1. History of Sanskrit Poetics - PV Kane

HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

P.V. KANE

MOTILAL BANARSIDASS PUBLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED · DELHI

Fourth Edition : Delhi, 1971 Reprint : Delhi, 1987, 1994, 1998, 2002

MOTILAL BANARSIDASS PUBLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED All Rights Reserved

ISBN: 81-208-0274-8

Also available at: MOTILAL BANARSIDASS 41 U.A. Bungalow Road, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi 110 007 8 Mahalaxmi Chamber, 22 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai 400 026 236, 9th Main III Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 011 120 Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Sanas Plaza, 1302 Baji Rao Road, Pune 411 002 8 Camac Street, Kolkata 700 017 Ashok Rajpath, Patna 800 004 Chowk, Varanasi 221 001

Printed in India BY JAINENDRA PRAKASH JAIN AT SHRI JAINENDRA PRESS, A-45 NARAINA, PHASE-I, NEW DELHI 110 028 AND PUBLISHED BY NARENDRA PRAKASH JAIN FOR MOTILAL BANARSIDASS PUBLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED, BUNGALOW ROAD, DELHI 110 007

PREFACE

The last edition of this work was published in 1951. As all copies were sold out, there was a great demand for a new edition. As my hands were full owing to the writing and printing of the 5th (the last) volume of the 'History of Dharmasastra, I could not find time for several months to revise the book. During the last nine years a good deal has been written on the subject of this work. I tried to read as much as I could and have made substantial additions and changes in this edition. But I am unable to say that I read everything that has been written during the last nine years on Sanskrit Poetics. I hope, however, that I have not missed much of valuable matter. In the last edition I thanked all those who helped me in various ways. In preparing this edition Dr. V. Raghavan made valuable suggestions, many of which I have accepted. As in the preface to the last edition I ex- press my deep gratitude to him. It gives me great satisfaction that this history which I first wrote over fifty years ago still continues to be popular with students of Sanskrit Poetics.

P. V. Kane

ABBREVIATIONS

(ENGLISH)

A. B .= Abhinavabhāratī, com. on Nāțyaśāstra. Ånan. ed .= Ānadāśrama (Poona) edition. Āp. Dh. S .= Āpastamba-dharmasūtra. A. S. W. I .= Archacological Survey of Western India. B. I .= Bibliotheca Indica Series. B. O. R. I .= Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. B. S. S. or Bom. S. S .= Bombay Sanskrit Series. C. C .= Catalogus Catalogorum. Chan .= Prof. Chandorkar's edition of the Kavyaprakasa I, II. Cal. O. J .= Calcutta Oriental Journal. Ch. ed .= Chowkhamba Sanskrit series edition. D. C .= Deccan College. E. I .= Epigraphia Indica. Gode=Studies in Indian Literary History, Volumes I-III. G. O. S .= Gaikwad Oriental Series. H. of Dh .= History of Dharamsāstra. H. S. D .= Keith's Sanskrit Drama. H. S. L .= History of Sanskrit Literature. H. S. P .= History of Sanskrit Poetics by Dr. De. I. A .= Indian Antiquary. I. H. Q .= Indian Historical Quarterly. I. O. Cat .= India Office Catalogue of S. mss. by Eggeling. J. A. H. R. S. or J. Andhra H. R. S .= Journal of Andhra Historical Research Society. J. A. S. B .= Journal, Asiatic Society of Bengal. J. B. B. R. A. S .= Journal, Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society. J. O. R .= Journal of Oriental Research. J. I. H .= Journal of Indian History. J. R. A. S .= Journal of the Royal Asiatic Socicty, Great Britain. K. D. or Kāvyād=Kāvyadarsa of Daņdin. K. M .= Kāyyamāla series, Bombay,

V111

K. P .= Kāvyaprakāśa. K. P. Pr .= Kāvya-Pradīpa-Prabhā. Kuval .= Kuvalayānanda of Appayya. New I. A. or N. I. A .= New Indian Antiquary. Nai=Naişadhīya-carita of Srīharșa. Nir. or Nirn .= Nirnaya-sagar Press edition. N. S .= Nāțyasastra of Bharata. P. L. M .= Parama - laghu - mañjūşā of Nāgesabhațța. P. O .= Poona Orientalist. Rg .= Rgveda. R. G .= Rasagangādhara. Raghu .= Raghuvamsā of Kālidāsa. Ru .= Rudrața's Kāvyālankāra. S. B. E .= Sacred Books of the East (edited by Max Müller). S. D .= The Sāhityadarpaņa. S. K. A .= Sarasvatīkaņțhābharaņa of Bhoja. Subhā .- Subhāșitāvali (ed. by Peterson). Tri. S .= Trivandrum Sanskrit (series). Ul .= Ullāsa. Vā .= Vāmanācārya's edition of the Kāvyaprakāśa. V. O.J .= Vienna Oriental Journal. Z. D. M. G .= Zeitschrift Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesselschaft.

( SANSKRIT )

अग्नि or अग्निपु .= अग्निपुराण (Anan. ed.). अ. भा .= अभिनवभारती (G.O.S.). अभिधा० or अ. भा. = अभिधावृत्तिमातृका (Nir.) अलं. स. or अल. स. =अल क्कारसवस्व (K.M. ed.) आश्व. गृ .= आश्वलायनगृह्यसूत्र का. प्र. or काव्यप्र .= काव्यप्रकाश (ed.by Vamanacharya) काव्यमी .= काव्यमीमांसा of राजशेखर (G.O.S. ed.) काव्या०=काव्यादर्श of दण्डिन् काव्या. सू. = काव्यालंकारसूत्र of वामन कुव०=कुवलयानन्द of अप्पय्यदीक्षित गाथा०=गाथासप्तशती of हाल (Nir.) चि. मी .= चित्रमीमांसा of अप्पय्यदीक्षित छा. उ .= छान्दोग्योपनिषद् ध्व. or ध्वन्या .= ध्वन्यालोक (Nir. ed. of 1935) नवसा०=नवसाहसा कचरित

ABBREVIATIONS ix

नाट्य०=नाट्यशास्त्र of भरत (Ch.ed.) ना. ल. र. को. = नाटकलक्षणरत्नकोष पा .= पाणिनि's अष्टाध्यायी बालरा .= बालरामायण of राजशेखर बृह. उ. भा. वा .= हदारण्यकोप निषद्-भाष्यवार्तिक of सुरेश्वर. भा. प्र. or भावप्र .= भावप्रकाशन या० or याज्ञ .= याज्ञवल्क्यस्मृति रसग. or रसगं=रसगङ्गार्वर of जगन्नाथ (Nir. ed.) राज० or राजत० or राजतर०=राजतराङ्गणी वक्रोकिति०=वक्रोक्तिजीवित वि०, विम०, or विमशनी=अलक्कारसर्वस्वविमाशिनी of जयरथ (K. M. ed.) विद्ध०=विद्धशालभञ्जिका of राजशेखर विष्णुपु .= विष्णुपुराण शाह०=शार्ङ्गधरपद्धति edited by Peterson सं. र =सङ्गातरत्नाकर सर. क .= सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण (Nir. ed.) सा. द .= साहित्यदर्पण सि.को .= सिद्धान्तकोमुदी of भट्टोजि सुभा०=सुभाषितावलि of वल्लभ देव ed. by Peterson सा. मी .= साहित्यमीमांसा (Tri. S. S.) सूक्तिमु =सूक्तिमुक्तावलि of जल्हग (G. O. S.) स्मृतिच .- स्मृतिचन्द्रिका of देवण्णभट्ट (ed.by Mr. Gharpure) हर्ष०-हर्षचरित of बाण

CONTENTS

PART I

SECTION PAGE

1. Names of Early Writers 1-3 2. The Agnipurāņa 3-10 3. The Nātyasāstra of Bharata 10-63 4. Medhavin 63-64 5. Dharmakīrti and Alankāraśāstra 64-66 6. The Visnudharmottarpurana 66-72 7. Bhatțikāvya 72-78 8. The Kāvyālankara of Bhamaha - 78-88 9. The Kāvyādarsa of Daņdin 88-102 10. The Relative Position of Bhamaha and Dandin 102-133 11. Alankārasārasangraha of Udbhața 133-139 12. The Kāvyālankārasūtra of Vāmana 139-147 13. An Alphabetical list of Alankāras 148-151 14. The Kāvyālankāra of Rudrata 151-160 15. The Dhvanyāloka 161-208 16. The Kāvyamīmānsā of Rājaśekhara 208-218 17. The Abhidhāvrtti-matrkā of Mukulabhatta 218 18. The Kāvyakautuka of Bhattatota 218-221 19. The Hrdayadarpana of Bhattanāyaka 221-225 20. The Vakroktijīvita of Kuntaka 225-236 21. Abhinavagupta 236-243 . -22. The Daśarūpa of Dhananjaya 243-248 23. The Vyaktiviveka of Rājānaka Mahimabhațța 248-257 24. The Sarasvatīkaņthabharana and Śrngāraprakäsa of Bhoja 257-264 25. Aucityavicāracarcā and Kavikaņțhābharaņa of Kşemendra 264-266 26. The Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammața 266-275 27. The Alankarasarvasva of Ruyyaka 275-286 28. The Vāgbhatalankara of Vagbhata 286-287 29. The Kavyanusāsana of Hemacandra 287-290 30. The Chandraloka of Jayadeva 290-292 31. The Ekāvalī of Vidyādhara 292-293

xii CONTENTS

32. The Pratāparudrayasobhūșaņa 293-295 33. The Kavyanusasana of Vagbhața 295-296 34. The Sahityadarpana of Viśvanatha 296-304 35. The Rasamañjarī and Rasatarangiņī of Bhanudatta 304-310 36. The Bhaktirasamrtasindhu and Ujjvalanīla- maņi of Rūpagosvāmin 310-315 37. The Alankaraśekhara of Keśavamiśra 315-317 38. Appayyadīkşita 317-321 39. The Rasagangadhara of Jagannatha 321-325

PART II

1. The Early Poetic Efforts 326-331 2. The Early Poetry in Classical Sanskrit 331-335 3. Early Beginnings of Poetics 335-341 4. The Name of the Sastra 341-344 5. The topics of the Alankārasastra 344-346 6. The Purpose of Poetry 346-348 7. The Equipment of the Poet 348-352 8. The Definition of Poetry 352-355 9. The Rasa School 355-372 10. The Alankara School 372-378 11. The Riti School 378-384 12. The Vakrokti Theory 384-387 13. The Dhvani School 387-391 14. The Divisions of Poetry 391-392 15. Doşas 392 16. The Influence of other Sastras on Poetics 393-395 Index of Authors and Works on Sanskrit Poetics 397-450

The History of Sanskrit Poetics

The History of Alankara Literature can naturally be divided into two parts. The first part would have to be devoted to an account of the important works on the Alankāra- sāstra, a brief analysis of the contents and the chronology of writers on the Alankāraśāstra and other kindred matters. More space would have to be devoted to early writers. The second part would comprise a review of the subjects that fall to be treated under the Alankāraśāstra, attempt to show how from very small beginnings various theories about Poetics and literary criticism were evolved, dilate upon the different aspects of an elaborate theory of Poetics and trace the historv of literary theories in India. Part I 1. As in many other branches of Sanskrit Literature, so in the Alankarasāstra also, we come across many writers whose works have not come down to us and who are no more than mere names to us. राजशेखर, for example, in his काव्यमीमांसा (p.1), tells us how the science of Poetics could claim to have been proclaimed by Śiva to Brahmā, from whom it was handed down to others and how it came to be divided into eighteen sections ( uferrus), each of which taught in this world by a particular teacher: 'तत्र कविरहस्यं सहस्राक्षः समाम्नासीत, शक्तिकमुक्तिगर्भः, रीतिनिर्ययं सुवर्णनाभः, आनुप्रासिकं प्रचेतायनः, यमकानि चित्रं चित्राकदः, शब्दश्लेषं शेष:, वास्तवं पुलस्त्यः, शपम्यमौपकायनः, अतिशयं पाराशरः, अर्थश रमुतथ्यः, उभयालक्कारिकं कुबेर:, वैनोदिकं कामदेवः, रूपकनिरूपणीयं भरतः, रसाधिकारिक नन्दिकेश्वरः, दोषाधिकारिकं विषयः, गुणौपादानिकमुपमन्युः, भपनिषदिकं कुचुमारः, «fa.' It is doubtful how far this list is authentic or whether most of the writers named are mythical. It is, however, to be noted that सुवर्णनाभ and कुचुमार appear as teachers of the सांप्रयोगिक and औपनिषदिक sections of Erotics in the कामसूत्र (I. 1. 13 and 17), while Bharata's work dealing with Rūpakas (plays) has come down to modern times. aurr is frequently mentioned by the arreer (vide I. 5. 23; II. 2. 23; II. 5. 34; II. 8. 7 &c.). Nandikeśvara is said in the above passage to have written a treatise on Rasas. This is probable. The last chapter in the. Kāvyamālā edition of the Nātyasastra ends with the words HSP I

