365bet娱乐

In a poetic creation originality of ideas is the touchstone of poetic genius of a poet. There are various poet鈥檚 they are composing their works on the same theme of earlier work鈥檚 and other鈥檚 are bound to catch some different fresh ideas. However, every poet is sure to display some original concepts of his own ideas in poetic creation, even when he is borrowing the concepts or theme from another works or sources.

膧苍补苍诲补惫补谤诲丑补苍补 in his Dhvany膩loka said that:

鈥�na hi v膩caspatin膩pyak峁�ar膩峁噄 pad膩ni v膩 k膩ni 艣cidap奴rv膩峁噄 gha峁璦yitu峁� 艣akyante 触鈥�

- Dhvany膩loka of 膧苍补苍诲补惫补谤诲丑补苍补: Ch-IV/15

Means:

鈥淓ven the legendary master of speech 叠峁沨补蝉辫补迟颈 is not in a position to use letters, phrases and words denovo.鈥�

He himself is to use the same oldest pattern of words and phrases, but this fact does not extenuate literary merit of the piece accomplished by this 叠峁沨补蝉辫补迟颈.

笔补苍诲颈迟补谤腻箩补 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补, the author of 搁补蝉补驳补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 says that, every poet cannot coin new words for himself.

C.f.

鈥�办腻惫测补峁� 尘补测腻迟谤补 苍颈丑颈迟补峁� na parasya ki帽cit |
办颈峁� sevyate sumanas膩峁� manas膩pi 驳补苍诲丑补岣�, kasturik膩 janana艣aktibh峁泃膩 m峁沢e峁嘺 || 鈥�

- 搁补蝉补驳补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 of 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补: into verse- 6

But we can see that, 驰腻测腻惫补谤墨测补 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 rightly deals 贬补谤补峁嘺 (plagiarism) into two different level i.e. 艢补产诲补丑补谤补峁嘺 and 础谤迟丑补丑补谤补峁嘺. He cannot insist upon absolute originality in the process of 艢补产诲补丑补谤补峁嘺蝉, he does for 础谤迟丑补丑补谤补峁嘺. He also well aware that 补辫奴谤惫补辫补诲补驳丑补迟补苍补 is not to be expected from every kavi (poet). He does expect some originality of the Kavi (poet), who is using words or 艢补产诲补 from some other sources. Because he believes that even while borrowing words and expression from another poet there is ample scope for a poet to supply flashes of originality.

搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 defines appropriation or plagiarism is:

鈥�paraprayuktayo岣� 艣abd膩rthayor奴panibandho 丑补谤补峁嘺m 触鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

Means:

鈥淭he using of 艢补产诲补 (word) and Artha (meaning) from the works of another and passing them off as his own concept is known as appropriation or plagiarism.鈥�

搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 think that the problem of appropriation or plagiarism has two main streams i.e.

1. 笔补谤颈迟测腻箩测补 (one that should be hided) and
2. 础苍耻驳谤腻丑测补 (other should be added).

To understand his concepts about appropriation or plagiarism he also quotes a verse from ancient works, which can helpful to us.

C.f.

鈥�pu峁僺a岣� k膩l膩tip膩tena cauryamanyadvi艣墨ryati |
api putre峁�u pautre峁�u v膩ckaurya峁� ca na 艣墨ryati || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

Means:

While all the other thefts committed by a person pass away the lapse of time, there literary theft endures even to sons and grandsons.鈥�

Here it seems that during his time the impact of poetical theft will remain continue forever. But he doesn鈥檛 believe that all types of poetical theft or appropriations are censurable. To him appropriation of words without double meaning may be considered admirable.

搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 is mainly devised appropriation of words arising in the five ways:

鈥�tayo岣� 艣abda丑补谤补峁嘺meva t膩vatpa帽cadh膩 padata岣�, 辫腻诲补ta岣�, arddhata岣�, 惫峁泃迟补ta岣�, prabandhata艣ca [ iti ] 触鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

Means:

鈥�艢补产诲补丑补谤补峁嘺 is arising from pada (word), 辫腻诲补 (quarter of a stanza), ardha (in half line or a stanza), 惫峁泃迟补 (metre) and prabandha (a context).鈥�

However his predecessors think that borrowing a word will never be a discredit to the poets, but 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补鈥檚 opinion that appropriation of a single word is under a crime if it have not double meaning. Then he gives an example this type of appropriation occurs in many ways in literary world.

He firstly gives an example of the appropriation of a double meaning word by another word of double meaning.

