Lyrics. Sanskrit

sanskrit literature is rich in lyric poetry. Lyric is the expression of a feeling, thought or sentiment in a vivid manner. It is the outporing of a human heart filled with emotion. Most of the lyrical poems in sanskrit literature are not connectedpoems of considerable length, but consists of detached verses of minature paintings which depicts an amaory situation or sentiment in a jsingle stanza of four lines. Many of them bear evidence of great wealths of observations and depths of feelings and are often drawn by a master craftsmen. They are gems of beauty both of form and content.
The lyrical poems are called kandha kavyani here plant and animal world play an important part and they are treated with great charm.  Lotus is the most prominent flower and birds like chakravak, kokil chtak and chakor are frequently introduced. The lyric poets blend nature and man into one inseperable whole by the artistic use of pathetic fallacy.

1. Madhurya.
2. Vatsalya.
3. Sakhya
4. Dasya
5. Santa.

Prasannaraghava

Jayadeva (not of the Gitagovinda fame but a very great logician has dramatised the Rama epic in seven acts. in act one rama and Ravana are ridiculed in an amusing manner. the act four is the best describing graphically the rama parasurama fight. In the last act aVidyadhara couple describe the Rama ravana fight ending with Sita's agnishuddhi.
Another great work by him Chandraloka a famous alamkara work in 10 chapters called mayukhas its chapter on figures of speach has formed the basis for Appayya Dikshitar,s Kuvalayananda.

Prabodhachadrodaya.

A unique allegorical drama. Kirtivarman Chandella though defeated by a Chedi king Karna is reinstatby his bosom friend and this restoration is celebrated by the staging of the drama in which the characters are various human virtues and vices raged against each other. a holy swamy Paramahamsa of some mutt teaching the tenents of advaita Vedanta in this singular and genial fashion. Viveka the leader of the army of Patience, reason and contentment declare war against Mahamoha and defeat him. The last act is pure Philosophy and incorporates many vedic hymns like Bhavabhuti and ends with the birth of Prabhoda or knowledge compared to Chandra. In spite of its lack of dramatic power because of its uniqueness it became very popular. Vedanta desikar imitated it in his work sankalpasuryodaya glorifying visistadvaita.

Alamkara Lit.

In answering the question "What is the source of literary charm?" Critics in samskrit evolved the Sahitya sastra dealing comprehensively with poetics, literatry criticism, rhetoric and dramaturgy. 
The first great critic Bharata regarded natya or the dramatic element as the chief source of literary appeal and named his works on the fine arts after this important element natyashastra in 37 chapters it has descriptions of even the construction of the stage on which the ten kinds of rupaka's are to be staged with proper accompaniments like music dance etc. (3rd century B.C.)
Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara about 6th century A.D. defines literature, mentioning its various subdivisions. It develops upon Bharata's upama, roopak deepak or anupras. followed closely by Dandin's Kavyadarsa ading a few more topics like the three essentials in the making of a poet, elaborate treatment of yamak and various chitra bandhs like gomutrika; prahelika.
Bhamaha felt satisfied that the figure of speech especially vikrokthi is the best soul of literature. where Dandin strongly aserted athat the soul of literature should be searched in the ten gunas of vaidharbi or gaudi paths.
Vamana another great critic.

to be continued. 

vakroktijivita (Crooked speech)

Kuntaka's alamkara work emphasising the literary appeal of Vakrokti or cooked speech.
to be continued




Kuntaka Sanskrit: कुन्तक was a Kashmiri Sanskrit poetician and literary theorist who is remembered for his work Vakroktijīvitam in which he postulates the Vakrokti Siddhānta or theory of Oblique Expression, which he considers as the hallmark of all creative literature. He lived roughly 950–1050,^[1] between Anandavardhana in the ninth century and Abhinavagupta in the tenth century and was a rough contemporary of Dhananjaya and Rajasekhara.^[2]

Vakrokti, emanating from the creative faculty of the poet endows poetic language with strikingness[Vaicitrya] and causes aesthetic delight to the reader. Etymologically, the word Vakrokti consists of two components - 'vakra' and 'ukti'. The first component means 'crooked, indirect or unique' and the second means 'poetic expression or speech'.

