288. HEMACANDRA 289

HEMACANDRA 289

any originality. It borrows wholesale from the काव्यमीमांसा of राजशेखर, the काव्यप्रकाश, the ध्वन्यालोक and from अमिनवगुप्त's works. For example, compare pp. 8-10 of हेमचन्द्र with काव्यमीमांसा p. 56, pp. 11-16 of हेमचन्द with pp. 42-54 of the काव्यमीमांसा and pp.122- 123 of हेमचन्द्र with pp. 42-44 of the काव्यमीमांसा. He expressly states that he bases his views upon those of अभिनवगुप्त and भरत 'साधारणीभावना च विभावादिभिरिति श्रीमानभिनवगुप्ताचार्यः । एतन्मतमेव वास्मा- भिरुपजीवितं वेदितव्यम् (p. 66 of विवेक); 'तेऽस्माभिर्भरतमतानुसारिभिरुपेच्िताः' (p. 316 of काव्यानु०). The one merit of his work is that in the fur and the commentary he cites about 1500 examples from various authors. He, however, exercised very little influence over later rhetoricians and is scarcely ever quoted (except in the रत्नापय pp. 46, 75, 224, 233, 259, 279, 299). He wrote the काव्यानुशासन after his great grammatical work (शब्दानुशासन), सिद्धहेमचन्द्र. He wrote also छन्दोनुशासन, द्व्याश्रयकाव्य, अभिधानचिन्तामषि, देशीनाममाला, त्रिषष्टिशलाकापुरुषचरित, योगशास्र. Vide for his life and works Mr. R.C. Parikh's Introduction pp. CCLIII-CCCXXX. Among the authors and works (too numerous to be set out at length) referred to by him the following deserve to be noted :- अवन्तिसुन्दरी, उषाहरख, दएडी, भटृतोत, भट्टनायक, पञ्चशिखश द्रककथा, भामह- विवरण, भोजराज, मम्मट, मकल, मायुराज, यायावरीय, रावविजय, वामन, शाक्याचार्यराडुल (p.316), हरविलास of राजशेखर, हरिप्रबोध, हृदयदर्पण. The कीर्तिकौमुदी I. 18 praises him as follows: 'सदा हदि वहेम श्रीहेम- सुरे: सरस्वतीम् । सुवत्या शब्दरत्नानि ताम्रपरणी जिता यया ॥'. हेमचन्द्र is the brightest star in the galaxy of Jain writers. He was a voluminous writer and wrote on numerous branch- es of study. Materials for the life of twa are supplied by the कुमारपालप्रतिबोव of सोमप्रभ (composed in संवत् 1241, 1185 A.D.), the प्रभावकचरित of प्रभाचन्द्र (composed in संवत् 1334, 1277 A. D. and हेमचन्द्र says it is an example of शब्दशक्तिमूलध्वनि, that ध्वनिकार does not point out the mistakes of great poets in violating the principles about the introduction of figures of speech among rasas, while tHa5x does so. Even accepting all these, they can hardly entitle the काव्यानुशासन to any claim for originality. Such points of difference are found among several other authors also. It should be noted that recently Sri Trilokanath Jha in J. of Bihar Research Society, vol. XLIII parts 1-2, 1957 pp. 22-23 contributes an exhaustive article on 'Indebtedness of Hemachandra to the author of the Vyaktiviveka, and agrees with my view about Hemachandra's काष्यानुशासन.