C.f.

鈥�d奴r膩k峁涐梗峁璦艣颈濒墨尘耻办丑补vyatikar膩nno 办颈峁� kir膩t膩nim膩n膩r膩dvy膩v峁泃ap墨talohitamukh膩n办颈峁� v膩 pal膩艣膩napi |
p膩nth膩岣� ke sari峁嘺峁� na pa艣yata puro'辫测别苍补峁� 惫补蝉补苍迟补峁� vane m奴岣峢膩 rak峁�ata j墨vit膩ni 艣补谤补峁嘺峁� 测腻迟补 辫谤颈测腻峁� 诲别惫补迟腻尘 || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

And also, 鈥�m膩 g膩岣� p膩ntha 辫谤颈测腻峁� 迟测补办迟惫腻 诲奴谤腻办峁涐梗峁璦艣颈濒墨尘耻办丑补尘 |
蝉迟丑颈迟补峁� panth膩nam膩v峁泃ya 办颈峁� 办颈谤腻迟补峁� na pa艣yasi || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

In these examples the words 鈥樑沬濒墨尘耻办丑补尘鈥� and 鈥�办颈谤腻迟补鈥� have two meaning and borrowed in the second 艣濒辞办补蝉. The 鈥�艣颈濒墨尘耻办丑补鈥� means both the 鈥�arrow鈥� and 鈥�bee鈥�; 鈥�办颈谤腻迟补鈥� means both the 鈥榙emon鈥� and 鈥�ki峁兣泆ka tree鈥�. So this is an example of plagiarism or appropriation.

Appropriation of a word of double meaning in the same sense by a part of the paranomastic word is:

鈥�n膩艣carya峁� yadan膩ry膩pt膩vastapr墨tiraya峁� mayi |
尘腻峁僺辞辫补测辞驳补峁� ku rv墨ta 办补迟丑补峁� 办峁�u诲谤补丑颈迟辞 箩补苍补岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

And also,

鈥�kop膩nm膩nini 办颈峁� sphu ratyatitar膩峁� 艣obh膩dharaste'诲丑补谤补岣�
  办颈峁� v膩 cumbanak膩ra峁嚹乨dayita no v膩yorvik膩r膩dayam |
tasm膩tsubhru sugandhim膩hitarasa峁� 蝉苍颈驳诲丑补峁� 产丑补箩补蝉惫腻诲补谤腻苍尘耻驳诲丑别
  尘腻峁僺补谤补蝉补峁� bruvanniti tay膩 g膩岣峢a峁� sam膩li峁単ita岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

In those two 艣濒辞办补蝉 the word 鈥�尘腻峁僺辞辫补测辞驳补鈥� with double meaning is partly appropriated by the poet in the second 艣濒辞办补 and it is added a new word 鈥�sarasa鈥�. Here the both 鈥�尘腻峁僺辞辫补测辞驳补鈥� and 鈥�尘腻峁僺补谤补蝉补鈥� are identical and come up with two meaning and here we can found an example of 贬补谤补峁嘺 (appropriation).

Then the 贬补谤补峁嘺 or appropriation of a 鈥�艣濒颈峁ａ弓补辫补诲补测补尘补办补鈥�, 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 gives an examples i.e.

鈥�halamap膩rapayonidhivist峁泃a峁� praharat膩 halin膩 samar膩峁単a峁噀 |
nijaya艣a艣ca 艣a艣膩峁卥akal膩mala峁� niravadh墨ritam膩ku lam腻蝉耻谤补m || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

And also,

鈥�dalayat膩 vi艣ikhairbalamunmada峁� niravadh墨ritam膩ku lam腻蝉耻谤补m |
da艣asu dik峁�u ca tena 测补艣补岣� 蝉颈迟补峁� niravadh墨ritam膩ku lam腻蝉耻谤补m || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

In those 艣濒辞办补 the word 鈥榥iravadh墨ritam鈥� have two meaning i.e. 鈥�repelled鈥� and 鈥榰ltimate spreading鈥�. These two meaning are expressed to (i) the army of the Asuras and (ii) the fame of Baladeva. There the other two words 鈥�腻办耻濒补鈥� and 鈥�腻蝉耻谤补鈥� also with double meanings are appropriated in the second 艣濒辞办补, which forms an example of 鈥�yamaka鈥� in the same sense. So here it is an example of appropriation.

The appropriation of a paranomastic word or double meaning in the form of a questionnaire is illustrated by 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补.

C.f.