Types of Vakrokti

It is manifested at six levels in language, viz. the phonetic level, [varṇavinyāsa], the lexical level [padapūrvārddha], the grammatical level [padaparārddha], the sentential level [vākya], the contextual level [prakaraṇa] and finally the compositional level [prabandha]. Kuntaka anticipates much of the modern stylistic approach to literature and his stylistics encompasses imaginative language at the micro and macro levels. The conscious choices made by the poet in the language is a fertile field of investigation in his approach. It is the considered view of Kuntaka that poetic language always deviates from hackeneyed expressions by its imaginative turns. Kuntaka avers that the stamp of originality of a great author will be present even in the title of the work of art.

to be researched.

Magha.

Magha is admired for his delightful style profound thought and beautiful similes. Megha's vocabulary is very vast and his knowledge of grammar is deep. he delights in the use of grammatical peculiarities and avoids the use of the same word a second time. It is said that if one studies nine cantos of  Magha there will be no new word for him to study. Navasrga gathe Madhe  Navashabdho na vidyathe, Malinatha the great commentator is said to have remarked madhe medhe gatam vayaha.the toughness of Magha's style.
to be continued

University of Washington In a recent article in JAOS, Y. Bronner and L. McCrea presented cogent arguments for the authenticity of the “nonbitextual” version of Śiśupāla’s speech in the fifteenth canto of Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha and concluded that the “bitextual” version of the passage, in which each verse could be read with a double meaning, was a later alteration. Whereas they discussed the issue on the basis of internal criteria, the present article approaches it by means of external comparison with its presumptive source text in the Sabhā-parvan of the Mahābhārata. This analysis confirms Bronner and McCrea’s conclusion, while also raising some new issues and problems. Also discussed is the legacy of the popular, if unauthentic bitextual version in the Bhāgavata-purāṇa and its commentarial tradition. i. introduction: bronner and mccrea on śiśupālavadha xv The Śiśupālavadha, “The Slaying of Śiśupāla” (hereafter ŚPV), is one of the six canonical mahākāvyas of the high literary tradition of Sanskrit, composed by the otherwise unknown poet Māgha, probably in the late seventh or early eighth century c.e. 1 It describes in twenty sargas the events surrounding the conflict between Kr̥ ṣṇa and his cousin and rival Śiśupāla, king of Cedi, culminating in the slaying of the latter by the former, whence the title of the poem. 2 In an important recent article in this journal, Yigal Bronner and Lawrence McCrea (Bronner and McCrea 2012; hereafter B&M) discussed the two very different versions of a key passage in the fifteenth sarga, “Setting Out to War” (yuddhaprasthānam), of the ŚPV. The passage in question consists of Śiśupāla’s passionate denunciation of Bhīṣma’s decision to designate Kr̥ ṣṇa as the foremost guest of honor at the rājasūya sacrifice for Yudhiṣṭhira’s royal consecration. Here some manuscripts, primarily those associated with the commentary by Mallinātha (Sarvaṅkaṣā), have a passage (XV.14–39), which B&M call “nonbitextual,” containing an “oration that is unequivocally accusatory” (B&M p. 430). But other manuscripts, mostly those with the commentary of Vallabhadeva (Sarvasandehaviṣauṣadhi),

 bitextual,” containing an “oration that is unequivocally accusatory” (B&M p. 430). But other manuscripts, mostly those with the commentary of Vallabhadeva (Sarvasandehaviṣauṣadhi), contain a “bitextual” version (XV.14–47) consisting of a e“speech that can be read to convey either blame or praise” (ibid.) through the use of puns, 3 sarcasm, and other rhetorical devices. 4 This discrepancy is particularly glaring in comparison to the textual situation for 1. Th basic source for the date of Māgha is Kielhorn 1906. See also, for example, Hultzsch 1926: iv–vii. 2. For a convenient summary of the ŚPV, see B&M pp. 429–30. 3. The type of punning in this section is referred to by Vallabhadeva as vakraśleṣa, or perhaps rather, according to the emendation proposed by B&M (p. 433 and n. 12), vyājaśleṣa. 4. The “nonbitextual” version of the passage in question will hereafter be cited as ŚPV (M), i.e., Mallinātha’s text, and the bitextual version as ŚPV (V) = Vallabhadeva’s text. The texts will be cited according to the editions of Durgāprasāda et al. (1957) and Kak and Shastri (1935) respectively. Durgāprasāda’s edition presents a composite text in which both versions of the text in question are printed, first the nonbitextual one with Mallinātha’s commentary, then the bitextual with the commentary of Vallabhadeva (compare B&M p. 432),

nonbitextual passage.
to be continued.