentally omitted from the MS. It appears, however, piecemeal, in the Commentary; so I have joined it together and put it in its place.

^{page 836 note 2} Śirṇaparṇāmbuvātānām āśo bhakshaṇam.”—Com.

^{page 837 note 1} “Ekatra tapo Māgho māsaḥ.”—Com.

^{page 837 note 2} Jayaratha (p. 125) quotes this line, slightly modified, and the first two words of second; and Ruyyaka, on p. 126, quotes the example.

^{page 837 note 3} “Samādhiḥ parihāraḥ. Yatra virodhasya sulabhaḥ parihāra ityarthaḥ.”—Com.

^{page 837 note 4} Compare the very similar line under Ruyyaka's definition of Samāsokti, p. 86.

^{page 838 note 1} This line is incomplete in the MS. and the missing portion is not given in the Commentary. Indurāja quotes here, anonymously, from Dhvanyāloka the verse “Candanāsaktabhujaga.”

^{page 838 note 2} This stanza is quoted in Alaṅkārasarvasva, p. 59.

^{page 838 note 3} “Mṛgabālādeh svasamucite vyāpāre pravṛttasya ye hevakāḥ svajātyānurūpyeṇābhiniveśaviśeshās tadupanibandhaḥ.”—Com.

^{page 839 note 1} This differs from Bharata's vi, 15, in admitting śānta, and so making nine whilst he allows eight only.

^{page 839 note 2} “Kadambakalikākośaḥ kadambakalikābhyantaram.”—Com.

^{page 839 note 3} Abhinavagupta quotes this in Locana, p. 39.

^{page 840 note 1} Quoted in Alaṅkārasarvasva, p. 106.

^{page 840 note 2} The other half of this verse is not given.

^{page 840 note 3} “Yasya evaṁvidharūpatā ‘Himādrer bhavatī sutā’ [verse 23] iti samhandhaḥ. Kroḍaḥ sükaraḥ. Pushṭyo (?) maṇiviśeshaḥ. Gandhamādanam parvataviśeshaḥ. Pradhānaṁ svarṋaṁ kārtasvarādi. Urvīndraḥ parvataḥ. Saṅkshayaḥ kalpāntaḥ. Bhūmer adhogamanād bhūmyāślishṭasya pradeśasya bhūmiviviktatvād Himavataḥ kalpānte āyāmaḥ prakaṭībhūtaḥ.”—Com.

^{page 840 note 4} This word pushṭya, which is given here and in the Commentary, is not in the lexicons, and is doubtless a mistake of the copyist. Perhaps pushpa is meant, but that is neuter, whilst the word explained in the Commentary is masculine. In the list of gems given in Sahṛdayalīlā, ii, 2, we find ‘pushyarāga,’ which Dr. Pischel tells us is the reading of a Śaradā MS., and which he considers to be more correct than the ‘pushparaga’ of our lexicons. Possibly, then, ‘pushya’ is the word which the copyist has misread; for as the dictionaries give both ‘pushpa’ and ‘pushparāga’ as meaning ‘topaz,’ we may assume the existence of this pair also.

^{page 841 note 1} Quoted on pp. 242 and 369 of Kāvyaprakāśa; and verse 28b is cited on p. 245 of the same.

^{page 841 note 2} “Apārijātavārtāpītyatra Bhagavatyajātaśatrutvād apagataśatrusamūhavārtā. Tadīyā ca śobhā sarvasya cittam āvarjayatītyato nandanā śrīr yasyās tathāvidhā. TUdakamadhyavartitayā ca yo 'sau apsu udake pratibirabita indus tadvat sundarī nityaṁ ca galallāvaṇyapravāhā. Yadā tvasau Bbagavatī nandana-śriśabdasya devodyānaśobhālakshaṇārthāntarābhidhāyitvād rūpakapratibbotpattinibandhanena ślesheṇaitadbhāvam āpadyate tadā tatsamāśryatvena apārijātavārtāpītyādiparyālocanayā virodhapratibhāhetor asyāpi śleshasyāvirbhāvo bhavati na khalu devodyānaśobhā, avidyamānapārijātākhyavṛkshaviśeshavṛttāntā bhavati na cāsau bhūmau tishṭhati. Abindusundarītyatra tu bindubhir yasyāh saundaryarṁ nāsti tasyāh katham lāvaṇyabindavaḥ prasarevur iti virodhapratibhotpattihetuḥ śleshaḥ.”—Com.

^{page 842 note 1} ‘Abhīshṭasya’ is the reading in the Locana (p. 38), where the first line is quoted; the MS. has ‘anīshṭa ca.’