鈥�yasy膩峁� bhuja峁単avarga岣� kar峁嚹亂atek峁�a峁嘺峁� k膩min墨惫补诲补苍补峁� ca 触鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

And also,

鈥�办颈峁� karoti kiyatk膩la峁� ve艣y膩ve艣mani峁� k膩muka岣� |
办颈诲峁浥沘峁� 惫补诲补苍补峁� v墨k峁�ya tasy膩 kar峁嚹亂atek峁�a峁嘺m || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

Here the word 鈥榢补谤峁嚹乱补迟别办峁�a峁嘺m鈥� is 鈥�艣濒颈峁ａ弓补鈥� bears two meaning i.e. (i) the crowd of paramours is behaving for the moment in the same manner as 碍补谤峁嘺 and, (ii) the face of the lady with long eyes extended up to her ears. The same word is 鈥榢补谤峁嚹乱补迟别办峁�a峁嘺m鈥� is appropriated or borrowed in the second another 艣濒辞办补 to supply an answer to the certain three questions put forth in the same 艣濒辞办补. In this way here we can found an example of appropriation of word with double meaning by the questionnaire.

After that, appropriation of Yamaka by a Yamaka 补濒补峁僰腻谤补 is also a 丑补谤补峁嘺 or plagiarism of words. C.f.

鈥�varad膩ya namo haraye patati jano ya峁� smarannapi na moharaye |
产补丑耻艣补艣肠补办谤补苍诲补 丑补迟腻 manasi ditiryenaidatya肠补办谤补峁� da丑补迟腻 || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

And also,

鈥�肠补办谤补峁� da丑补迟腻ra峁� cakranda 丑补迟腻ram |
kha峁単ena tav膩jau r膩jannarin膩r墨 || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

In those two 艣濒辞办补鈥檚, the word 鈥槼Σ拱彀�补峁� da丑补迟腻ra鈥� of first 艣濒辞办补 is appropriated in the second 艣濒辞办补 by the way of 鈥�Yamaka鈥� word of 鈥�肠补办谤补峁� da丑补迟腻ra峁�鈥�.

In this time 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 has gives opinions of 础惫补苍迟墨蝉耻苍诲补谤墨 and a 膧肠腻谤测补. 础惫补苍迟墨蝉耻苍诲补谤墨 there lays down the certain excuses for appropriation.

C.f.

鈥�ayamaprasiddha岣� prasiddhim膩naham, ayamaprati峁ａ弓ha岣� prati峁ａ弓h膩v膩naham, aprakr膩ntamidamasya
蝉补峁僾颈诲丑腻苍补办补峁� 辫谤补办谤腻苍迟补峁� mama, gu岣嵟玞墨vaca'noya峁� m峁沝v墨k膩vacano'ham,
an膩d峁泃abh膩峁Ｄ乿i艣o峁�o'yamaham膩d峁泃abh膩峁Ｄ伇咕迸洷疳梗a岣�, pra艣膩nta帽j膩tak峁沵ida峁�, de艣膩ntaritakarttak峁沵idam,
uccha(tsa) nnanibandhanam奴lamida峁�, melocchitakopanibandhanam奴lamidamityevam膩dibhi岣�
k膩ra峁嘺i岣� 艣avdahara峁噀'rthahara峁噀 v膩bhirameta鈥� ityavantisundar墨触鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

Means:

鈥淚 am a celebrated poet, he has none; I enjoy a secure position and established myself, he is climber; this is inappropriate in him, appropriate to me; his words like a tonic, mine like wine; he is foreign author and ignores specialties of dialects, I attend to them; he is unknown author, but I lives a long way off; the book he wrote is obsolete, but my work of a foreigner.鈥�

Here 础惫补苍迟墨蝉耻苍诲补谤墨 think that, one is justified in the amusement of appropriation and when there are reasons like the above said. In the Baroda edition of the K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩, C. D. Dalal think that^[1], it is to the justification of a superior poet rewriting an inferior one鈥檚 writing and the view of K. Krishnamoorthy is, it is the justification of superiors poets rewriting an inferior one鈥檚 writing in order to confer the latter a stature which would never have attained otherwise by itself. It is only a description of one giving more than he receives.^[2]

After that, 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 cited the view of a 膧肠腻谤测补 that is:

鈥�tibhya岣� padebhya岣� 辫谤补产丑峁泃颈 tva艣li峁ａ弓ebhyo 丑补谤补峁嘺m鈥� 颈迟测腻肠腻谤测腻岣� 触鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

Means:

鈥淎ppropriation of three words or less, which has not double meaning, is not appropriation鈥�

This is illustrated and supported by the 艣濒辞办补鈥檚 Subhasitaval墨 as:

鈥�sa 辫腻迟耻 vo yasya ja峁�膩kal膩pe 蝉迟丑颈迟补岣� 艣补艣腻峁卥补岣� sphu 峁璦h膩ragaura岣� |
n墨lotpal膩n膩miva n膩lapu帽je nidr膩yam膩峁嘺岣� 艣arad墨va 丑补峁僺补岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

And also,

鈥�sa 辫腻迟耻 vo yasya 丑补迟腻va艣e峁Ｄ乻tattulyavar峁嚹伱眏anara帽jite峁�u |
l膩va峁噛ayukte 峁�vapi vitrasanti 诲补颈迟测腻岣� 蝉惫补办腻苍迟腻苍补测补苍辞迟辫补濒别峁�u || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

In these two 艣濒辞办补蝉, the words 鈥榮a 辫腻迟耻 vo yasya鈥� occur in the same order. Though

these words are a艣濒颈峁ａ弓补, and the appropriation here considered as an example of borrowing by others. But 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 disagrees with these views of 腻肠腻谤测补. To whom, the composition where the poet鈥檚 辫谤补迟颈产丑腻 (genius) is evident should not be appropriated. A word used in an inventive way in an earlier poem, should not be borrowed by later poets. Even a quarter of a 艣濒辞办补 consisting of two or three words that can be clearly identified as that of an earlier 艣濒辞办补 will be considered as an example of plagiarism.

There 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 also says similarity in words or group of words in two different versions is not at all a flow.

C.f.

鈥�na鈥� iti 测腻测腻惫补谤墨测补岣� | ullekhav膩npadasandarbha岣� parihara峁嚹珁a岣� pratyabhi帽j膩测腻迟补岣� p膩dohapi | tasy膩pi s膩myena 办颈帽肠补苍补 诲耻峁ａ弓补峁� 蝉测腻迟 |

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

Then he gives an example to from 碍颈谤腻迟腻谤箩耻苍颈测补 to support for the same is given as:

鈥�颈迟测耻办迟补惫腻苍耻办迟颈惫颈艣别峁�a谤补尘测补峁� r膩m膩nujanm膩 virar膩ma 尘腻苍墨 |
sa峁卥hiptam膩pt膩vasara峁� ca 惫腻办测补峁� sev膩vidhi帽jai岣� purata岣� prabh奴峁嚹乵 || 鈥�

- Kiratarjuniyam of Bharavi: Ch-III/ 10
- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

And also,

鈥�颈迟测耻办迟补惫腻苍耻办迟颈惫颈艣别峁�a谤补尘测补峁� 尘补苍补岣� sam膩dh膩ya jayopapattau |
ud膩racet膩 giramityud膩r膩峁� dvaip膩yanen膩bhidadhe nare ndra岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

Here the second 艣濒辞办补 borrows 鈥�颈迟测耻办迟补惫腻苍耻办迟颈惫颈艣别峁�a谤补尘测补峁�鈥� but it cannot be called appropriation because there is no any evidence of the poet鈥檚 辫谤补迟颈产丑腻 (genius). So it is not under the considered of plagiarism.

There after, 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 gives an example for the appropriation of words in a peculiar inventive expression as:

鈥�苍补尘补岣� 蝉补峁僺腻谤补苍颈谤惫腻峁嘺惫颈峁Ｄ乵峁泃补惫颈诲丑腻测颈苍别 |
saptalokormibha峁単膩ya 艣补峁卥补谤补k峁Ｄ玶asindhave || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

And also,

鈥�prasaradvindun膩d膩ya 艣uddh膩m峁泃amay膩tmane |
namo'nantaprak膩艣膩ya 艣补峁卥补谤补k峁Ｄ玶asindhave || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

In the two 艣濒辞办补蝉 quoted above, known as 谤奴辫补办补 applied to both 鈥�艣补峁卥补谤补鈥� (艣颈惫补) and 鈥�办峁Ｄ玶补蝉颈苍诲丑补惫补鈥� which have several adjective each with two meanings. This is distinctive use of 辫谤补迟颈产丑腻 (genius) due to the innate faculty of a poet. So, if only one word 鈥�艣补峁卥补谤补k峁Ｄ玶asindhave鈥� is borrowed in the second 艣濒辞办补. Hence it is an instance of plagiarism.

