1898.] M. M. Chakravarti— Language and literature of Orissa. 355 
Hence verbal formations and word jingles, winch are reckoned ns 
excellences in Sanskrit rhetorics, freely abound. The entire canto, or the 
entire poem begins every line with the one and same letter, as ka , ba, 
ca; or each stanza begins with the consecutive letters of the alphabet 
(a to ksa ) ; or they have lines without any vowel except a or without any 
conjunct consonants at all. Alliterations, and other kinds of repetitions 
of the same letters or group of letters (yamakas or anuprdsas) are 
lavishly used. Similes ( upamds ), metaphors ( rupakas ), opposite mean¬ 
ings ( virddhabhdsas ), double and triple meanings, allusions to and 
analogies from Sanskrit classics are scattered “thick as leaves in 
Vallombrosa.” The Oriya language being too simple and too undeveloped 
to bear so much ornamentation, the poets have borrowed profusely 
from the immense vocabulary of Sanskrit with its numberless synonyms, 
antonyms and compound formations. The wild luxuriance of these 
rhetorical forms in Oriya poetry it is impossible to describe; but 
some idea may be formed by studying the Ivotibrahmandasundari of 
Upendra Bhahja and the Bidagdhacintamani of Abhimanyu Samanta- 
simhara. 
Many of these formations are real poetic excellences, and many a 
line show pretty conceits, surprising fancies, appropriate illustrations, 
or happy combinations of words. They generally indicate a fairly 
complete mastery over Sanskrit rules and vocabulary. One’s admiration 
is further enhanced, when he takes into consideration the imperfections 
of the vernacular and the general ignorance of the mass. At the same 
time the inordinate use of unfamiliar words and word-combinations and 
the constant straining after mere verbal excellences have produced 
various defects, such as unintelligibility, artificiality, over-ornamenta¬ 
tion, and unsuccessful formations. Hardly any poem can be understood 
without a tikd or commentary, and hence the lines lose the force and the 
vividness of impression that common familiar words would have 
conveyed. Then again the too exclusive attention to ornamentation of 
words—the mere husk and shell of poetry—has led to the neglect of 
the inner essence, and has made the poets careless about the natural 
development of plots, the evolution of characters, or the enframing 
of high thoughts. 
Hence under the third head— the sentiment —the workmanship was 
in general crude, incoherent and not elevating. The ideal followed was 
that adopted in the later Sanskrit classics (Naisadha, (^icupalavadha). 
This Sanskrit ideal was defective compared with modern standard. 
Humour was wanting entirely. Vigor and energy were absent in the 
male characters, and a low view of women was inculcated. The charac¬ 
ters were not properly and consistently developed. The action of the 