2 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

नन्दिभरतसभ्गीतपुस्तकम्. On p. X of the Introduction to the second volume of the भमिनवभारती (GOS) the editor quotes the following from Abhinavagupta's comment on chapter 29 'यत्कीर्तिधरेण नन्दिकेश्वरमतमत्रागमित्वेन दर्शितं तदस्माभि: साक्षान्न दृष्टं तत्प्रत्ययात्त लिख्यते संख्नेपतः ... एवं नन्दिकेश्वरमतानुसारेखायं चित्रपूर्वरभ्मविधिरिति निबद्ध: ।.' Abhinava says that he has not himself seen Nandikesvara's work, but relying on Kirtidhara he would briefly point out what Nandikeśvara means. Abhinava knows Nandimata from which he quotes a verse on the angahra called recita ( vide GOS. vol. I. p. 171 ). The भावप्रकाशन of शारदातनय ( chap. 3) says that Nandikeśvara taught nātya to Bharata and asked the latter to teach it to bharatas (actors). A work called अभिनयदर्पण in 324 verses attributed to नन्दिकेश्वर has been edited ( with an English translation and a learned Introduction ) by Prof. Manomohan Ghosh in the Calcutta S. Series (1934). The first verse is: आभ्िकं भुवनं यस्य वाचिकं सर्ववाङ्मयम्। आहार्य चन्द्रतारादि तं नुमः सात्त्विकं शिवम्॥1. It refers to the legend of Brahma delivering the नाटयवेद to भरत and mentions भरतमुनि and his doctrines by name in numerous places (e. g. verses 12, 128, 149, 159, 162 &c.). This work differs from the Nātyasāstra in certain particulars, but, as it mentions Bharata and his agama frequently, it must be much later than the present Natyasastra. A work called भरतार्णव is described in the Catalogue, vol. XII, of the Govt. mss. at the BORI at pp. 460-463. It deals with abhinaya and tāla and appears to be a compilation made from the work of Nandikeś- vara by one Sumati. Kāśyapa is recognized as a muni that preceded Bharata and his opinion on rāgas is cited by Abhinava (Intro.p.X to 2nd Vol. of अमिनवभारती, G. O. S.). Three verses of Kasyapa are quoted by कल्लिनाथ on सं. र. II. 2. 31. काश्यप is cited as an authority on metrics in Agnipurāna chap. 336. 22. Vide Dr. De in HSP vol. I. p. 2 note 2. In the ms. 41 of 1924-28 of the A. B. at the Bhandarkar O. Institute pp. 384-391 about 75 verses are quoted from Kasyapamuni.2 The भावप्रकाशन (I. p. 2) quotes a number of I This verse occurs in a. ₹. VII. I also. 2 'अत्र टीकाकार: शङ्कते योऽयं जात्यंशकानां विनियोग उक्तः स कश्यपमुनिमतादि- भिर्विरुध्यते। ... भत्राङः। काश्यपा दैस्तावन्मालव-कैशिकानां तत्तच्चित्तपृत्त्या जीवनौ- चित्यं दृष्टा विनियोग उक्तः ।'; see अमिनवभारती on chap. 29 p.384. Then about 75 verses follow, the last half of which is: इत्येष कश्यपाद्यक्तो विनियोगो निरूपितः ।

ANCIENT WRITERS ON NATYA 3

expounders of नाट्य such as सदाशिव, गौरी, वासुकि, नारद, भगस्त्य, व्यास, भाजनेय and the pupils of भरत. The सम्ीतरत्नाकर (I.15-19) mentions a host of divine, semi-divine and human authors among whom we have सदाशिव, मह्मा, भरत, कश्यप, मतङ्, कोहल, नारद, तुम्बर, भजनेय, नन्दिकेश्वर. नान्यदेव wrote a work called भरतभाष्य or सरस्वतीहृदयालक्कारहार which is a commentary in verse on chapters 28-33 of the भरतनाव्यशास्त्र (dealing with music) and mentions मतङ्क, विशाखिल, काश्यप and वृद्धकाश्यप, नन्दिन्, दन्तिल as ancient authorities. नान्यदेव is identified with king नान्यदेव of मिथिला (1097-1133 A. D.). Vide description below of D. C. ms. No. 11I of 1869-70 described in Des. Cat. of Govt. mss. at B. O. R. I. Vol. XII pp. 377-383 and Mr. Ramkrishna Kavi's paper on the same in J. A. H. R. S .. vol. I. pp. 56-63. It is possible that Parāsara in the above quoted passage of काव्यमी० means बादरायण, who is mentioned as a भरतपुत्र in the नाट्यशास्त्र I. 32 (बादरायणि in Ch. ed.) and whose views on नान्दी and तोटक are quoted by सागरनन्दिन (in ना.ल. र.को. 11. 1091, 2770, 3202-3). The हृदयक्गमा, a commentary on the काव्यादर्श, informs us that काश्यप and वररुचि had composed works on Poetics before the काव्यादर्श-'पूर्वेषां काश्यपवररुचिप्रभृतीनामाचार्याणां लक्षण- शास्त्राषि संहृत्य पर्यालोच्य' (on I. 2) and 'पूर्वसूरिभि: काश्यपवररुचिप्रभृतिभिः' (on II. 7). The com. श्रतानुपालिनी on the काव्या० mentions काश्यप, ब्ह्दत्त and नन्दिस्वामी as the predecessors of Dandin. The Simhalese sija-bas-lakara, a work on rhetoric, after paying homage to बह्ा, शक and वृहस्पति, refers to a sage काश्यप (J. R.A. S. 1905 p. 841). All these works are no longer available. Vide मत्स्यपु. X. 25 for वररुचि as नाटयवेदपारग. The question naturally arises :- what is the most ancient extant work on the Alankārasāstra ? Some comparatively modern writers on Alankara have put forward the Agnipurāna as the original source of all later teachings on this sastra. There fore, the claims of the अभिपुराण must be carefully examined.1 2. The Agnipurana, महेश्वर in his काव्यप्रकाशादर्श says 'सुकुमारान्राजकुमारान् स्वादुकाव्यप्रवृत्तिद्वारा गहने शाखत्रान्तरे प्रवर्तयि तुभग्निपुराणा- दुद्धृत्य काव्यरसास्वादकारणमलक्कारशास्त्रं कारिकाभि: संचिप्य भरतमुनिः प्रणीतवान्.' Similarly, the कृष्णानन्दिनी, a commentary on the साहित्यकीमुदी of विद्याभूषर, says 'काव्यरसास्वादनाय वह्निपुराणादिट्ृष्टां साहित्यप्रक्रियां भरतः संचिश्ताभि: कारिकाभिर्निबबन्ध.' I For detailed discussion of this question, vide my paper in I. A. vol. 46, 1917, pp. 173 ff.

4 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

The sfagry has been frequently printed in India (in the B, I. series, Ānandāśrama series and at the Venkateśvara Press in Bombay). Chapters 336-346 of the B. I. edition deal with subjects falling within the province of Poetics. Chapters 336-346 of the B. I. edition correspond to chapters 337-347 of the Anan. ed. of the Agnipurana; unfortunately, the readings of the Agnipurana presented in the Anan. ed. are much worse than those in the B. I. ed. In this work the B. I. text has been followed. The edition brought out by the Venkateśvara Press, Bombay, follows the Anan. ed. of the Agnipurana in the numbering of the chapters. It may be noted that, according to the Matsyapurāna 35. 28-30 and Skandapurāņa VII (Prabhasakhanda). 1. 2. 47-50 (यत्तदीशानकल्पस्य वृत्तान्तमधिकृत्य च। वसिष्ठायामिना प्रोक्माग्नेयं तत्प्रचक्षते। ... तञ्च षोडशसाहस्र सर्वक्रतुफलप्रदम्॥), the Agni is 16000 verses in extent, deals with the incidents of Isanakalpa and is narrated to Vasistha by Agni. The extant Agni states (in chap. 271. 11) that its extent is 12000 ślokas and that it expounds all the vidyas. In the first chapter Vasistha requests Agni (verse 12) to instruct him in the essence of vidyās, by knowing which a man may become omniscient. The extant Agnipurana has about 11500 verses (and not 16000). In the last chapter (382. 51-64) it states that all vidyas have been dealt with and it enumerates the several subjects treated of such as the avatāras, Gītā, Rāmāyaņa, Bhārata, Harivamśa, the Āgamas, āśauca, prāyaścitta, rājadharma, vyavahāra, vratas &c. Chapters 122-148 contain a summary of युद्धजयाणव. We have hardly any means for judging which parts were in the original Agnipurana and which were interpolated later. The commentary of Maheśvara and that on Vidyābhūsaņa quoted above apparently make no distinction oetween Agni- purāņa and Vahnipurāņa. But there is a Vahnipurāna that is different from the extant Agnipurana as Eggeling's Catalogue of India Office Sanskrit mss. part 6 pp. 1294 ff clearly shows. Vide Prof. Hazra's papers 'On present Agni' in I. H. Q. Vol. XII pp. 683-691, 'Studies in genuine Āgneya alias Vahnipurāņa' in 'Our Heritage' vol. I part 2 pp. 209-245, and vol. II part I pp. 70-109 and 'Discovery of genuine Agneyapurana' in JOI (Baroda)vol. V (1956) pp. 411-416. Most of the passages quoted in the दानसागर and अङ्भुतसागर of बल्लालसेन (3rd quarter of 12th century A. D.) from the Agnipurana are not found in the

AGNIPURĀŅA 5

present Agnipurāna, and in many extracts the interlocutors are Vasistha and king Ambarīșa (and not Agni and Vasiștha as in the current Agni). It appears that the old Agnipurāna was recast and then it assumed the present form. Vide J. O. R., Madras, Vol. XII p. 129 at pp. 134-135 (for the paper 'Purānas known to Ballālasena'). Chapter 336(=337 of Anan.ed) defines a Kauya, classifies Kauyas into संस्कृत and प्राकृत (of three sorts) into गद्य, पद and मिश्र; subdivides these and defines in particular कथा, आाख्यायिका, महाकाव्य. Chapter 337 deals with topics of dramaturgy (such as twelve kinds of dramas, उपरूपकS, प्रस्तावना, the five अर्थप्रकृतिs, the five सन्धिs). Chapter 338 speaks of the rasas together with the स्थायिभावS, अनुभावs, व्यमिचारिभावs, the आलम्बन- विभाव and उद्दीपनविभाव, the various kinds of heroes and their companions and the heroines (नायिका), the eight qualities of heroes and the twelve vibhavas of heroines. Chapter 339 speaks of the four ritis, पाञचाली, गौडी, वैदर्भी and लाटी and the four वृत्तिs, भारती, सात्त्वती, कौशिकी (कैशिकी?) and भारभटी. Chapter 340 contains a description of the various natural movements of the principal limbs ( head, hands, feet &c. ) and other parts of the body (eyebrows &c.) in dancing. Chapter 341 dilates upon the four kinds of अभिनय (acting), सान्विक, वाचिक, आङिक and आहार्य. Chapter 342 defines and divides शब्दालक्कारs, viz. अनुप्रास, यमक (of ten kinds), चित्र (seven varieties), 16 kinds of प्रहेलिकाs, bandhas called गोमूत्रिका, सर्वतोभद्र &c. Chap. 343 deals with अरथालक्वारs (such as उपमा, रूपक सहोक्ति & c, their definitions and sub-divisions). Chap. 344 is spoken of as dealing with शब्दार्थालक्वारs, but therein are included such figures as आक्षेप, समासोकि, पर्यायोक्त. Chapters 345 and 346 dwell respectively upon the गुखs and दोषs of काव्य. There are in all 362 verses in these chapters. It is not possible to give here even a brief analysis of the contents of the 11500 verses of the Agnipurana. It is an encyclopaedia dealing with all sorts of subjects in which mediaeval India was interested. The evidence for determining the date of the Agnipurana (and particularly of the sahitya portion) and for examining whether it can be regarded as the oldest extant work on Poetics is as follows :- (a) The अगिपुराख refers to the seven kandas of the रामायय, to the हरिवंश, to पिकल (327. 1, 336.22), पालकाप्य, शालिहोत्र, भन्वन्तरि and gea. It contains ( chap. 380 ) a short summary in 58

6 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

कोकs of the भगवद्गीता by combining half verses of the latter. Chapters 359-366 contain lexical matter almost the whole of which is identical with the verses and portions of verses of the अमरकोश. It cannot be supposed that all these works (the गीता, अ्रमरकोश &C.) borrowed from the अभिपुराण. It must be supposed that the अभिपुराख in its desire to give summaries of every branch of literature drew upon the lexicon that was most popular when the purana was compiled. Various dates have been assigned to अमरसिंह. Prof. Macdonell (H.S.L. p. 433) thinks it not improbable that he flourished about 500 A. D. Max Muller says that the अमरकोश was translated into Chinese in the 6th century (India; what can it teach us ? lst. ed. p. 232). Dr. Hoernle ( JRAS 1906 p. 940) places the अमरकोश between 625 and 940 A. D. rather on shadowy grounds. Mr. Oak places it in the 4th century A. D. Taking even this early date, the अगिपुरास, if it borrowed from the अमरकोश, cannot be earlier than the 6th or 7th century A. D., as a good deal of time must have elapsed before the अमरकोश could attain a pre-eminent position as a lexicon. (b) The अभिपुराख says that the riti Bharati was so called because it was promulgated by भरत (भरतेन प्रखीतत्वाद्भारती रीतिरच्यते। chap. 339. 6). aa says that he promulgated the four vrttis by order of Brahma and that the भारतीवृत्ति was so called after the Bharatas (मया काव्यक्रियाहेतोः प्रतिप्ता द्रहिणाशया॥ ... स्वनामधेयैः भरतैः प्रयुक्ता सा भारती नाम भवेत्तु वृत्तिः ॥ नाय्य. 22. 23 and 25, K. M. ch. 22. 23 and 25=GOS ed. chap. 20. 24-26. This shows that the अगिपुरासं had before it the नाट्यशास्त्र of भरत (or at least the portion dealing with वृत्तिs). Though the नाट्यशास knows works of the purana class (अन्येऽपि देशाः प्राच्यां ये पुराये संप्रकीर्तिताः । नाव्य. 14. 46, K. M. 13. 46), yet it nowhere alludes to the अम्निपुराख. (c) There are numerous verses in the अभिपुरास that are identical with verses of the नाट्यशास्त्र. Compare नाव्य. 6. 36 first half and अभि. 338. 12; नाट्य. 6. 39 and अभनि. 348.7-9; नाव्य. 22. 28-29 and अभि. 337. 11-12; नाट्य. 17. 63-65 and अग्नि. 342. 15-17. Taking the express statement of the Purana that it was to be an encyclopaedia of all vidyas and the character of the two works into consideration it will have to be conceded that it is the अग्निपुराण that borrows. (d) The definitions of रूपक, उत्प्रेक्षा, विशेषोकि, विभावना, अपह्नुति and समाधि given by the अग्निपुराय (343, 23, 24-25, 26-27, 27-28

