269. KĀVYAPRAKĀSA 269

KĀVYAPRAKĀSA 269

he is only a पृसिकार). The साहित्यकौमुदी of विद्याभूवण says 'सूत्रार्णा भरतमुनीशवर्खितानां वृत्तीनां मितवपुर्षा कृतौ ममास्याम् ।' (2nd Intro. verse) and at the end we have 'मम्मटाथक्िमाश्रित्य मिर्ता साहित्यकौमुदीम्। वृचिं भरतसूत्रायां श्रीविद्याभूषणो व्यधात्।'. Vide Peterson's 2nd Report pp. 10-11. Similarly, महेपर (Jivanand's edition p. 3) says that भरत is the author of the कारिकाs in the काव्यप्रकाश. जयराम in his तिलक first puts forward the view that भरत is the author of the कारिकाs and then comes to the conclusion that the author of the कारिकाs and of the वृत्ति is the same (vide Peterson's 2nd Report, p. 107). The main grounds on which this theory is based are three; (I) some of the कारिकाs are identical with verses of the नाट्यशाख e.g. the कारिकाS 'शभ्ारहास्य ... स्मृताः', 'रतिर्हासश्', 'निर्वेदग्लानि ... नामतः' (in the 4th उल्लास) are नाट्यशार VI. 15, 17, 18- 21-VI. 19-22 of GOS. ed. vol. I; (II) the वृत्ति on the first कारिका is 'ग्रन्थारम्मे विध्नविवाताय समुचितेष्ट रेवतां ग्रन्थकृत्परामशति. This use of the third person shows that the कारिकाकार is a different per- son from the author of the वृत्ति. (III) There is a difference of opinion between the कारिका 'समस्तवस्तुविषयं श्रता आरोपिता यदा' (10th उल्लास) and the वृत्ति thereon 'बहुवचनमविवचितम. If the कारिकाS had been the work of the वृत्तिकार, it is argued, the कारिकाकार would have said 'श्रौतावारोपितौ यदि'. All these arguments will be found on ex mination to be extremely weak. Only a few out of the 143 कारिकाs are found in the नाव्यशाख1 मम्मट probably incorporated the कारिकाs on rasas etc. because he could not convey the ideas more oncisely and because by his time ara's work had attained the premier place in the matter of rasa. It will be found that there are other kārikās which are adapted almost verbatim from other works e. g. the कारिका 'कर्णावतंसादिपदे कर्मादिष्वनिनिर्मिति:। संनिधानादिवोधार्थम' (VII उल्लास p. 406) is an ada- ptation of वामन's sutra 'कर्यावतंसश्रवणकुएडलशिरःशेखरेवु कर्णादिनिर्देश: सभिषे:' (II. 2. 14) and the verse 'कर्यावतंसादिपदे०' is quoted on बामन II. 1, 19; कारिका 'ये रसस्याद्विनो धर्माः' etc. and उपकुर्वन्ति तें सन्तं बेनदारेख जातुचित' (8th उल्लास, pp. 462, 464) closely follow ध्वनि- कारिका (II. 7) 'तमर्थमवलम्बन्ते येदविनं ते गुणाः स्मृताः। अङ्गाभितास्त्वलद्टारा मन्तव्या: कटकादिबत् ।'. As regards the use of the third person in

1. जयराम in his तिलक remarks 'कारिकारणां भरतसंदितायां कार्साचिक- दर्शनं न दोषाय प्रामाययनापनार्थ कचिचासा लिखनाद।' (Peterson's 2nd Report p.107). About अन्धकृत he says: अन्थकृदित्यादिना निर्देराख धीरोदा चत्वस्य सभ्ञोपनाय.

270 HISTORY Ur SANSKRIT POETICS

परामुराति, the truth lies exactly the other way. Ancient writers regarded it as too dogmatic to express their opinions in the first person. Vide notes to the साहित्यदर्पण on भाषसे (p.1), where मेधातिथि and कुल्लूक are quoted. There is really no diver- gence between the कारिका 'समस्त ... यदा' and the पृत्ति. The point of the qfa has been missed altogether. In the karika the plural is employed to lay down a general proposition. In a auera- सुविषयरूपक, there will generally be many भारोप्यमाखs; and hence the plural भारोपिता: has been used. The वृत्ति also begins the explanation in the same way 'आारोपविषया शवारोप्यमाखा यदा &c'. In the words बडु ... चितम् the वृत्ति calls attention to a special case, which may perhaps be overlooked. Even if the आरोप्यमायs be two there may be समस्तवस्तुविषयरूपक. This caseis not clearly referred to by the karika (which uses the plural) and is there- fore brought out in the वृत्ति. There are positive grounds for asserting that the कारिकाS and वृत्ति are both the work of मम्मट. (I) मम्मट nowhere conveys in an unmistakable manner that he is commenting on another's work. There is no separate मङल in the वृत्ि. If the वृत्ति had been composed by one person and the arftars by another, there should have been a separate मङल in the वृत्ति as there is one at the beginning of the कारिकाs. (II) Upon the कारिकाS कारणान्यथ कार्याशि, &c. (in the 4th उल्लास) the वृत्ति says 'तडुकं भरतेन विभावानुभाव०'. If भरत had been the author of the कारिकाs in the काव्यप्रकाश, the वृत्िकार would morenaturally have said 'तदुकमनेनैवा- न्यत्र' or 'तडुकं कारिकाकृतान्यत्र etc.'. (III) We have the कारिका 'साङ्गमेत- शिरजं तु शुद्धं माला तु पूर्ववत्'. Here the कारिका refers to मालारूपक and adds that it is similar to the former (i. e. मालोपमा). But मालोपमा has been spoken of only in the पूषि. Therefore, this clearly indicates that the कारिकाs and the वृतति are the composi- tions of the same hand.1 (IV) None of the early commenta- 1. On माला तु पूर्ववत a great deal has been written. Vide I. A. vol. 47 p. 23 (Zimmermann), Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. 6. pp. 50-54 (Prof. Divekar), Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. 8 pp. 419-424 (Dr. De replies to Prof. Divekar); Z.D.M.G. 67 p. 35 (Nobel). Dr. Divekar's objection is that माला दु पूर्वषत् in the कारिका cannot refer to मालोपमा mentioned in the वृत्ति, be- cause a good many other karikas have intervened and he takes yefaq to refer to HTF. But there are serious objections to