139. UDBHAȚA 137

UDBHAȚA 137

Vide काव्यप्र. VII. 12 and 14 'व्यभिचारिरसस्थायिभावानां शब्दवाच्यता ... रसे दोषा: स्युरीदृशाः' ॥. Col. Jacob (JRAS. 1897 p. 847) thought that the verse रसाअधिष्ठितं काव्यं जीवद्रपतया यतः। कथ्यत तद्रसादीनां काव्यात्मत्वं व्यव- fruaa I' was Udbhata's and that therefore Udbhata subscri- bed to the view that rasa was the soul of poetry. But several circumstances militate against this view. The verse in question is introduced by प्रतीहारेन्दुराज with the words तदाहु: (p. 77, p. 83 of B. S. S. ed.) and therefore it is merely a quotation from some other writer that preceded प्रतीहारेन्दुराज. Besides, that verse would break the usual order followed by Udbhata. That verse occurs in the comment on काव्यलिन्ग. After defining काव्यलिङ we naturally expect an illustration of it, which is the verse 'छाययं तव शेषाङकान्तेः किन्चिदनुज्जवला। विभूषाधट- नादेशान्दर्शयन्ती दुनोति माम् ॥', while, if Col. Jacob be followed, the verse रसादविष्ठितं काव्यं would be abruptly thrust between the definition of काव्यलि and its example. Moreover, the view that 3Re approved of rasa as the soul of poetry would be opposed to his own definition of रसवद and the opinion of the अलक्कारसर्वस्व (p.9) 'उद्भ्रटादिभिस्तु गुखालक्गाराखां प्रायशः साम्यमेव सूचितम्। ... तदेवमलक्कारा एव काव्ये प्रधानमिति प्राच्यानां मतम्'. The printed edition (Nirn, ed. on p.42) puts the verse तद्द्रिगुएं त्रिगुरं वा in bold type, as if it were a कारिका of उद्ध्रट; butit is really a verse of रुद्रट (VII. 35). The कुमारसम्भव of उद्गट from which the example of Alankaras are cited seems to have been a poem resembling the famous mahākavya of aifrara. There is a close correspondence between the two works not only in phrases and ideas, but even in incidents. For cxample, compare 'प्रच्छन्ना शस्यते वृत्तिः स्रीखां भावपरीक्षणे। प्रतस्थे धूर्जटिरतस्तनु स्वीकृत्य वाटवीम् ।' उद्ट II. 10 with कुमार० V. 33 'विवेश कश्चिज्जटिलस्तपोवनं etc; 'अपश्यच्चातिकष्टानि तप्यमानां तपांस्युमाम्। अक्षम्भाव्यपतीच्छानां कन्यानां का परा गतिः ॥' उद्र II. 12 with कुमार० V. 2 'इये ... पतिश्च तादृशः'; 'शीर्णपर्णाम्वुव्नाताशकष्टेपि तपसि स्थिताम्' उद्भट II. 17 with कुमार. V. 28 'स्वयं विशीर्षद्र मपर्णवृत्तिता' etc.' It has already been stated above (pp. 48-49) that 3az wrote a commentary on the नाट्यशास्त्र of भरत. The date of Udbhata does not present much difficulty. He wrote a commentary on the work of Bhamaha who, we have seen, flourished about or a little later than 700 A. D. Therefore he cannot be earlier than about 750 A. D. The author of the धवन्यालोक (latter half of 9th century) mentions