AGNIPURĀŅA 7

344. 18, 13 respectively) are almost the same as those of the काव्यादर्श ( II. 66, 221, 323, 199, 304, I. 93 respectively ). Besides these, there are many phrases and half verses that occur in both works, e. g .- पद्य चतुष्पदी तब्ब वृत जातिरिति त्रिया (भग्नि. 336.21 and काव्या. I. 11); सा विद्या नौस्तितीषणं गम्भीरं काव्यसागरम् (अरग्नि. 336. 23 and काव्या. I.12); अग्नि. 336. 29 and काव्या. I. 16; अग्नि. 336.25 and काव्या. I. 15. It has not been possible to point out (except in two instances, viz. काव्या. II. 226, the well known verse लिम्पतीव & c. and 276 अद्य या मम.&c.) that Dandin borrows his definitions or even examples from others. Dandin belongs, as will be shown later on, to the latter half of 7th century. So the अग्निपुराण, if it borrows from the काव्यादर्श, must be later than this date. (e) The definitions of रूपक, आन्षेप, अरप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, समासोक्ति and पर्यायोक्त are almost identical in भामह (II. 21, 68, III. 29,8, II. 79) and the अग्निपुराख (343. 22; 344. 15; 344. 16; 344. 18; 344. 17). भामह distinctly states that he composed his own exam- ples and also himself settled the definitions of figures (स्वयंकृतरेव निदर्शनैरियं मया प्रक्लप्ता खलु वागलंकृतिः। भामह II. 96; गिरामलक्कारविधि: सविस्तरः स्वयं विनिश्चित्य धिया मयोदितः। III. 58). भामह, as shown below, is not earlier than 700 A. D. (f) It appears that the अग्निपुराण was aware of the theory of dhvani promulgated in the Dhvanikārikās and elaborately set forth in the Dhvanyaloka. It says that ध्वनि will be included in some one out of पर्यायोक्त, अपह्नुति, समासोकि, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, आान्तेप; स भाकेपो ध्वनिः स्याञ्च ध्वनिना व्यज्यते यतः and एषामेकतमस्येव (स्यैव ?) समाख्या ध्वनिरित्यतः । अग्नि. 341. 14 and 18. This shows that though the अग्निपुराख knew the theory of ध्वनि it was not willing to subscribe to it. This view of the अग्निपुराख is similar to the view of भामह and उद्धट as said by the अलक्कारसर्वस्व-'इह हि तावद्भामहोद्गटप्रभृतयश्चिरन्त- नालक्कारकारा: प्रतीयमानमर्थ वाच्योपस्कारकतयालक्कारपक्षनित्िप्तं मन्यन्ते। तथाहि- पर्यायोक्ताप्रस्तुतप्रशंसासमासोक्त्याक्षेपव्याजस्तुत्युपमेयोपमानन्वयादौ वस्तुमात्रं गम्यमानं वाच्योपस्कारकत्वेन स्वमिद्धये पराक्षेप: परार्थ स्वसमर्पणमिति यथायोगं द्विविधया भक्या प्रतिपादितं तैः' (p. 3). Vide also ध्व० 'पर्यायोक्तऽपि यदि प्राधान्येन व्यंग्यत्वं तद्भवतु नाम तस्य ध्वनावन्तर्भावः। न तु ध्वनेस्तत्रान्तर्भावः।' (p. 45-46): Therefore, it can be argued that the portion on Poetics in the अग्निपुरास is not much later than the ध्वन्यालोक. The latter work, it will be seen, was composed in the latter half of the 9th century. It is further to be noted that two verses (अपारे काव्यसंसारे &c. and शृह्गारी चेत्कवि:&c.) occur in the अग्निपुराय (338.10-11=339.

8 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

10-11 of Anan. ed.) and in the धवन्यालोक (p.278). In the latter these verses are introduced with the words तथा चेदमुच्यते and so it is argued that the ध्वन्यालोक is merely quoting from another work. But these verses are followed, by a brief dicussion which winds up with the words ध्वनिरेव प्राधान्येन काव्यमिति स्थितमेतत् (pp.278-9). In this connection it has to be remembered that on the very preceding.page.(277) the ध्वन्यालोक introduces two verses with the words तदिदमुक्तं which are explained by अभिनवगुप्त as मयैवेत्यर्थः, thereby showing that those verses are of आनन्दवर्धन himself. One fails to see any difference between तदिदमुच्यते and तदिदमुक्तम्· So the two verses on p. 278 of the saRT. should be deemed to be आानन्दवर्धन's own and and it should be held that the लोचन did not add 'by me the author of धवन्या.', because it had explained two verses occurring in the same context as composed by आनन्दवर्धन and because the occurrence of च (in तथा चेदमुच्यते) at the time of quoting the two verses on p. 278 and its non- Occurrence on p. 277 (तदिदमुक्तम्) indicate that the two verses on p. 278 are the author's own. Dr. De. (in H. S. P. vol. I. p. 103) holds, without assigning any substantial reason, that it is Anandavardhana that borrows from the Agnipurana. Dr. De ( H. S. P. vol. II p. 255 n. ) persisted in his view that Anandavardhana borrows the two verses on p. 278 from the Agnipurana, though it was brought to his notice by the late Prof. Sovani that Abhinava expressly ascribes the authorship of one of the two verses to Anandavardhana in his comment on the Nātyaśāstra VI. 36-37 (G. O. S. ed. vol. I p. 295) "afaf सामाजिकतुल्य एव। तत एवोकं 'शृङ्गारी चेत्कविः' इत्यादानन्दवर्धनाचार्येय". Therefore, I am of opinion that the Agnipurana not only knew the Dhvani theory but actually borrowed two verses from the Dhvanyāloka. Prof. Batuknath Bhattacharya (Department of Letters, Calcutta University, vol. IX p. 129) states that 'the Agnipurana shows no trace of the Dhvani theory.' But in this he is quite wrong as the above discussion will show. In chap. 339 (Anan ed) the अग्निपुराख names the Rasas, the sthayi-bhavas, sāttvika-bhāvas (i. e. the # theory) and in chap. 345. 18 it in- cludes ध्वनि under such alankaras as समासोकि, अपहनुति, पर्यायोक्त 'पर्यायोकं यदन्येन प्रकारेणाभिधीयते। एषामेकतमस्यैव समाख्या ध्वनिरित्यतः ।'. (g) In the 5th chap. of S. K. A. the first four verses present in a brief compass Bhoja's Rasa theory of one Rasa Śrngāra as Ānanda-Ahankāra-Abhimāna-Rasa, This is pro-

AGNIPURĀŅA 9

pounded at great length in the Srngāra-prakāsa in chap. XI. The Agnipurana (in chap. 338. 1-4) briefly touches this doctrine: अक्षरं परमं ब्रह्म सनातनमजं विभुम्। वेदान्तेषु वदन्त्येकं चैतन्यं ज्योतिरीश्वरम्। आनन्दः सहजस्तस्य व्यज्यते स कदाचन। व्यक्तिः सा तस्य चैतन्यचमत्काररसांहया। आध्स्तस्य विकारो यः सोऽहक्कार इति स्मृतः। ततोऽभिमानस्तत्रेदं समाप्तं सुवनत्रयम्॥ अभिमानाद्तिः सा च परिपोषमुपेयुषी। व्यभिचार्यादिसामान्याच्छृकार इति गीयते॥ तद्भेदा: काममितरे हास्यादया अप्यनेकशः (अग्नि० 338. 1-5); vide Agnipurana, 341. 3 also. But the Agnipurana, caring only for presenting the essence of several theories, tries to round off the theory of Ānanda-Ahankāra-Abhimāna-Rati by introducing in verses 7-9 the usual theory of eight or nine rasas based on Bharata's Nātyaśāstra. It is not possible to believe as Dr. De does (in H. S. P vol. II p. 334) that Bhoja built his all-embracing and elaborately worked out theory on the confused verses of the Agni (chap. 338). In chap. 338. 54 and 339 (verses 1-4) the Agnipurana deals with four kinds of ffas (styles), viz. पाञ्चाली, वैदर्भी, गौडी, and लाटी. The functions of these closely resemble what Bhoja says in the Srngāra-prakāśa ( vide Dr. Raghavan in J. O. R, Madras vol. X p. 768-779 wherein he criticizes some of the statements of Prof. P. C. Lahiri in I. H. Q. vol. IX pp. 448 ff, and in his Śrngāra-prakāśa vol. I part I pp. 196-201). It is therefore proper to hold that the Agnipurana which is not an original work on any subject but a mere encyclopaedic compilation most probably derived its inspiration from Bhoja. It has been shown by me in my H. of Dh. vol. I pp. 170-173 that the Vyavahara chapters (252-257) of the Agni borrow about 30 verses from Nāradasmrti in chap. 252 and about 280 verses from the Yajñavalkyasmrti in the other chapters. The foregoing discussion goes to establish that the अग्निपुराख is later than the 7th century at least and that the section on Poetics was certainly compiled about or a little after 900 A. D. and probably after 1050 A. D. It is significant that no early writer on Poetics quotes from or refers to the Agnipurana. मम्मट quotes from the विष्णुपुराख but nowhere refers to the अग्निपुराय. The first Alankara writer of note who distinctly mentions the भग्निपुराख as an authority on Poetics is विश्वनाथ (14th century), who quotes अग्नि 336.3-4 (in साहित्यदपण under I. 2) and 337. 7 (त्रिवर्गसाधनंनाट्यं), although works

10 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

on धर्मशास् such as अपरार्कटीका and the अद्धतसागर of बललालसेन (begun in 1168 A. D.) refer to the Agnipurāna as an authority. But भरत's नाटयशाख is quoted with reverence by the ध्वन्यालोक, the लोचन and other early writers. Even भामह and दएडी appear to refer to him as an authority as will be shown later on. Therefore, the अग्निपुराख is later than भरत, भामह, दएडी, the धवन्यालोक and probably a and has no claim to be regarded as an origin:' work on the अलक्कारशाखत्र. Moreover, mediaeval writers, guided by their reverence for Puranas in general, because they were ascribed to the mythical Vyasa, naturally looked upon the अग्निपुरास as the most ancient work on the अलक्कारशास्त्र. 3. The Nāțyasastra of Bharata. For several reasons the Natyasastra must be regarded as the oldest extant work on the theory of Sanskrit Poetics. The work contains the first exposition of the rasa theory (for which see part II) and also contains considerable information upon many topics pertaining to the Alankāraśāstra. When I wrote this history of Alankāra Literature in 1923 for prefixing it as an Introduction to my edition of the Sāhityadarpana the only complete edition of the Nātyasāstra that was available was the one in the Kavyamala series. Later on in 1929 Pandit Batuknath Sharma and Pandit Baladeva Upādhyaya published in the Kashi Sanskrit Serics ( often cited as the Chowkhamba S. Series ) a complete edition of the Natyasastra based on two mss. that appear to have been different from those used for the original K. M. edition. In 1929 Mr. Ramkrishna Kavi brought out the first volume of the Natyasastra containing chapters 1-7 together with the very important and learned commentary of Ācārya Abhinavagupta in the Gaekwad Oriental Series. The 2nd volume containing chapters 8-18 together with the commentary called Abhinavabharati in the colophons as well as by later writers such as Rāghavabhatta in his com. on the Sākuntala was published in 1934. The third volume containing chapters 19-27 with the Abhinavabhārati, edited by Mr. Kavi, was published in the G. O. S. in 1954. Prof. Manmohan Ghosh has brought out a translation of chapters 1-27 of the Nātyasāstra for the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1950) with a lengthy Intro- duction, pp. XXXV-L of which deal with the attempts of scholars to publish various chapters of the Nātyasāstra and