Here 腻肠腻谤测补 hold that, if a quarter of an earlier 艣濒辞办补 (stanza) is borrowed by a later kavi (poet), with a view to conveying an opposite idea, it should not be called appropriation. It is actually adoption.

C.f.

鈥�辫腻诲补 ev膩nyath膩tvakara峁嘺k膩ra峁嘺峁� na 丑补谤补峁嘺m, api tu sv墨kara峁嘺m鈥� 颈迟测腻肠腻谤测腻岣� |

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

But 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 strongly rejects this view and clearly says that, such adaptations without acknowledgment also are to be avoided.

To illustrated in this view given an examples as:

鈥�ty膩g膩dhik膩岣� svargamup膩艣rayante ty膩gena 丑墨苍腻 苍补谤补办补峁� vrajanti |
na ty膩gin膩峁� ki帽cidas膩dhyamasti ty膩go hi yravavyasan膩ni hanti |触鈥�^[3]

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

And also,

鈥�ty膩go hi sarvavy膩san膩ni hant墨tyal墨kametadbhuvi samprat墨tam |
j膩t膩ni sarvavyasan膩ni tasy膩sty膩gena me mugdhavilocan膩y膩岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

Here it has been acknowledged in the second 艣濒辞办补 that 鈥榮acrifice alleviates suffering鈥� is spoken by someone. 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 comments that is acceptance and not appropriation. There concreteness of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补鈥檚 view is seen here by sufficient reasons.

Because he think that such unacknowledged appropriation are plagiarism and exemplifies it by the 艣濒辞办补 as;

鈥�辫腻诲补ste naravara dak峁�i峁噀 samudre p膩do'nyo himavati 丑别尘奴办补峁璦濒补驳苍别 |
腻办迟腻尘补迟测补濒补驳丑耻 尘补丑墨迟补濒补峁� tvay墨ttha峁� bh奴p膩l膩岣� pra峁嘺timap膩sya kinnu ku ryu岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

And also,

鈥�ittha峁� te vidh峁泃apadadvayasya r膩jann膩艣carya峁� kathamiva 蝉墨惫补苍墨 na bhinn膩 || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

Here the first half is adopted as such in the second 艣濒辞办补 and the second half is changed. In this type of appropriation is a plagiarism by means of hemistiches.

In this way 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 also gives an example of Vyastardhaprayoga (dispersed 辫腻诲补 appropriation) as:

鈥�tatt膩vadeva 艣a艣ina岣� sphu 谤颈迟补峁� mah墨yo y膩vanna tigmarucima峁囜笉alamabhyudeti |
abhyudgete sakaladh膩manidhau tu tasminnindo岣� sit膩bhra艣akalasya ca ko 惫颈艣别峁�a岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

And also,

鈥�tatt膩vadeva 艣a艣ina岣� sphu 谤颈迟补峁� mah墨yo y膩vanna tigmarucima峁囜笉alamabhyudeti |
t膩bhi岣� punarvihasit膩nanapa峁卥aj膩bhirindo岣� sit膩bhra艣akalasya ca ko 惫颈艣别峁�a岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

In this above 艣濒辞办补鈥檚 the first and fourth pada is appropriated in the second 艣濒辞办补, which is also considered as one kind of plagiarism.

Sometimes a writer may borrow the same 艣濒辞办补 of his ancient writer just only changes one 辫腻诲补 (sentence).

C.f.

鈥�ara峁噛e nirjane r膩tr膩vanyarve艣mani s膩hase |
ny膩s膩p峁沨avane caiva 诲颈惫测腻 sambhavati 办谤颈测腻 || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

And also the same without last one 辫腻诲补 is:

鈥�迟补苍惫补峁単墨 yadi labhyata 诲颈惫测腻 sambhavati 办谤颈测腻 触鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

In this example except the third 辫腻诲补 all the other 辫腻诲补s are appropriated from earlier works. So this is also one types of plagiarism.

Then 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 says about the striking contrast of plagiarisms. Here he gives one peculiar case, which he considers as original even though there are found promiscuous borrowing. If a poet appropriate a 艣濒辞办补 from his ancient author after changing a quarter, which is completely under the plagiarism. And also if a 艣濒辞办补 have unconnected sense is changed by way of one 辫腻诲补, thus it is not under plagiarism and it is original.

