268. 268 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIGS

268 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIGS

श्लेष. He finds fault (towards the end of the 7th उल्लास, pp.448- 449) with the remarks of the ध्वन्यालोक on the verse सस्यं मनोरमा रामा: सत्यं रम्या विभूतयः । कि तु मचाअनापाक्मङलोलं हि जीवितम्। (व्य० p. 224), which say that the first half begins with the विभावs of मज़ार and the' atter half culminates in शान्त and yet there is no विरोष, as this mode of treatment is adopted for inducing the instructed to be ready to receive instruction and for lending charm to the verse. Though मम्मट borrows several verses from w, he differs from the latter on severaloccasions. For example, मम्मट's remark on समुच्चय (धुनोति चासि तनुते च कीर्तिमित्यादेः, कृपायपाणिम भवानरयक्ितौ। ससाधुवादाक्ष सुराः सुरालये इत्यादेश्ष दर्शनाव, 'व्यधिकरे' इति, 'एकस्मिन् देरो' इति च न वाच्यम् । p. 691) are directed against स्ट्रट's words 'ग्यधिकरणे वा यस्मिन्गसक्रिये' &c. (VII.27); similarly, his words on कारखमाला ('हेतुमता सह हेतोरभिधानममेदतो हेतुः' इति हेत्वल- हारो न लक्ित :... 'अविरलकमलविकास :... कालः' इत्यत्र काव्यरूपता कोमलानुप्रास- महिम्नैव समाम्नासिषुर्न पुनर्हत्वलक्भारकल्पनया pp. 706-707) refer to सट्रट's definition of ig and his example thereof (VII. 82-83). So also the dictum under अनुमान 'साध्यसाधनयोः पौर्वापर्यविकल्पे न किन्चिद्वचि- व्र्यमिति न तथा दर्शितम्' (p. 698) has in view रुद्रट VII. 56. He criticizes (in the 8th उल्लास pp. 471-72) वामन's distinction bet- ween gunas and alankaras (काव्यशोभायाः कर्तारो धर्मा गुखाः। तद तिशय- हेतवस्त्वलङ्गाराः। काव्या. सू. III. I. 1-2). Similarly, he finds fault with वामन's explanation of भोज: as प्रौढि 'पदार्थे वाक्यरचनं वाक्यार्थे च पदाभिधा। प्रौढिव्याससमासी च साभिप्रायत्वमस्य च। इति या प्रौढिरोज इत्युक्त तद्वचित्र्यमात्रं न गुखः, सदभावेपि काव्यव्यवहारप्रवृत्ते:' (VIII उल्लास pp. 480- 81). वामन says: 'अर्थस्य प्रौढिरोज:' (काव्या. सू. III. 2.2) and quotes the verse पदार्थे० in the वृत्ति. Thought he quotes three verses from भामह (I. 13-15) in the sixth उल्लास and the famous verse of मामह (II. 85 सैषा सवेंव वक्रोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते। ... कोलक्कारोनया बिना ॥) in the 10th उल्लास (under विशेष p. 744), yet he appears to find fault with भामह (श्रव्यं नातिसमस्तार्थ काव्यं मधुरमिष्यते। II. 3) when he says (8th उल्लास p. 474) 'शह्वादकत्वं माधुर्ये शरद्गारे द्रतिकारयम् । ... श्रव्यत्वं पुनरोज :- प्रसादयोरपि'. मम्मट does not scruple to find fault with the greatest of poets, e.g. he says that in मृदुपव नविभिन्नो (विक्रमो० 4. 22) there is the fault भमझलाफ्रील, in दिवाकराद्रक्षति (कुमार० I. 12) there is अनुचितार्थता, in भतिथि नाम (रघु 17. 1) there is भभ्नप्रक्रमदोष, in गाहन्ता महिषा (शाकुन्तल II. 6) also there is भग्नप्रक्रम, in वपुर्विरूपाचमलद्तयजन्मता (कुमार• V. 72) there is भविमृष्टविधेयांशदोष. Several later commentators affirm that the kārikās are the work of भरत and that मम्मट only commented on them (i.e.