NĀȚYASĀSTRA 11

the remaining pages deal with many matters such as the meaning of nātya, vrttis, literary structure, kinds of plays, plot and its development, play-house, costumes and make-up, early and later writers on Drama, the two recensions and commentators of the Nātyaśāstra. In this brief Introduction it is impossible for want of space to go deeply into the question of the text of the Nātyaśāstra. Certain important points alone will be noted. The mss. and the editions do not agree as to the number of ślokas in each chapter, about the number of chapters and also about their places in the book. The recent K. M. edition contains 37 chapters, while the Ch. edition contains 36, the last chap. combining into one the two chapters of the K. M. edition viz. 36 and 37. Abhinava in his 2nd Introductory verse ( षटत्रिशकं भरतसूत्रमिदं विवृएवन ) and on p.8 of vol. I (मध्ये षटत्रिंशाध्याय्यां) says that there are 36 chapters. Abhinava further says that the extent of the Natyasastra is 6000 ślokas (each śloka being taken as equal to 32 syllables); further, no two corresponding chapters of the two editions have the same number of verses (except chap. 6 and chap. 19 of K. M .= 21 of Ch. on Sandhyangas). Chapter IX of K. M: edition is split into two chapters IX and X in the Ch. ed. Therefore, the numbering of the chapters in the two editions differs from that stage onwards. Some of the verses of chapter 21, sāmānyābhinaya, of the K. M, edition, occur as chap. 34 in the Ch. ed. and the rest (verses 90-115) are placed in chap. 35 of the Ch. ed. Some portions of the text of the. Natyasastra were published from time to time during the last 85 years. Hall in his edition of the Dasarūpa of Dhanañjaya (B. I. series, 1865 ) added at the end four chapters of the Nātyasāstra viz. 18, 19, 20 ( which correspond with chapters 18-20 of K. M. edition, the verses in Hall's edition being respectively 132, 133 and 63 as against 198, 133, 66 of the K. M. edition) and chap. 34 having 121 verses (which corresponds with chap. 24 of K. M. ed. that has only 116 verses and with chap. 34 and a portion of chap. 35 of the Ch. edition ). In Annales du Musee Guimet, vol. II pp. 69 ff. P. Regnaud published two chapters of the Natyasastra on Metrics, viz. 15th and 16th ( with 68 and 160 verses), corresponding with chapters 14 and 15 of the K. M. ed. ( with 120 and 172 verses ) and chapters

12 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

15 and 16 of the Ch. ed. ( with 119 and 169 verses respectively) and chap. 14 and 15 of the G. O. S. ed. ( with 133 and 227 verses respectively ). The same scholar published in his 'Rhetorique Sanskrite' (1884) the 6th and 7th chapters of the Natyasastra in Roman characters and translation in French. The verses in these two chapters of Regnaud's edition are 84 and 123 ( while K. M. has 84 and 130 and Ch. has 83 and 124 respectively). The above statement is quite sufficient to show that the text of the Natyasastra is unsatisfactory and has been tampered with in almost every chapter. Those who.want to go into the question of the additions and alterations made in the text of the Natyasastra may read Mr. Kavi's Intro. to vol. I and II of the Abhinavabhāratī. Here again striking variations alone can be noted. I. From a verse in the Vikramorvasīya of Kālidāsa (II.18) it follows that in his day Bharata-muni was credited with having declared that the rasas in Natya were eight and that he represented a play before Indra with Apsarases as actresses ( मुनिना भरतेन यः प्रयोगो भवतीष्वष्टरसाश्रयः प्रयुक्तः। ललिताभिनयं तमध भर्ता मरुतां द्रष्टुमना: सलोकपाल:॥). The chief points of this verse are found in the extant Nātyaśāstra ( vide Ch. ed. chap. I for the instruction of Bharata in the Natyaveda, performance of a play with the help of Apsarases, verses 47-50, the presence of Sakra and Lokapālas verses 55 ff. and chap. 6. 15 for the eight rasas 'शृङ्गारहास्यकरुणरौद्रवीरभयानकाः। बीभत्साद्भतमंशञौ चेत्यष्टौ नाटये रसा: स्मृताः ॥'). The Ch. edition closes the 6th chapter with the verse (एवमेते रसा शेयास्त्वष्टौ लक्षयलच्िताः। 83). The काव्यादर्श ( II. 292 इह त्वष्टरसायत्ता रसवत्ता स्मृता गिराम्) shows that even in the 7th century the recognized rasas were only eight. Abhinavagupta notes that some people did not recognize nine rasas but only eight and that in old mss. he found a disquisition on sānta rasa and its sthāyibhāva sama. 'ये पुनर्नव रसा इति पठन्ति तन्मते शान्तस्वरूपमभिधीयते। G. O. S. vol. I p.333; and again "तस्मादस्ति शान्तो रसः। तथा च चिरन्तनपुस्तकेषु 'स्थायिभावान रसत्वमुपनेष्यामः'-इत्यनन्तरं 'शान्तो नाम शमस्थायिभावात्मकः' इत्यादि शान्तलक्षयं पठ्यते ।" G. O. S. vol. I p. 340. Regnaud's edition of chap 6. reads त्वष्टौ नाटयरसा: स्मृताः This establishes that Santa had not been recognised as a rasa at the time of Kālidāsa ( between 350-150 A. D. at the latest ) but had been

NĀȚYASĀSTRA 13

recognized long before Abhinavagupta ( i. e. centuries before 1000 A. D. ) and that Abhinava knew that there were two recensions of N. S. Udbhata in his काव्यालक्कारसारसंग्रह (IV. 5.) mentions nine rasas (शृङ्गारहास्य ... नकाः । बीभत्सान्गुतशान्ताक्ष नव नाटचे रसाः स्मृता: ॥). The भावप्रकाशन (G. O. S. ed., pp. 46-48) appears to hold that Vasuki added Santarasa. Apart from the question whether any reliance is to be placed on this piece of informa- tion, it would follow from the facts brought out above that Sāntarasa was recognized in the mss. of the Nātyaśāstra at some time after 400 A. D. and before 750 A. D. II. At the end of chapter 5 about 40 verses (KM 181-220, Ch. 176-215 ) are omitted in several mss. and it is noteworthy that Abhinava does not comment on them. They were probably taken over from Nandikeśvara ( vide Intro. to vol. I p. 10). III. Chapters 9 ( verses 207 ) and 10 ( verses 55) of the Ch. ed. form one chapter 9 ( verses 267 ) in K. M. edition. Abhinavagupta also puts the two as one. IV. At the beginning of the 15th chap. on metres, Abhinava notes that there were two recensions: तत्रे हाध्याये भरतमुनि- कृतमिति त्रिकर्मकारादिभिः कैश्षित् किंचिल्लक्षणं स्वीकृतमिति द्विविधः पाठो दृश्यते। मध्ये च चिन्तनाय (? चिरन्तनेषु ) पुस्तकेषूभयमपि पठ्यते इति। अ्र. भा. vol. II pp. 252-253. The original KM ed. agrees with the latter. V. In chap. 16 of the K. M. ed., and chap. 17 of Ch. ed., the 36 Laksaņas of Nātya are enumerated in five anustubh verses, but in chap. 16 of the G. O. S. edition the enumeration is made in four Upajati verses. Further, the order of the 36 Laksanas is not the same in the two lists and only 17 names are common in both. A. B. remarks that Bharata himself employs other names for the Laksanas which are different from those enumerated by him, that it is due to this that in the mss. there is variation in the names and order of Laksanas and that it follows the tradition of the author's guru ( Tota ) as to the names and, order . ( T मतान्तरेष भरतमुनिरेवान्यथाप्युद्देशलक्षयेन नामान्तररपि च व्यवहारं करोति तत एव पुस्तकेषु भेदो दृश्यते तं च दर्शयिष्यामः । पठितोद्वेशक्रमस्त्वस्मदुपाध्यायपरम्परागतः। on XVI. 4, vol. II p. 298). This shows. that in nfna's day there were two recensions of the chapter on reus. Vide Dr. Raghavan's paper on Lakşaņas in J. O. R. Madras, vol. VI pp. 54-82. धनिक on दशरूप 4. 78 and राघवभट्ट in भर्थचोतनिका set

14 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

out the enumeration in Upajāti, while the Sāhitydarpana and some others give the names as in the Anustubh verses. VI. It has already been stated that chap. 24 of the K. M. ed. is distributed among two chapters 34 and 35 of the Ch. ed. and that chap. 36 and 37 of K. M ed. become one chapter (36) in Ch. ed. and in अभिनवभारती. VII. In the K. M. edition there are 334 verses in chapter 31, while in the Ch. ed. there are 545 in the same chapter. The new K. M. edition notes ( on p. 520 ) that a block of 92 verses is added in one ms. after the verse आकारवृत्तमन्यत्स्यात् चतुष्क त्रिकमेव वा। ( verse 293 in K. M.ed. and 397 in Ch. ed ). Mr. Kavi notes ( in Intro. to vol. II p. XIV ) that Abhinava's text omits only about half of these verses. Mr. Kavi (Intro. to vol. I p. 7) states that he secured 40 mss. of the text of the Nātyaśāstra and admits that no two of them agree completely ( ibid. p. 9 ). He also says that there are according to him two recensions of the text of the Natyasastra, the northern one and the southern one. The latter is, according to him, the earlier one and the former later. From the statements Mr. Kavi makes in his two Introductions to the two volumes already published and in the footnotes in the two volumes, it appears that the mss. material for the constitution of the text of the Abhinavabharati is quite unsatisfactory. There is no ms. which contains the full text of the Abhinavabharati on the 36 chapters. The commentary afaayRat itself sometimes appears in two recensions and differs from ara himself. Vide a paper by Prof. Manmohan Ghosh in I. H. Q. vol. X pp. 161-163 for some examples. Mr. Kavi was not able to secure Abhinavagupta's commentary on the 7th and 8th chapters of the Natyasastra (except a few passages at the beginning of the 7th). As the text of the commentary has to be constituted from different incomplete mss. found at places far apart, the text of the commentary presented would be a patched-up and eclectic one and, therefore, unsatisfactory from a critical point of view. As a portion of Abhinava's commentary on the last verses of the 5th chapter of the Nātya- śāstra was not available, Mr. Kavi added his own comment thereon (vol. I pp. 253-264). This has misled some scholars into thinking that it was Abhinava's commentary, in spite of Mr. Kavi's note at the bottom of p. 253. He should have

NĀȚYASĀSTRA 15

given, if at all, his commentary in an Appendix at the end. On p. 10 of the Intro. to vol. I Mr. Kavi admits that he gave his own commentary in three other cases in the 4th chapter. This is most unfair. An unwary reader, if he has not gone carefully over the Introduction, would easily be misled. In the circumstances described above about the text of the Natyasāstra and of the Abhinavabharati thereon two questions, that are rather puzzling and difficult of solution, arise, viz. what is the original Natyasastra and who is the author. The striking features of the extant Natyasastra1 are: (1) There are prose passages in chapter 6th, 7th (very long ones in both), 14th (about 9 lines on gafa, K. M. chap. 13, p. 216), 15th (four lines on p. 170 on स्वर and व्यज्ञन, K. M. chap. 14 pp. 221-22), 19th (pp. 221-222, 224-25), 28th (several long passages on pp. 318-322 and 326, K. M. chap. 28, pp. 432-439), 33rd ( pp. 433-435, 436, 438-39 several passages of a few lines each, K, M. chap. 34, pp. 611 ff ); 35th ( p. 466 two lines on सूत्रधारगुय, K. M. chap. 24, p. 400). (2) There are at least 15 ślokas and 16 āryas described as ānuvamśya. (3) Several verses are introduced with the words सूत्रानुबद्धे आर्ये भवतः (4) About 100 verses are cited with nothing more than the words भवन्ति चात्र श्रोकाः, or अत्रार्ये भवतः, Or श्रत्र श्रोका: (5) There are over 5000 verses, most of which are in the śloka metre, a few being in other metres such as āryā or upajāti. Each of these features calls for some explanation. (1) The prose passages resemble passages of the Nirukta and are in the sūtra and bhāsya style. For example, the well- known Rasasutra passage in chap. VI may be cited here : 'faeTaT- नुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोगाद्रसनिष्पत्तिः । को वा दृष्टान्त इति चेत्, उच्यते। यथा नानाव्य- अनौषधि ... रसत्वमाप्नुवन्ति । ऋषय ऊचुः । रस इति कः पदार्थः । अत्रोच्यते। Raa I'. Here the first sentence looks like a stra and what follows has the appearance of a bhasya. To take another example: 'व्यभिचारिय इदानीं वच््यामः । अत्राह व्यमिचारिय इति कस्मादुच्यन्ते । वि अभि इत्येतावुपसगों। चर गती धातुः।' &c., chap. VII p.84. Such passages may be compared with the Nirukta (e.g. III. 1 अपत्यं कस्मात् अ्रपतत भवति नानेन पततीति वा ।) or with Sabara's bhasya on Jaimini's sutras I The references are throughout made to the Ch. edition except where it is expressly stated to the contrary.