It is just seem a problematic and gives an example as:

鈥�kimiha kimapi 诲峁涐梗峁璦峁� 蝉迟丑腻苍补尘补蝉迟颈 艣谤耻迟补峁� v膩 vrajati dinakaro'ya峁� yatra n膩sta峁� kad膩cit |
bhramati vihagas膩rth膩nittham膩p峁沜cham膩no rajanivirahabh墨ta艣caktav膩ko 惫补谤腻办补岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 60

And also:

鈥�jayati sitavilolavy膩laya帽jopav墨t墨 ghanakapilaja峁�膩ntarbhr膩ntaga峁単膩jalaugha岣� |
aviditam峁沢acihn膩mindulekh膩峁� dadh膩na岣� pari峁嘺ta艣atika峁囜弓ha艣y膩mara峁囜弓ha岣� 辫颈苍腻办墨 || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

And also:

鈥�ku mudavanamapa艣ri 艣r墨madambhojakha峁囜笉a峁� tyajati madamuluka岣� pr墨tim膩峁兣沜akrav膩ka岣� |
udayamahimara艣miry膩ti 艣墨t膩峁兣泆rasta峁� h峁泃avidhilalit膩n膩峁� h墨 vicitro 惫颈辫腻办补岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

And also:

鈥�kimiha kimipi 诲峁涐梗峁璦峁� 蝉迟丑腻苍补尘补蝉迟颈 艣谤耻迟补峁� v膩 ghanakapilaja峁�膩ntarbhr膩ntaga峁単膩jalaugha岣� |
nivasati sa 辫颈苍腻办墨 yatra y膩y膩峁� tadasmin halavidhilalit膩n膩峁� h墨 vicitro 惫颈辫腻办补岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 60

In the above 艣濒辞办补蝉, the fourth is composed by taking each 辫腻诲补 from the previous three 艣濒辞办补蝉 and by incorporating one 辫腻诲补 of his son. 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 think that it is not a plagiarism, but it is the power of poetic creativity or 辫谤补迟颈产丑腻 of a kavi (poet).

If kavi (poet) taking a few words in a quarter of a 艣濒辞办补 from his former poet and using them, thus it cannot be acceptance, it also known as plagiarism.

C.f.

鈥�y膩 vy膩p膩ravat墨 ras膩n rasayitu峁� k膩ratkav墨n膩峁� 苍补惫腻
  d峁涐梗峁璱ry膩 parini峁ａ弓hit膩rthavi峁�ayonme峁Ｄ� caivapa艣cit墨 |
te dve apyavalambya vi艣vamani艣a峁� nirvar峁嘺yanto 惫补测补峁�
  艣谤腻苍迟腻峁� naiva ca labdhamabdhi艣ayana tvadbhaktitulya峁� sukham || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 60

And another example:

鈥�艣谤腻苍迟腻峁� naiva ca labdhamutpalad峁浥浤佱箖 prem峁嘺岣� 蝉补尘腻苍补峁� sukham || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 60

To slight change in a part of a word remembered not acceptance, it is an appropriation. i.e.

鈥�asakalahasitatv膩tk峁Ｄ乴it膩n墨va k膩nty膩 muku litanayanatv膩dvcaktakar峁噊tpal膩ni |
pibati madhusugandh墨ny膩mam膩mi priy膩峁嚹佱箖 tvayi vinihitabh膩ra岣� ku ntal墨n膩madh墨艣a岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 60

The same 艣濒辞办补 is appropriated by another later poet by quit modifying the parts of in second half.

C.f.

鈥�pibatu madhusugandh墨ny膩mam膩mi priy膩峁嚹佱箖
mayi vinihitabh膩ra岣� ku ntal墨n膩madh墨艣a岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 61

There the third line of first 艣濒辞办补 is taken a word 鈥�pibati鈥� from 鈥�pibatu鈥� and instead of 鈥�tvayi鈥� from 鈥�mayi鈥� . This type of alteration is under the plagiarism.

Then taking an entire line from a 艣濒辞办补 but using it in a different context is not appropriation or acceptance. C.f.

鈥�subhru tva峁� ku pitetyap膩stama艣ana峁� tvaktv膩 办补迟丑腻 测辞峁�i迟腻峁�
  d奴r膩deva mayojjhit膩岣� surabhaya岣� stragd膩ma(ggandha)dh奴辫腻诲补ya岣� |
办辞辫补峁� r膩gi峁噄 mu帽ca mayyavanate 诲峁涐梗峁璭 pras墨d膩dhun膩
  sadyastvadvirah膩dbhivanti dayite sarv膩 mamandh膩 di艣a岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 61

In this 艣濒辞办补 is to appease the angry beloved. Yet if the word 鈥�诲峁涐梗峁璭鈥� is taken as an address thus this 艣濒辞办补 becomes an appeasement of an angry glance and the word 鈥�subhru鈥� will become of the glance.