^{page 843 note 1} This verse and the next are quoted on p. 71 of Alaṅkārasarvasva.

^{page 843 note 2} Abhinavagupta quotes this verse on p. 42. The last quarter reads “trividhā parikīrtitā.”

^{page 843 note 3} Indurāja points out that verse 19 is an illustration of the former kind of vidarśanā, viz. of vastvasambandha; and as Udbhaṭa has no example of the other he gives us one from Bhāmaha, namely the verse “Ayam mandadyutir bhāsvān,” already quoted on p. 285 of this Journal.

^{page 843 note 4} This stanza, slightly modified, is quoted on p. 40 of the Locana. Indurāja names four varieties of sañkara, viz., sandeka, śabdārthavartyalanṅkara, ekaśabdābhidhāna, and anugrāhyānugrāhaka. The first is defined in verse 20, the second and third in 22, and the last in 25.

^{page 844 note 1} This is quoted by Abhinavagupta (p. 41) and by Jayaratha (p. 204).

^{page 844 note 2} This verse puzzles me. The MS. is manifestly incorrect, and I have adopted in part the reading given in Alaṅkāravimarśinī (p. 205), where it is quoted. Here is a portion of Indurāja's comment on it: “Ambhojinī upamānaṁ, Gaurī upameyā, dṛshṭimātrasukhapradatvaṁ sādhārano dharma ityupamā. Sacchāyavarṇikācārukarṇiketi śleshaḥ. Ambhojinyāṁ hi varṇā rājāvartādayaḥ, Gauryāṁ tu gauratvam. Ambhojinyāṁ karṇikā. kamalamadhyavartī bījakośaḥ, Gauryāṁ tu Gārukarṇau.”

^{page 844 note 3} Quoted by Abhinavagupta on p. 41.

^{page 844 note 4} “Yasya praishyeṇa ājnākāriṇā, cakrasañinakena kartṛbhūtena mṛtyunā sārdham apṛthakkālatayā, dyujana āptamanoratnaḥ kṛta iti. Anekalokakavalīkaraṇan mṛyor manorathāvāptir dyujanasya ca śatruvināśāt.”— Com. The stanza is cited on p. 82 of Alaṅkārasarvasva.

^{page 845 note 1} Ruyyaka, quotes this in his Alaṅkārasarvasva, p. 152Google Scholar. The three stanzas illustrate sama, nyūna, and viśishṭa respectively.

^{page 845 note 2} “Netrabhūta urago Vāsukiḥ. Atra kaustubhasyotkṛshtasya nikṛshṭaratnaparityāgena grahaṇān nikṛshṭenotkṛshṭasya parivartanam.”—Com.

^{page 845 note 3} The first word is clearly wrong. The stanza refers to the Vāmana incarnation for the destruction of Bali. I would suggest the reading ‘Yo Balau.’

^{page 845 note 4} Quoted in Locana, p. 107.

^{page 845 note 5} The second part of this line is meaningless. I suggest ‘hṛddalanodbhavaḥ.’

^{page 845 note 6} “Ārjavo mūrkhaḥ. Śaṇkha upameyaḥ, yaśaḥsañcayo haṁsaś copamānam … Yaśasañcayaḥ khalu prasaraṇaśilo 'sya tu tadviruddhaḥ piṇḍībhāvo dṛsyate tena nāyaṁ yaśḥsañcaya iti … Haṁsasya cañcalatvam nāma dharma iha ca tan nopalabhyate tasmān naiva haṁsa iti.”—Com.

^{page 846 note 1} “Atra Meror nparivartī nīlo balāhakaḥ kalpāntavahnyāśrayaś ca dhūma ityetad ubhayam upamanām. Garuḍārūḍhas tu Bhagavān kṛshṇavapur upameyaḥ.”—Com.

^{page 846 note 2} Nirviśantī = upabhuñjānā. The MS. reads ‘vasau’ at end of line.

^{page 846 note 3} Quoted in Kāvyaprakāśa, x, 28; by Ruyyaka on p. 183, and by Jayaratha on p. 178. Indurãja cites here Bhāmaha's stanza ‘Citrodãttādbhutārthatvam,’ which I have given in full on p. 285 of this Journal. The second line is quoted in Aluṅkārasarvasva (p. 183) and ascribed to Bhāmaha.

^{page 847 note 1} Quoted on pp. 34 and 148 of Alaṅkāravimarśinī.

^{page 847 note 2} Indurāja points out that this is opposed to Bhāmaha's verse ‘Vṛttadevādicaritam,’ for which see page 286, supra.