16 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

(e.g. को, धर्म: कथंलक्षणः कान्यस्य साधनानि कानि साधनाभासानि किंपरश्चेति p. 9, Anan. ed.). Itmay be noted that Abhinava-gupta calls the Nātya- sastra 'Bharatasutra'. The extant work itself suggests (in chap. VI. 9-13 and 31) that it contains sütras, bhāya, sangraha, kārikās, nirukta ( exposition)1 &c. Abhinava explains that 'sūtra' means 'definition' and bhāsya means 'investigation or examination that will make clear the sutra' (सूत्रं लक्षणं भाष्यं तद्व्यकतिकरणरूपा परीक्षा, vol. I p. 256). On the word karika Abhinava remarks that sūtra also may be called kārikā and the śloka, that is put down after the sutra having relation to the latter and clarifying the meaning of the latter for easy comprehension, is also called karika: सृत्रतः सूत्रसेन तेन सूत्रमपि कारिका। तत्सूत्रमपेच्य या अनु पश्चात्पठिंता श्रोकरूपा सापि कारिका। vol. I p. 266. On सूत्रग्रन्थविकल्पनम् (VI. 31 of Ch. ed. and 34 of GOS.ed.) Abhinava says 'सूत्रं सूत्रकं लक्षयं वच्त्यामि। तेनैव च कारिका संगृहीता। ग्रन्थो भाष्यं तत्कृतं च विकल्पनभाक्ेपप्रतिसमाधानात्मकमिति परीक्षा निरुक्तशब्दवाच्या प्रतिश्ञाता। सूत्रविवरसस्वभावा तु कारिका सूत्रमपि प्रकाशयन्ती बहुतराक्षेपसमाधानव्याकुलशिष्यजनस्थितिपक्षं निरूपयेनोपकरोतीति भाष्यस्य पश्चादस्याः पाठ:।' vol. I. p. 273. On 'विभावानु ... निष्पत्तिः' the A. B. remarks 'एवं क्रमहेतुभभिधाय लक्षणसूत्रमाह-विभा०'. On 'को दृष्टान्तः, अत्राह यथा हि०' ... A. B. observes 'अत्र प्रश्ने भाष्येश प्रतिवचनमाह यथेत्यादिना आरप्नुवन्तीत्यन्तेन' vol. I. p. 289. Another example of सूत्र and भाष्य may be given. On pp. 301-302 (vol. I chap. VI ) we read : तत्र शुज्गारो नाम रतिस्थायिभावप्रभव उज्ज्वलवेषात्मकः । &c. The अभिनवभारती notes (p.303) 'अत्र रतिस्थायीति सूत्रभागं भाष्येर स्पष्टयति स चेत्यादिना।'. Note has to be taken of the fact that Bhavabhūti in his Uttararāmacarita (IV) refers to Bharata as 'tauryatrikasūtra- kāra.' It should not be supposed that a sūtra work must be entirely in prose. Even such ancient works as the Aitareya and Satapatha Brāhmanas contain verses and Grhyasūtras and Dharmasūtrasª ( of Āpastamba, Baudhāyana and Vasiștha ) 1. विस्तरेशोपदिष्टानामर्थानां सूत्रभाध्ययोः। निबन्धो यः समासेन संग्रहं तं विदुवथाः ॥ रसा भावा अभिनया धर्मीवृत्तिम्वृत्तयः । सिद्धि: स्वरास्तथातोद्यं गानं रक् च संग्रहः॥ अल्पाभिधानेनार्थो य : समासेनोच्यते ुध । सूत्रतः सातु विज्ञेया कारिकार्थ- प्रयोगिनी ॥ ... एवमेषोऽल्पसुन्नार्थो व्यादिष्टो नाट्यसंग्रहः । अरतःपरं प्रवच्त्यामि सूत्रग्रन्थ- विकल्पनम्॥ नाटय. on VI. g-11 and 31. 2. Vide for verses in Ap. Dh. Sūtra I. 4. 14.23, I. 6. 16. 13 (two verses), I. 6. 19. 14-15, I. 9. 25. 10-11, I. 9. 27. 17-11, II. 4. 9. 13. The TN. TT. (I. 3. 10 and IV. 7.14) has verses and so has the Kausikagrhyasutra 6. 34 (अत्रापि श्लोकौ), 68. 37(तत्र श्लोकौ).

NĀȚYASĀSTRA 17

contain verses. In mediaeval times the kārikās in such works as the Kāvya-prakāśa were called sūtras. Therefore, it is quite possible that the original kernel of the Nātyasastra was in mixed prose and verse. Next we have to consider the significance of the words 'anuvamsya' in citing certain āryā and anustubh verses. In the first place it is important to note that verses headed by these words occur mostly in the 6th and 7th chapters and very rarely in others (such as in chap. 19 verses 46-58 of the Ch. ed. and chap. 17 verses 107-119 of the K. M. edition). The expression आनुवंश्यश्लोक occurs very frequently in the Mahābhārata, e. g. in Ādiparva 95.9, 27, 30-31, 46. In the M. B. simply the word आनुवंशं is also used, e. g., वनपर्व 87. 16 'यत्रानुवंशं भगवाआमदग्न्यस्तथा जगौ। विश्वामित्रस्य तां दृष्टा विभूतिमतिमानुषीम्।।'. In वनपर्व 88.5 we have the word आनुवंश्या applied to गाथा. Vide also वनपर्व 114. 10, 192. 27-29, 193. 13-15. In वनपर्व 129.8 we read 'अ्ानुवंशं पठतः शृणु मे कुरुनन्दन', which is explained by the commentator नोलकएठ as 'परम्परागतमाख्यानश्लोकम्'. The मत्स्यपुराण 271.15 also has an आनुवंश्यश्लोक. On अत्रानुवंश्यौ श्रोकौ भवतः occurring before VI. 35-36 A. B. remarks: अश्रेति भाष्ये। अनुवंशभवौ शिष्याचार्य- परम्परासु वर्तमानौ श्लोकाख्यौ वृत्तविशेषी सूत्रार्थमंक्षेपप्रकटीकरयेन कारिकाशब्दवाच्यौ भवन्तौ पठति यथेत्यादि। vol. I. p. 290. It should be noted that अ्र. भा. (vol. I p. 290) on the prose words preceding verses 35-36 (called पनुवंश्यश्लोकs) explains अत्र as भाष्ये, i. e. it regards the prose passage as भाष्य on the सूत्र 'विभावा ... निष्पत्तिः'. From this it follows that the verses cited as 'anuvamsya' had already been composed and had been traditionally handed down from father to son or from teacher to pupil in relation to dramaturgy and were included in the Nātyasastra, but that they were not the composition of him who composed the Nātyaśāstra. As regards the words सूत्रानुविद्धे (v.1. सूत्रानुबद्धे) आर्ये भवतः, they mean that the verses are closely connected with the sūtra that precedes () or that they contain in easy language the meaning of the sutra (अनुविद्ध). It may be said chat such verses are the composition of the author himself. A. B. remarks on 'अपि च सुख०' (vol. I.p.311-12): एवं सूत्रार्थे परीक््य स्थापिते तदर्थस्य सुखग्रहयार्थ सूत्रार्थविवरणरूपत्वात्सूत्रसमीपेप्युपचित पाठात्कारिकामधुना पठति अपि चेति। न केवलं सूत्रं परीक्षापि यावदियं कारिकेति एवं सवंत्र मन्तव्यम्। तामेव कारिकां पठति सुखेति।'. These remarks may be applied also to the āryās quoted as sūtrānubaddha.

18 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

On भत्रार्या: (vol. I. p. 327-28) भभिनवगुप्त says that former teachers had composed and collected together āryas relating to rasas and matters connected with them from which Bharata took verses and inserted them at the proper places under different rasas 'ता एता ार्या एकप्रघट्टकतया पूर्वाचारयलक्षणत्वेन पठिताः। मुनिना सु सुखसंग्रहाय यथास्थानं निवेशिताः। (vol. I. p. 328). Though the prevailing metre in the Nātyaśāstra is Anustubh it frequently uses other metres also, as e. g. उपजाति (in chap. 20.26, 41,53 defining वृत्तिs), आर्या in 20. 64, 22.274-279, 23.42-62,25.95-103. Here G. O. S. ed. is used. Pages slightly vary in ed. of 1956. This shows that at least according to Abhinava the Națyasastra contains Aryas not composed by Bharata. The भावप्रकाशन quotes a verse from Vasuki, which is entered in the extant Natyasastra among five verses introduced with the words 'भवन्ति चात्र श्रोकाः ।' Or अत्र श्लोका: in the editions and in mss. (vide Ch. ed. chap. VI. 34-38, K. M. ed. chap. VI. 35-39, and G.O.S.ed. chap. VI. 38-42). नानाद्रव्यौषधैः पाकव्यंजजनं भाव्यते यथा। एवं भावा भावयन्ति रसानभिनयैःसह। इति वासुकिनाप्युक्ती भावेभ्यो रससम्भवः। (भा.प्र. pp.36-37). In the Ch. ed. (6.35) it reads 'नानाद्रव्यबद्ुविधव्यअ्नं ... यथा। एवं ... सइ I'; vide same verse in G. O. S. ed. vol. I. p. 294. As regards the rest of the portion of the extant Nātyasāstra it has been already shown that in some cases the number of verses varies by several hundreds in different mss. Therefore, it is very difficult to say what the original Nātyasāstra contained. If a very tentative theory may be advanced I would state it as follows: The present 6th and 7th chapters, chapters 8-14 dealing with abhinaya of various kinds, movements and gaits, chap. 17 to 35 were put together at one time. The prose portions in the 6th and 7th chapters and the Arya verses which Abhinava says were taken from older ācāryas were probably composed about 200 B. C. and were taken up into the work when the other chapters were composed. The reasons for this date are as follows: The Gautamadharmasūtra mentions (in XI. 19) Upavedas. Four Upavedas corresponding to the four Vedas are mentioned from very ancient times : viz. Ayurveda, Dhanurveda, Gandharvaveda and Arthaśāstra ( or Sthāpatya according to some).' In the Vanaparva(91. 14-15) it is said that Vide विष्णुपुराय III. 6. 28 for the four उपवेदs including. भर्थशाख and भागवत III. 12.38 for them, the 4th being भर्थशाख in

NĀȚYAŠĀSTRA 19

Arjuna learnt from Chitrasena, son of Viśvāvasu, Gandharvaveda which consisted of sama chants, singing, dancing and playing on musical instruments. The Santiparva 168.58 says the same thing, while Santi 210.21 states that Narada first propounded Gändharvaveda. There is a difference between Gāndharvaveda Nātyaveda. The first is an Upaveda of a restricted nature, while the latter as the fifth Veda meant for all varnas (including sūdras) was far more comprehensive and, as song and dance were only a part of it, it took over the teachings of the Gandharvaveda, as expressly stated by the Nātyasastra. The Nātyaśāstra states that Gandharva which was first propounded by Narada (as said by the Santiparva quoted above) has been declared by him (in chap. 32).1 The Nātyasāstra declares that Śrngāra is excited by flowers, Gändharva and the reading of kāvya &c.2 Too much emphasis should not, therefore, be laid (as done in I. H. Q. vol. VI. pp. 72-80) upon the fact that Gandharva and Nātya are separately mentioned in some places by the Natyasastra as in chap. 36. 49, 78 (गान्धर्वं चैव नाट्यं च यः सम्यगनुपश्यति। verse 78). This separate mention is due to the सामान्यविशेषन्याय or ब्राह्मणपरिव्राजकन्याय. The Nātyasāstra states in the very beginning that Brahma created the Nātyaveda which was connected with tne Vedas and Upavedas and which had grace and tenderness as its essence (वेदोपवेदैः सम्बद्धो नाटयवेदो महात्मना। एवं भगवता सृष्टो ब्रह्मणा ललितात्मकः॥ I. 18). The Hathigumpha Inscription of Khāravela styles Kharavela (the king of Kalinga) as 'Gandharvaveda-budhah' (E.I.vol. XX p. 71 at p. 79). That inscription is generally assigned to the 2nd century B. C.3 Therefore, the mayaaa must have been recognized. the latter. अनुशासनपर्व 104.49 states:गान्धर्वशास्त्रं च कला: परिश्ेया नराधिप। पुरायमितिहासाश्च तथाख्यानानि यानि च।. I गान्धर्वमेतत्कथितं मया हि पूर्व यदुक्तं त्विह नारदेन। कुर्याच्च एवं मनुजः प्रयोगं संमानम्यं कुशलेषु गच्छेत्।। नाटय० 32. 484. 2 ऋतुमाल्यालक्वार : प्रियजनगान्धवंकाव्यसेवाभिः। उपवनगमनविहारैः शभ्गाररसः समुद्भवति॥ नाट्य० 6.47. 3 Dr. D. C. Sircar places the inscription at the beginning of the Ist century A. D., but his arguments are vague, unconvin- cing and rather subjective. Vide I. H. Q. vol. 15 at p.41 for his views. The words of the inscription are: ततिये पुन वसे गंभर्ववेदयुषो दपनटगीतवादितसंदसनाहि उसवसमाजकारापनाहि कीडापयति नगरि. Should we read रूपनट० for दपनट० ? रूप may mean 'a dumb show' as in शान्तिपर्व 295: 4 or रूप may mean a play representedon the stage.

20 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

some centuries before Christ and the rana which includes its principles and practices may very well be placed about 200 B.C. It appears that the first chapter of the present Nātyasastra and probably the next four were added some centuries before the 5th A. D., as Kālidāsa, Bhavabhūti and Dāmodaragupta refer to the legend af Bharata being the promulgator of Nātya- sastra. That most of the chapters now found were in existence from at least the 3rd or 4th century A. D. follows from several considerations. Abhinavagupta who wrote his commentary on the Nātya- śāstra about 1000 to 1030 A. D. notes several interpreters of the N. S. He mentions that Udbhata read one verse in the 9th chapter differently.1 In the 18th chapter अभिनव reads 'वृत्तानि समव्रकारे कविभिस्तानि प्रयोज्यानि' (verse 76) and remarks that Udbhata read 'वृत्तानि समवकारे कविभिनैव प्रयोज्यानि (vol. II. p. 441).2 On chap. 19 v. 42 A. B. (vol. III. p. 28) notes that Udbhata speaks of vimarsa as avamarsa and explains it. In the same chap. on v. 69 A.B. (III p.36) criticises Udbhata for the order of the angas in the sandhi. Udbhata flourished, as will be proved below, in the latter half of the 8th century. So the 9th and 18th chapters of the present text existed long before the 8th century. On VI. 10 A. B. (vol. I. p. 266) notes that Lollata criticized the view of Udbhata. A. B. quotes the readings adopted by Lollata several times (vide vol. II. pp. 415, 423, 452). A. B. quotes the explana- tion of Śankuka on N.S. 3. 21-22 ( vol. I. p. 75 ), four verses from N. S., out of which two have different readings (which are, however, the same as those of Ch. ed. chap. 29 verses 123-124) . A. B. quotes (vol. II. pp. 411, 414) the commentary of Śańkuka on 18. 10 and 12 (Ch. ed. 20. 10 and 12). Śańkuka is mentioned by A. B. on chap. 19-42 (vol. III p. 28). So at least in the 8th century A.D. the principal chapters of the N. S. were in existence. We can push back the existence of the principal chapters a century or two before Udbhata if we consider what the Kāvyā- darsa (II. 281, 283, 286) says, viz. that रति, क्रोध, उत्साह, are स्थायि-

I The verse is उत्तानो वर्तलस्यस्त्रः स्थितोऽधोमुख एव च । पञ्न प्रचारा हस्तस्य नाटयनृत्तसमाश्रयाः। नाट्य 9. 182 (GOS. ed.). The अ. भा. says 'उत्तानो- ड्वस्तलसत्र्यश्रोऽग्रगोधोमुख एव च। पञ्न प्रचारा हस्तस्येति भटटोङ्भटः पठति' vol. II. p. 70. Vide Ch. ed. 9. 171-172 for the same verse. 2 Vide Ch. ed. chap. 20. 80 which reads नैव प्रयोज्यानि.