After that, if a later kavi (poet) interprets a 艣濒辞办补 of a former kavi (poet) in an altogether different way and claims on the basis of one or the other of the circumstance that a particular 艣濒辞办补 is his own. It is not only the case of appropriation but it is a fault of the highest order. This is applicable for both muktaka and prabandha. However, if anyone gets work written for money and passes it off as his own, which is nothing but appropriation.

It is always better if one fails to win fame than to incur ignominy. Thus said:

鈥�yattu 辫补谤补办墨测补峁� sv墨yamiti prokt膩n膩manyatamena k膩ra峁噀na vilapanti, tanna ke 惫补濒补峁� 丑补谤补峁嘺m, api tu do峁�od膩丑补谤补峁嘺m | muktakaprabandhavi峁�aya峁� tat| m奴lyaktayo'pi 丑补谤补峁嘺meva| varamapr膩ptirya艣aso na punardur测补艣补岣�触鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 61

膧肠腻谤测补says, borrowing of 鲍办迟颈鈥檚 (epigrammatic expression) is an appropriation: 鈥�tadvadukti丑补谤补峁嘺m鈥� 颈迟测腻肠腻谤测腻岣�| 鈥� i.e.

鈥�奴rudvandva峁� sarasakadal墨k膩峁囜笉asabrahmac膩ri触鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 61

And also:

鈥�奴rud惫补测补峁� kadalakandalayo岣� sava峁兣沘峁� 艣谤辞峁噄岣� 艣颈濒腻辫丑补濒补办补蝉辞诲补谤补蝉补苍苍颈惫别艣腻|
惫补办峁�a岣� stanadvitayat膩岣峣taku mbha艣obha峁� sabrahmac膩ri 艣a艣ina艣ca 尘耻办丑补峁� 尘峁沢腻办峁�y腻岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 61

About on this 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 says:

鈥�uktayo hyarth膩ntarasa峁卥r膩nt膩 na pratyabhi帽j膩yante, svadante ca;
tadarth膩stu hara峁嚹乨api 丑补谤补峁嘺峁� syu岣モ�� iti 测腻测腻惫补谤墨测补岣�|

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 61

Means:

鈥淚f the expression of other kavi (poets) are used to convey a different sense from the earlier poet, thus it is acceptable, but whereas if they are used in the same sense, thus it deserve to be condemned type of plagiarism.鈥�

Then 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 says for the detection and attain appreciation by one鈥檚 own inventiveness is the secret procurement of poesy for a kavi (poet).

C.f.

鈥�n膩stecaura岣� kavijano n膩styacauro va峁噄g箩补苍补岣� |
sa nandati 惫颈苍腻 惫腻肠测补峁� yo j膩n膩ti nig奴hitum ||
ut辫腻诲补ka岣� 办补惫颈岣� ka艣citka艣cicca parivarttaka岣� |
膩cch膩dakasth膩 c膩nyastath膩 sa峁僾argako'辫补谤补岣� |
艣abd膩rthotki峁�u ya岣� pa艣yediha 办颈帽肠补苍补 n奴tanam |
ullikhet办颈帽肠补苍补 辫谤腻肠测补峁� manyat膩峁� sa mah膩办补惫颈岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XI, Pp- 61-62

There is no poet who is not a borrower, no merchant who does not cheat but the one who knows the method how to hide his theft flourishes. But the kavi (poet) who comprehends some novel in a word, phrase or an idea and has the 辫谤补迟颈产丑腻 (innate faculty) to use the suggestive power of words to create can be called 惭补丑腻办补惫颈 or great poet. The critical approaches of 艣补产诲补-丑补谤补峁嘺s, 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 appreciates the adoption of words used in earlier works by later authors wherever it enriches the beauty of his poesy and endures originality to his work. By this 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补鈥檚 novel concepts of appropriation many poets might have been benefited.

In the twelve chapters of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补鈥檚 K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 has bead described in (artha丑补谤补峁嘺 or appropriation of meaning). However plagiarism is a injurious technique or method in poetic creation adopted by certain poets. It is not only on words but also on ideas and themes also. Most of the Indian ancient 腻濒补峁僰补谤颈办补蝉 and poets were of its consequences and they are always tried to give their best to educate to poets to get rid of such evil practice. In this part of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补鈥檚 K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 has been described on various aspects of 础谤迟丑补丑补谤补峁嘺 or appropriation of meaning or idea and theme. There in the beginning 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 quotes the view of ancient 腻肠腻谤测补 that every poet should be well aware about the necessity of the careful study of the earlier ancient works.