NĀȚYASĀSTRA 21

भावs of शृशार, रौद्र and वीर and that what are called सन्ध्यक, पृत्यक्न and agu in another tradition or authoritative work are regarded by it as alańkāras. 1 We can carry the matter back still further if we consider the implications of two verses in the Kumārasam bhava of Kā- lidāsa VII. 91 and 95.2 These refer to certain verses of the 6th, 21st and 22nd chapters of the extant Nātyasastra. Accepting the first half of the 5th century as the date of Kalidāsa ( on which most scholars are agreed ), it follows that the present Nātyaśāstra existed at least a century or two earlier than 350- 450 A. D., i. e. in the 3rd or 4th century, if not earlier. It may further be noted that in the drama ( prakarana ) called Śāriputraprakarana, fragments ofwhich were recovered by Prof. Lüders, there is a remarkably close coincidence between its technique and that of the Nātyasastra. In the present state of our knowledge the only work which could have been drawn upon by Aśvaghosa (who flourished about 100 A. D. ) must be deemed to be the Nātyasāstra. Vide Keith's H. S. D. p. 82-85 for this play and two others and Dr. B. C. Law on 'Asvaghosa' p. 33 ff. Songs and instrumental music occupied a very high place in Vedic times as will be briefly pointed out in part II. Before Pāņini Națasūtras had been composed by Šilālin and Krśāśva (IV. 3. 110, 111). But they appear to have been altogether forgotten and I have not been able to find their names men- tioned in any work on dramaturgy. Their names survive only in Sailālin and Krsāsvin ( and Bharata ) as synonyms for nata (acc. to the Amarakosa). The अमरकोश vesrse is 'शैलालिनस्तु शैलूषा जायाजीवा कृशाश्विनः । भरता इत्यपि नटाश्वारणास्तु कुशोलवाः॥'. The words

I यच्च सन्ध्यअ्वृत्त्त्यक्गलक्षणाद्यागमान्तरे। व्यावर्णितमिदं चेष्टमलक्कारतयैव नः॥ काव्यादर्श II. 367. Vide नाटयशास्त्र 21. 58-69 for 64 सन्ध्यक्, 22. 25-64 for वृत्तिs and their angas, chap. 17. 1-42 for 36 लक्षय. The commentators are agreed that आगमान्तरे means भरते. 2 तौ सन्धिषु व्यजितवृत्तिभेदं रसान्तरेषु प्रतिबद्धरागम्। अपश्यतामप्सरसां मुहूत प्रयोगमाधयं ललिताङहारम्॥ कुमारसंभव VII. 91; 'प्रमथमुखविकारर्हासयामास गूढम्'॥ VII. 95. The five सन्धिs are named in नाटयशास्त्र 21. 37, the वृत्तिs in 22. 24-57 and 65 (for कैशिकी in शृह्गार). नाटयशारत्र 22. 17 has the words सुललितैरहहार :- नाट्यशार्र VI. 44 is शव्ारो विष्णुदैवत्यो हास्य: प्रमथ- दैवतः'. So हास्य comes naturally to प्रमथs.

22 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

for नट, शैलालिन् and कृशाश्विन्, are provided for by Panini himself. वीरस्वामिन् derives भरत meaning 'नट' as भरतस्यापत्यं विदायणि बहुत्वे लुक्'. Acc. to it भरत proclaimed a नाटयशाख; those who studied it (and so may be called his sons or अपत्यs) would be called भरताः. The two Panini sutras would be अनृष्यानन्तर्यें बिदादिम्योऽम् (IV. 1. 104) and यम षोक्ष (II. 4. 64.) It is tempting to suggest that भरत originally meant नट, then भरत came to mean नटशास्त्र; and so when a नटशास्त्र was composed an author ara was invented for it. But the present author cannot accept such a conjecture. aa is a very ancient Vedic name. Vide a III. 33. 11 and 12, III. 53. 12 and 24 (मरतस्य पुत्राः), VII.33. 6 and भरत-दौष्पन्ति (दौष्यन्ति ?) is mentioned in शतपथ- ब्राक्मय XIII. 5. 4. li and 13 and also in ऐ. मरा. 39. 9; याश. स्मृति III. 162 uses भरत in the sense of नट. If a conjecture is to be hazarded it. would be more plausible to say that after Pāņini and some centuries before Kālidāsa a person called Bharata composed a work on the dramatic art (not necessarily the present 2T) which was improved into the present work. Gradually, orthodox opinion stiffened against actors, dancers and singers in the times of the Dharmasutras and early Smrtis. Ap. Dh. Ś. (I. 1. 3. 11-12) prescribes that a student was not to see dancing and not to frequent sabhās and samājas. Manu II. 178 provides that a student was to avoid dancing, singing and instrumental music. Gautama ( 15. 18 ) prescribes that those brähmanas that practised dancing, singing, playing on musical instruments and beating time were not to be invited to a dinner in honour of gods or Manes. Manu VIII. 102 recommends that brähmanas who are carpenters or actors should be treated as śūdras, holds (VIII. 65) that they were not fit to be witnesses and that an actor was unfit for being invited to a religious rite (III. 155) . afaqa (295. 4-5) allows a sūdra to resort to the stage and take the parts of women and to exhibit dumb shows (रभ्जावतरयं चैव तथा रूपोपजीवनम्।). Nata was a low caste and was included among the seven antyajas (vide History of Dharma- śāstra vol. II. pp. 70, 84). The Nāțyaśāstra makes a valiant attempt to raise the status of the dramatic art, places it on a very high pedestal and infuses a spiritual and religious element in it. t is with this view that probably the first five chapters were added. Abhinavagupta, a very erudite scholar and a great Saiva philosopher, takes a very reasonable, highly practical and philo- sophic view of the noble art of the drama (vol. I pp. 3-4). For

NĀȚYAŠĀSTRA 23

want of space only a small part is quoted here: "एतेन 'कामजो दशको गयः' इति वर्जनीयत्वेन नाव्यस्यानुपादेयतेति यत्केचिदाशशक्किरे तदयुक्तीकृतम्। याशवलाय- स्मृतिपुराखादौ चास्य प्रशंसाभूयस्त्वश्रवराद्। न चागमादृते धर्मोनुमानगम्य इति न्यायाद। एसत्तु वृथेवास्थानभीरून् प्रति शङ्काशमनार्थमभिधीयते नाम। तथाहि नटाना ताववेतत्स्वधर्माम्नायरुपतयानुष्ठेयमेव। न चास्माकं तन्चेष्टितं विच्यार्यम्। सोमक्रयोपदेशिनो हि वाक्यस्य न तदिक्रयिब्राह्मणन्तरगतकृत्याकृत्यविचारखोद्योगो युक्त। न चाप्यस्योपदिश्यते गायेन्नृत्येदिति।". एतेन refers to नाव्यशाख 36. 74-75 which promise the same reward for those who listen to or study the Nätyaveda or who perform a drama according to its rules as for one who studies the Veda or performs sacrifices or makes gifts. ng VII. 47 speaks of ten things which men do for pleasure and asks the king not to be addicted to them, viz. मृगयाचो दिवास्वप्नः परिवादः स्त्रियो मदः । तौयंत्रिकं वृथाट्या च कामजो दराको गयः॥. Taking into consideration all that has been stated above one may say that at least sometime before the 3rd or 4th century A. D. there was a recast1 made by one man in which were included prose passages in sūtra-bhāsya style, ancient āryā verses and ślokas together with kārikas composed by the recaster. Then in different places and at different times some verses came to be added here and there by people learned in the śāstra. The problems of the text of the Natyasastra, its authorship and its date will remain puzzles and matters of conjecture till the earlier dramatic works such as those of Kohala, Nandikeśvara and the commentaries of Udbhata and others are discovered. Turning to the question of the authorship of the Natya- sastra, many difficulties arise. Long before Abhinava's day there were people who held that the first six verses of chap. onel were composed by a pupil of Bharata and that the questions and answers in the body of the work also were composed by a pupil and the text by Bharata. Abhinavagupta emphatically discards this idea and holds that the whole work is Bharata's as there is no evidence for holding that it is the outcome of composite authorship and as authors very often employ the third person for themselves.2 He further combats the view of some teachers that were foremost among nāstikas that the Nātyaśāstra was com- I Vide Dr. De's History of Sanskrit Poetics vol .. I pp. 23-36 for views on the text of the Nātyasastra. 2 एकस्य अन्थस्यानेकवक्तृवचनसन्दर्भमयत्वे प्रमायाभावात् स्वपरव्यवहारेख पूर्व- पक्षोत्तरपक्ादीनां श्रुतिस्मृतिव्याकर णतर्कादिशास्त्रेष्वेकविरचिनेष्वपि दर्शनाद्। अभिनव- भारती vol. I. p. 9.

24 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

posed for establishing that out of three expounders, viz. Sadāsiva, Brahmā and Bharata, the views of Brahma were the most sub- stantial (पतेन सदाशिवत्रह्मभरतमतत्रयविवेचनेन ब्ह्ममतसारताप्रतिपादनाय मतत्रयी- सारासारविवंचनं तद्अन्थखएडप्रच्ेपेश विहितमिदं शास्त्रं न तु मुनिविरचितमिति यदा-

fa. T. I. p. 8).1 As stated above, the K. M. edition has at the end the words that the work is that of Nandi and Bharata and is concerned with sangita. It appears that Nandi (Nandikeśvara ?) had, according to some mss., something to do with the Nātya- sastra. Then there is Kohala whose relation with the Nātya- śastra is not quite clear. In chap. I. 26 among the hundred sons or pupils (at least 105 or 106 are actually enumerated in Ch. ed. I verses 26-39), whom Bharata is said to have instructed in Nātyaveda and its practice, 'Sāņdilya, Vātsya, Kohala and Dantila' are the first four. In the last chapter ( 36. 65 ) in a prophetic vein it is stated that Kohala will treat of all matters left out (in the Nātyasāstra) in a later (or additional) treatise and again (in 36. 71) it is said that the Nātyasastra was practised by Kohala, Vātsya, Sāņdilya and Dhūrtila. It appears that Kohala's work influenced the redactors of the Nātyasastra. Vide Mr. Kavi's Intro. pp. VI-VIII to vol. II. and Dr. De (H. S. P. vol. I. p. 25) for some works ascribed to Kohala. The A. B. very frequently mentions Kohala and in some places regards him as coeval with Bharata.2 Vide A. B. vol. I. pp. 25 ( where both Bharata and Kohala are brought together in relation to the Nāndī in Ratnāvali), 173 (where one pāda of Kohala's work appears to be quoted), 182 (two verses of Kohala quoted), 183 (one verse quoted), 266, vol. II. pp. 55, 130, 133, 142, 144, 146, 151, 155, 407, 410, 416-17, 421, 434, 452, 459. Considerations of space forbid me from going into any details about these passages. But I should like to clear up one passage of A. B. which has been misunderstood by Dr. Manomohan Ghosh I It is somewhat strange that Mr. Kavi writes (Intro. p. 6 to vol. I) : 'Abhinava ... clearly says that it represents three diffarent schools of opinion: viz. of Brahma, Sadasiva and, lastly, Bharata, i. e. the author's own views'. The above passage makes it clear that it is not Abhinava's view but of some arfeae- धुर्योपाध्यायs. 2 E.g. Vol.I. P. 48 ब्रह्मव कविः शक्र इव प्रयोजयिता भरत इव नाट्या- नामाचार्य: कोहलादय इव नटा :... I on chap. II. 1.