Because there is hardly anything left untouched by them, it opens a new path and it would be refine them.

C.f.

鈥�pur膩峁嘺kavik峁�u峁囜箛e vartmani dur膩pam峁泂pa峁ａ弓a峁�, tata艣ca tadeva sa峁僺karttu prayateta 鈥� iti 腻肠腻谤测腻 |

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XII, Pp- 62

But 痴腻办辫补迟颈谤腻箩补, the author of Gaudavaho 办腻惫测补 does not agree about this matter. He thinks:

鈥�膩sa峁僺膩ramud膩rai岣� kavibhi岣� pratidinag峁沨墨tas膩ro'pi|
ady膩pyabhinnamudro vibh膩ti 惫腻肠腻峁� 辫补谤颈蝉辫补苍诲补岣� || 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XII, Pp- 62

Means:

鈥淭he subject matter of 办腻惫测补 (poetry) remains un-exhausted and the speech is endless and everlasting. There have been innumerable poetic geniuses. Who have dipped into its vast reservoir since the beginning of creation but this endless source continues to flow on endlessly.鈥�

To obtain this rare capacity one should Endeavour a close study of the ancient and modern poets. Some critic think that, with a close critical study and observation of composition of other poets one can get idea to express similar thoughts in different forms or own poetic-composition. The mind of eminent poets is sometimes identical and they used to deal identical matter.

Here it is remarkable that the 艣濒辞办补 of 痴腻办辫补迟颈谤腻箩补 has been sanskritized by 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 with few changes. But 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补 opposed this concept and says that, the poet by his poetic eye, through dedication looks into the seen and unseen, meaningful and meaningless with the grace of Lord 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 (Goddess of words).

C.f.

鈥�蝉腻谤补蝉惫补迟补峁� cak峁�urav膩峁卪anasagocare峁嘺 pra峁噄dh膩nena d峁涐梗峁璦ma诲峁涐梗峁璦峁� c膩rthaj膩ta峁� s惫补测补峁� vibhajati 触鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XII, Pp- 62

Through the grace of Lord 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨, the whole universe is reflected in the mind of the poet. It has the power if a poet asleep thus he can shows words and ideas to great poet. Word and ideas automatically come to them and they thought of seeing them first by the poet鈥檚 divine vision. What poets can see with their naked eye even the three-eyed Lord Siva or the thousand-eyed Lord Indra cannot see.

Poet鈥檚 speech easily sees what 测辞驳墨苍蝉, who have mastered the power of concentration can see.

C.f.

鈥�suptasy膩pi mah膩kave岣� 艣补产诲腻谤迟丑补耻 sarasvat墨 dar艣ayati| taditarasya tatra j膩grato'pyandha峁� 肠补办峁�u岣�|
anyad峁涐梗峁璦care hyarthe mah膩kavayo j膩ty膩ndh膩岣�| tadvipar墨te tu divyad峁浥沘岣� |
na tat 迟谤测补办峁�a岣� sahastr膩k峁�o v膩 yaccarmacak峁�u峁�o'pi kavaya岣� pa艣yanti |
matidarpa峁噀 kav墨n膩峁� 惫颈艣惫补峁� pratiphalati| 办补迟丑补峁� nu 惫补测补峁� d峁浥泍膩maha iti
mah膩tman膩maha峁僷奴rvikayaiva 艣abd膩rth膩岣� puro dh膩vanti | yatsiddhapra峁噄dh膩n膩 yogina岣� pa艣yanti,
tatra 惫腻肠腻 vicaranti kavaya岣� ityanant膩 mah膩kavi峁�u s奴(vis奴)ktaya岣� [ iti ] 鈥�

- K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩 of 搁腻箩补艣别办丑补谤补: Ch-XII, Pp- 62-63

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

K膩vyam墨m膩峁僺膩, Ed. By. C.D. Dalal and Pt. R. A. Sastry: Baroda, 1916, Pp-211

[2]:

K. Krishnamoorthy, studies in Indian Aesthetics and Criticism, Mysore. 1979, Pp-181

[3]:

Attributed to 艢奴诲谤补办补 in the 厂耻产丑腻蝉颈迟腻惫补濒墨 but it cannot be traced to his 惭峁沜肠丑补办补迟颈办补