NĀȚY ASĀSTRA 25

(I. H. Q. vol. X. pp. 161 ff). He thinks that there is a conflict between Bharata and Abhinava, since on VI. 10 the latter says नाट्य is पश्चाङ and अभिनयs are three.1 When Dr. Manomohan Ghosh refers to N. S. VIII. 12 for नाट्य being षडड he is wrong. In VIII. 12 the reference is not to नाट्य in general but to आद्विका- faa which is spoken of in the preceding verse. Similarly, the view that नाव्य is पश्चाक is not that of अभिनव but of the शद्धs who hold that that was the view of Bharata and also hold that VI. 10 is not Bharata's view but Kohala's. That Abhinava does not subscribe to the views either of the Audbhatas or of Lollata is clear from the last sentence of the passage quoted. Kohala is mentioned in the same breath with Bharata as an authority on dancing in Dāmodargupta's Kuttanīmata (latter half of the 8th century A. D .. ).2 In the बालरामायण of राजशेखर there is a नाटयाचार्य कोहल who addresses Ravana with the words 'परमेष्ठिनो मानसभुवः प्रथमपुत्रस्य नाट्ययोनेर्भरताचार्यस्य कृतिरभिनवं सीतास्वयंवर इति नाटकं प्रयोक्तव्यम्' (before Act III. 12)3. The रसार्यवसुधाकर of शिक्ष्भूपाल mentions भरत, शाश्डिल्य, कोहल, दत्तिल and मतन as authors of works on नाटय (I. 50-52). The कुट्टनीमत (in verses 122-123) mentions दत्तकाचार्य (v. 1. दन्तिलाचार्य) along with कामशास writers like वात्स्यायन and दन्तिल along with भरत and विशाखिल. A Dattakasutravrtti is mentioned in Epigraphia Carnatica vol. IX. D. B. 68 of 517 A.D. as composed by Madhava son of Konganivarma from whom Avinita was 4th in decent and whose son made the grant in Ep. Car. Whether the two are identical is doubtful. दन्तिल is one of the भरतपुत्र (नाट्य. I. 26). Mr. Kavi (in J. A.H. R.S. vol. III. p. 24) says that Dattila is authoritative on TarS and arers and that his work is called गान्धववेदसार and is available.4 Mr. Kavi (Intro. to vol. I. p. 6) quotes a passage from the I संग्रहं दशयति रसा भावा इत्यादिना। ... अभिनयत्रयं गीतातोधे चेति पञ्चाक्ग नाट्यम् -...... अ्रनेन तु श्लोकेन कोहलमते एकादशाऊत्वमुच्यते न तु भरते। तत्सङगृहीत- स्यापि पुनरत्रोद्देशात् निर्देशे चैतत्क्रमव्यत्यासनादित्यौङ्भटाः । नैतदिति भट्टलोल्लटः । ... वयं त्वत्र तत्त्वमग्रे वितनिष्याम इ्त्यास्तां तावत् । vol. I. pp. 265-266. 2 विटखटके का नृत्यति कोइलभरतोदितक्रियया ॥81. 3 Vide my paper 'Fragments from Kohala' in Proccedings of All India O. Conference at Patna (1930) pp. 577-580. 4 अभिनवगुप्त (vol. I. p. 205) quotes an अनुष्टभ verse from दत्तिल on a ध्रुवा (G.O. S. ed. नाटयशाख IV. 326 p. 205=Ch.ed. IV. 316-317.

26 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Yamalastakatantra in which it is said that the Upaveda Gāndharva comprises 3,000 ślokas. The Bhāvaprakāśana (G. O.S. ed., X. 34-35) states that Bharatas made up two epitomes from the Natyaveda, one containing 12000 ślokas and the other containing 6000 ślokas. Mr. Kavi asserts ( in J. A. H. R. S. vol. III. at p. 23) that qanra wrote a work in 12000 granthas a part of which is now available, while Bharata produced the Natyasastra in 6000 slokas. The भावप्रकाशन of शारदातनय (1175- 1250 A. D.) says that Bharata dealt with rasas in Nātyaveda and that Bharatavrddha with the prose portion, of which it gives a sample (एवं हि नाट्यवेदेऽस्मिन् भरतेनोच्यते रसः। नथा भरतवृद्धेन कथितं गद्य- मीदृसम् । यथा नानाप्रकारव्यजनौषध: पाकविशेषश्व &c.).1 In the B.O. R. I. cat. of mss. (vol. XII. p. 453) there is a work called नाट्यसवस्व- दीपिका, that professes to be a commentary on आदिभरत which comprised five skandhas (समवाय, शिक्षा, भाव, उल्लास, वैशेषिक) divided into 32 chapters, 221 prakaranas and which contained 6000 ślokas. Some commentators of Sanskrit dramas quote verses from both आदिभरत and भरत. For example, Raghavabhatta in his commentary अरथय्योतनिका on the शाकुन्तल quotes at least 17 times verses from आदिभरत (most of which are either found in the extant Nāțyasāstra or have their parallels in the present work) and at least eleven times from Bharata. It is to be noted that when quoting from Bharata he often makes a reference to the chapter and then quotes a verse or verses,ª but in the case of Adibharata he merely quotes a verse or verses and refers to no chapter. It is possible that Raghavabhatta had before him two separate mss., of which one was called आदिभरत and the other भरत, though many passages were common to both. In one place he has the following interesting passage 'सूत्र-मूलभरतटीकाकाराभिनवगुप्ताचार्यसंमता श्रवान्तररूपाष्टपदा मूलकारेय स्वयमेव द्वादशपदोदाहता'. It appears that he makes a distinction between सूत्र and मूलभरत. It is generally com- paratively later writers that make a distinction between आरदिभरत and भरत. For example, बहुरूपमिश्र in his commentary on the दशरूपक

I This गद्य is very like the passage 'यथा नानाव्यअनौषधिद्रव्यसंयोगात् & c. (in chap. VI. p. 71 after the रससूत्र in Ch. ed.). 2 भरतः प्रथमाध्याये 'पूर्व कृता मया नान्दी०'. (I.57); पञ्चमाध्याये च 'सूत्रधारः पठेशान्दी०' (V. 106-107); पञ्चमाध्याये भरतः-नमोस्तु सर्वदेवेभ्य:० (V. 107- 111); तथा च षोडशाध्याये भरतः-विभूषरं चाक्षरसंहतिश्च (K.M. 16. 1-4 footnote).

NĀȚYAŚĀSTRA 27

quotes a घट्सहस्रीकार (i. e. भरत'S नाट्यशाख) 'सूत्रयं सकलाक्कानां शेयमङ्कमुखं सु्ध :- इति घट्सहस्रीकारः' and another from द्ादशसहस्त्रीकार 'समाप्यमान एतस्मिन्नितराङ्स्य सूचनम्। समासतो हि नाट्यशरक्कावतर इष्यते।। इति द्वादशसहस्त्रीकारः' Vide J. O. R., Madras, vol. 8 pp. 321-334 (Dr. Raghavan on बहुरूपमिश्र) at pp. 329-30. Vide Dr.Raghavan on 'Later Sangita Literature' in Journal of Music Academy of Madras p. 82 and Dr. S. K. De. in Our Heriltage, I, part 2. In other branches of literature also the same work is sometimes styled वृहद् or वृद्ध. For example, the विष्णुधर्मसूत्र (17. 4-16 अपुत्रधनं पत्न्यभि. &C.) is cited as वृद्धविष्णु by the मिताक्षरा on या. II. 135-136 and the व्यवहारसार (p.252) and as बृहद्विष्णु in the स्मृतिच. II. 298, व्यवहारप्रकाश, मदनरत्न. It is possible that two different mss. of wRa containing different numbers of verses were styled आदिभरत and भरत. On this question of आदिभरत and भरत vide Prof. D. R. Mankad on 'आदिभरत and नाट्यसवंस्वदीपिका' in ABORI vol. XIII pp. 173, 179, Prof.P.K. Gode on the so-called MS. of आदिभरत in the Mysore Govt. Library in ABROI vol. XIII pp. 92-93 and Prof. Manomohan Ghosh on the quotations of आदिभरत and भरत from the commentary of राघवभट्ट in ABORI vol. XV pp. 89-96. The net result of these papers is that the view of the present author in the preceding sentence is greatly supported. In the Natyasastra itself the word ara is used in the sense of actor: पृष्ठे कृत्वास्य कुतपं नाटयं युङके यतोमुखं भरतः। सा पूर्वा मन्तव्या प्रयोगकाले तु नाट्यश: ॥ 14.65 (K. M. 13. 61, G. O. S. 13.66). From the above discussion it would be clear that it is very difficult to say who the author of the original kernel of the Nātyasāstra was. Holding as I do that the first five chapters were later additions, it is not possible for me to say who the author of the prose passages and the versified chapters about abhinaya, daśa- rupaka, and other closely allied subjects was. When the first five chapters were added it was easy to say that Bharatamuni who had access to the heavenly world as well as to the mundane world was the author of the Natyasastra. In this connection attention must be drawn to the fact that the word 'bharata' means an actor in the comparatively old smrti of Yājñavalkya (III. 162) 'यथा हि भरतो वर्यैवर्षयत्यात्मनस्तनुम्। नानारूपायि कुर्वारस्तयात्मा कर्मजास्तनूः।।'.1 This verse is explained by all commentators including Visvarupa.

I This verse occurs almost in the same words in GUTRTT p.294 (Jiv.)

28 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

It is quite possible that some one who had mastered the traditional lore of the histrionic art and was well-disposed to bharatas (actors) put together most of the present Nātyasastra and in order to glorify the tribe of bharatas passed it on as the work of a mythical hero. Such things are common in Sanskrit Literature. The whole of the vast Purana literature is foisted on Vyasa, but hardly anyone can believe that the 18 Purānas and 18 Upapuranas are the work of one man called Vyāsa. The word ai4 used with regard to certain āryas and ślokas points in the direction of a mass of verses being already available for inclusion in a formal treatise on nātya. The extant Nātyasāstra mentions that it summarizes the views of ancient ācāryas on शब्दलक्षय 'पूर्वाचार्येरुक्तं शब्दानां लक्षणं तु विस्तरशः । पुनरेव संहृतार्थ लक्षयतः संप्रवच्यामि ।' (Ch. ed. 15. 22, K.M. 14.22; but G. O. S. 14. 24 omits reference to पूर्वाचार्य). The भावप्रकाशन (10th अधिकार pp. 285- 287) narrates a legend about the origin of the नाट्यवेद. It states that Siva ordered नन्दिकेश्वर to teach नाटयवेद to ब्रह्मा before whom appeared Bharata with five pupils, to whom Brahmā said 'bear this Natyaveda' (तानबरवीन्नाट्यवेदं भरतेति पितामहः). Therefore, the first actors were called Bharatas and they first staged a play before Manu who wanted some pastime to remove his weariness arising from governing the world. The Bharatas taking the elements from Nātyaveda made two epitomes, one in 12000 verses and the other in six thousand verses and so the latter came to be known after the Bharatas: 'नाटयवेदाच्च भरतः सारमुद्धृत्य सर्वतः। ... एकं द्वादशसाहस्रः श्लोकरेकं तदर्धतः । षड्भि: श्लोकसहस्त्र्यों नाट्यवेदस्य संग्रहः । भरतैर्नामतस्तेषां प्रख्याता भरताहया:॥'. This legendary account probably shows that the author of aET was not prepared to accept the extant Nātyasāstra as the work of a mythical Bharata but that he ascribed its composition to bharatas who had studied Nātya. This gives support to my hypothesis stated above. rarfa and 1T₹ are mentioned as expounders of arava and aru (chap. 33. 3 and 32. 484). The extant N. S. mentions an author Guha on metrics (Ch. 16. 112, K. M. 15. 110; G. O. S. text adopts in vol. II. p. 281 a different reading for JarfadT). Narada is mentioned in connection with aTs (Ch. 32. 1, K. M. 32. 1). In the extant work (Ch. ed. 4. 17-19) it is stated that Tandu instructed Bharata in the representation of angahāras together with various karaņas (postures) and recakas (gestures). Abhinavagupta remarks that the words Tandu and Muni employed in the N. S. stand

NĀŢYAŚĀSTRA 29

for Nandin and Bharata (तएडुमुनिशब्दौ नन्दिभरतयोरपरनामनी। त्र.भा. vol. I p. 90). The extant N. S. mentions Kāmatantra (a work on Erotics) in Ch. ed. 24. 182 and 25. 65 (=K. M. 22. 183 and 23. 52). arrear is mentioned in 24. 142 (but omitted in K. M.). The views of Brhaspati are relied on for reciting the qualifications of the king, the commander-in-chief, the ministers, the chief justice, &c. (बृहस्पतिमतादेतान् गुणांश्चाप्यभिलक्षयेत्। 34. 79 of Ch. ed., 24. 72 K. M.). In order to keep up the pretence or illusion of the revelation of the N. S. by Brahmā to Bharata, Kauțilya, well-known as a human author, was probably ignored and Bra- haspati (the guru of gods) was mentioned as a writer on Artha- sāstra.1 A purāna is mentioned in connection with the names of countries 'अन्येपि देशाः प्राच्यां ये पुराणे संप्रकीर्तिताः। तेषु प्रयुज्यते त्वेषां प्रवृत्तिश्चौ- HITOT II (14. 46, K. M. 13. 42, G. O. S. 13. 48). There are in the N. S. references to others' views in the words अन्ये, अन्यस्त, While these pages were passing through the press a recent work by Shri K.M. Varma on 'seven words in Bharata : what do they signify' (Orient Longmans, 1958) came to the present author's hands. The writer takes up seven words viz. सूत्र, भाष्य, सङ्ग्रह, निरुक्त, कारिका, आनुवंश्य and निदर्शन (occurring in chap. 6 and 7 the नाट्यशास्त्र) and discusses their meanings and arrives at his own conclusions. They cannot be examined in detail here. His main conclusion (on p. 88) is that before Bharata there was already a sūtra work on nātya and a bhāsya thereon and also a third work containing ānuvamśya verses based on that sūtra and its bhasya by authors now unknown and he gives at the end a long list of what portions were sutras and bhasya. The most damaging argument against this is : when Bharata mentions Svāti, Nārada, Kohala, Vātsya, Dhūrtila and others why should not the names of the three or at least of one of them appear in नाटयशास्त्र A brief outline of the contents of the Natyasastra would not be out of place here. It is given here from the Ch. edition chapter by chapter. It is to be regretted that the numbering of the chapters and the total verses in the chapters differ very often in the Chaukhamba and the G. O. S. editions ; where no mention is made of any edition the reference is to the Ch.

I Vide my History of Dharmaśāstra vol. I. pp. 123-125 for references to Brhaspati's work in Arthaśāstra.

30 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

edition, but it is possible that by oversight some mistakes occur for which indulgence is requested. The greatest divergence is in the vol. III. of G. O. S. ed. I Ātreya and other sages ask five questions of Bharata, viz. how the Natyaveda came into existence, for whose sake, what its angas (subsidiary matters). are, what are the means for arriving at sure conclusions, how it is to be represented on the stage (Abhinavagupta1 says these questions are not dealt with seriatim, but the answers are scattered over the whole work). The Vedas cannot be studied by śūdras and so Brahmā ordered Bharata to produce a fifth Veda meant for all varnas2; Bharata took the matter to be recited in dramas from the Rgveda, sing- ing from the Samaveda, the abhinayas (acting) from the Yajurveda and the Rasas from the Atharvaveda. Bharata taught Nātya- veda to his 100 sons (pupils): 2 Details of the construction of a theatre (nātya-mandapa, in verses 3 and 6, preksāgrha in v. 7)3; columns («) should be raised; the theatre should have two separate portions and should appear like a mountain cave; pictures should be drawn on the walls and seats for spectators should be made of bricks or wood; 3 worship of several deities such as महादेव, ब्रह्मा, विष्णु, वृहस्पति, गुह and seeking their blessings

I 'वयं तु ब्रम :- नात्र क्रम: कश्चित्। अपि तु यथावसरं महावाक्यात्मना षट्सहत्त्री- रूपंख प्रधानतया प्रश्नपञ्चकनिरुपणपरेण शास्त्रेय तत्त्वं निर्यीयते न तु क्रम: कश्चित। अभिनवभारती, I. p. 8. 2 न वेदव्यवहारोयं संश्राव्यः शूद्रजातिषु। तस्मात्सजापरं वेदं पञ्चमं सार्ववर्णिकम्। नाट्य. 1 12. 3 Vide Dr. Raghavan in 'Triveni' for 1931 on 'Theatre Architecture in Ancient India', last part, pp. 69-77 and vol. V. (for 1932-33) pp. 357-366 and Mr. D. R. Mankad in I. H. Q. vol. VIII. pp. 480-499 on 'The Hindu Theatre'. Acc. to नाटय. 2. 8-11 theatres were of three kinds : विकृष्ट (elongated i.e. rectangular), चतुरस्र (square) and त्रयस्त्र (triangular) and each of these was either ज्येष्ठ or मध्यम or भवर (of 108, 64 or 32 हस्तs or दएडs) and each was measured in हस्तs or दएड (दएड=four हस्तs). मध्यम is the proper one for men and 64 Fas in length and 32 in breadth, as otherwise the speeches will be indistinctly heard. शारदातनय, author of भावप्रकाशन, states that he was taught नाटयवेद by a brahmana दिवाकर who was नाट्यशालापति (भा. प्र. I. p. 2).

NĀȚYAŚĀSTRA 31

for the play; 4 performance of a play1 called za~a before the gods and of त्रिपुरदाह before महादेव; तएडु instructed Bharata as to the various srars (movements of the limbs), arus (postures),2 and as (gestures); origin and technique of the arueq dance; dancing by itself serves no special purpose in dramatic representation, it lends charm to the songs sung;3 5 remarks on पूवरङ्, नान्दी,4 ध्रुवा, प्रस्तावना; 6 five questions of sages, viz. why rasas are so called, what are भावs, संग्रहकारिका & c .; the eleven elements of the sastra in a nutshell (sangraha) are Rasas, Bhavas, Abhinayas, Dharmi, Vrtti, Pravrtti, Siddhi, Svaras, Ātodya, Gāna and Ranga; meanings of kārika, nirukta; the eight (or nine) rasas,5 I The Padmapurāna (V. 12. 81) states that Bharata staged a drama called Laksmīsvayamvara for the gods, in which Urvasi acting the part of Laksmi forgot abhinaya, being engrossed in thoughts about Pururavas and was cursed by Bharata. 2 In the G. O. S. edition of the अभिनवभारतो (vol. I. chap. 4) illustrations of the 108 karanas that are enumerated in verses 34-55 are given, being copied from figures cut into rocks in the east and west gopuras in the Natarāja temple at Chidambaram, where appropriate verses from the Natyasastra are engraved under each posture. The figures were cut in the 13th century A. D. Vide the pictorial Journal 'Marg', vol. V. No. 2 for 108 karanas drawn in line from the carved ones on a gopuram in the Chidambaram temple of Natarāja (pp. 52-71). The 108 dance (Karaņas) poses in chap. 4 of Bharata's Nātyaśāstra are here carved systematically and each sculpture has an inscription (i. e. a verse from chap. 4) describing its structure. In G. O. S. ed. they are verses 61-169. 3 The नाटयशास्त्र says: अत्रोच्यते न खल्वर्थ नृत्त कंचिदपेक्षते। कि तु शोभां जनयतीत्यतो नृत्तमिदं स्मृतम ॥ प्रायेश सर्वलोकस्य नृत्तमिष्टं स्वभावतः। मङल्यमिति कृत्वा च नृत्तमेतत्प्रकीर्तितम्॥ विवाहप्रसवावाहप्रमोदाभ्युदयादिषु। विनोदकरणं चैव नृत्तमेतत् प्रकीर्तितम् । ... गीतप्रयोगमाश्रित्य नृत्यमेतत् प्रनृत्यताम् । chap. 4.260- 263, 265. 4 Vide I. H. Q. vol, 17 (1941) pp. 359-369 for a historic treatment of Nāndi. 5 From the Abhinavabhärati it appears that there were two recensions of the Nātyasastra, one dealing with nine rasas (including śānta), which is contained in the G. O. S. edition and the other speaking of only eight rasas by excluding santa contained in the Chowkhamba edition. Vide a learned papcr of

32 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the eight sthāyibhāvas, the 33 vyabhicāribhāvas, eight sāttvika- bhavas, four kinds of abhinaya(भाङिक, वाचिक, आाहार्य, and सात्त्विक), two kinds of धर्मी (viz. लोकधर्मी and नाटयधर्म); four vrttis ( भारती, सात्व्रती, कैशिकी, आरभटी); the pravrttis (शरवन्ती, दाकिखात्या, श्रोड्रमागधी, पाञ्चाली); siddhi (of two kinds, दैवी and मानुषी), the seven svaras (sadja, rsabha &c.), the four kinds of musical instruments (aa, अवनद्ध, धन, सुषिर), five kinds of gana (singing), ranga (mandapa: square, elongated or triangular); how rasa is evolved by farrra, अनुभाव and व्यभिचारिभाव; relation of rasas to each other and to bhavas; colours and superintending deities (adhidaivata) of the rasas; detailed treatment of several rasas, their sthāyibhāvas; 7 detailed treatment of bhāvas, vibhāvas, sthāyibhāvas (viz. rati &c.) and vyabhicāribhāvas, viz. nirveda, glāni &c.(in all 33); the eight sāttvika bhavas, viz. stambha &c .; 8 detailed description of the four kinds of acting, viz. sāttvika (already described as stambha, perspiration, tremor, horripilation &c.), āngika, vācika and aharya; 9 the various movements and positions of the hands, the chest, the sides, the abdomen, the waist, legs and feet in nātya1; 24 postures of the hand such as patāka, tritatāka when not joined and 13 postures of the joined hands such as añjali, svastika; 27 nrttahastas; definitions and employment of the above mentioned 64 movements and postures of the hands; other kinds of movements and hands may be employed in accordence with rasa, bhava, and actions, the requirements of time and place; the postures of hands in dancing; 10 five kinds of the movements of the chest, the sides, the waist and other parts of the body, their definitions and employments on occasions; 11 definitions of Cārī (gait),2 Khanda, Karana, and Mandala; definitions of 16 carīs (called bhaumyah, of land) and 16 of the sky and when they are to be employed; how archery is represented in a drama; who should not be made to undergo rapid movements and Prof. K. C. Pandey on 'Dhanañjaya and Abhinavagupta' in N. I. A. vol. VI pp. 272-282 in which the arguments for and against śnta rasa are well marshalled. I On 9. 27 एवमेष प्रयोक्तव्यः स्ीपुंसाभिनये करः, the शर. भा. (vol. II. P.31) remarks: स्त्रीपुंसयोरुभयोरषि अभिनेत्रोरमिनेययोर्वा. So, women also were engaged as actresses in Abhinava's day at all events. Vide also 9. 155. 2 एकपादप्रचारो थः सा चारीत्यभिसंशिता। द्विपादक्रमणं यत्तु करणं नाम तद्द्रवेत्।। ... यदेतत्प्रस्तुतं नाट्यं तच्चारीष्वेव संश्ञितम् । नाट्य. XI. 3 and 6.

NĀȚYASĀSTRA 33

great exertion in a dramatic part; 12 number of mandalas and their definitions; 13 the proper gaits of characters according to the rasa and the place when they enter the stage to the accompaniment of the lute and other instruments and after the Dhruvagana has started; the time taken in traversing the stage in the case of characters supposed to be gods or kings, of men of middle rank and of women and men of lower rank; gaits in representing Raudra, Bibhatsa, Vira and other rasas and movements of the body when representing wounds, cold or persons who are ascetics or are intoxicated or mad &c .; 14 the distribution of space in the nātyamandapa as regards musical instruments, as regards representation of houses, gardens, forests, land and water &c; each Act (anka) should depict action taking place in a moment or in a muhūrta, a watch, one day at the most; then, a new Act may be begun by skipping over eventss occurring in a month or a year; the four kinds of pravrttis which depend upon the combinations of the country, the dress, the languages, the manners; the pravrttis are Āvantī, Dākșiņātyā, Pāñcālī, Odra-māgadhī; the countries that are included under the four groups together with the vrttis associated with each pravrtti; two kinds of nātyaprayoga viz. sukumāra (graceful and delicate) and aviddha; the plays called, डिम, समवकार, व्यायोग and ईहामृग are known as आविद्ध and the rest of the ten rupakas as JEFHIT; lokadharmī and nātyadharmī defined and1 illustrated; 15 Vācikābhinaya based on svaras (vowels) and consonants; speech is the body of nātya and angika acting, dresses and theatrical devices suggest the sense of what is being said; disquisition on svaras, consonants, nouns, verbs, upasargas, adverbs, compounds &c .; recitation (in a drama) is either in Sanskrit or in Prākrt or both; metres (chandas) containing from one to 26 syllables; several varieties of each metre; their numbers are vast; the

I Vide Dr. Raghavan's very lucid -. and detailed article on Lokadharmī and Nalyadharmi in Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, vol. VII. pp. 359-375 and vol. VIII. pp. 57-74. a defines: स्वावभावोपगतं शुद्धं त्वविकृतं तथा। लोकवार्ताक्रियोपेतमझलीलाविवर्जितम्॥ स्वभावाभिनयोपेतं नानासतीपुरुवाश्रयम्। यदीदृशं भवेननाट्यं लोकधर्मी तु सा स्मृता॥ ... योयं स्वभावो लोकस्य सुखदुःखक्रियात्मकः। सोक्रामिनयसंयुक्तो नाट्यधर्मी तु सा स्मृता॥ नाट्य. 14.70-71 and 78. कल्विनाथ illustrates (सं. र. p. 629) 'वाक्याभिनये केवलवाक्योश्वारणं लोकधर्मी रागयुक्तवाक्योच्चारएं नाट्यप्मी'.

34 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

scheme of eight ganas (such as bha, ma, ja); meaning of guru, laghu, yati; 16 the metres (vrtta) to be employed in dramas, their definitions and examples; sama and vişama metres, Āryās; 17 enumeration of 36 lakşaņas in kāvya that is to be represented on1 the stage and their definitions; four alankāras of Nātaka viz. Upamā, Rūpaka, Dīpaka and Yamaka and their sub-divisions and illustrations; the ten blemishes of kāvya (kāvyadoșa); the ten guņas of kāvya and their definitions; 18 Prākrit recitation in dramas is of three kinds, just like Sanskrit, vibhrasta (in which vowels and consonants of Sanskrit are changed) and desi; what characters are to speak Sanskrit, Prakrit or other dialects; Sauraseni to be the principal Prākrt but there are six other (bhasas) prakrts viz. मागधी, अवन्तिजा, प्राच्या, अर्धमागधी, बाह्ोका, दाक्षियात्या that may be employed according to the desire of the actors; who are to use these; dialects of sabaras, ābhīras, cāņdālas, sacara (? śakāra), dravidas, odras (Orissa people) and of forest tribes are called vibhâșa; 19 the various modes of addressing high, middling or low characters, such as saying ārya to a brāhmana and maharaja to a king; names of persons of the three varņas should respectively end in śarma, varma and datta; names of courtezans should end in dattā, mitrā and senā; the gunas of pāțhya; seven musical notes (svaras viz. șadja, rsabha &c.), the three sthanas (chest, throat and head); four svaras viz. 34T, अनुदास्त, स्वरित, कम्पित; the two kinds of kaku; the alankaras viz. उच्च, दीस, मन्द्र, नीच, द्रुत and विलम्बित); 20 disquisition on ten varieties of plays (noted below)2; description of contents and characte-

I Vide Dr. Raghavan's paper on 'the concept of laksanas in Bharata' in J. O. R., Madras, vol. VI. pp. 54-82 and in 'Some concepts of the Alankāra-śāstra' (1942) pp. 1-47; 'Doctrine of lakşanas' in Poona Orientalist vol. XVI part 1, pp. 11-33 by Prof. S. P. Bhattächarya. ara says in the last line of chap. 16 'काव्यबन्धास्तु कर्तव्याः षट्त्रिशल्लक्षणान्विताः'. As observed by Abhinava himself these laksanas faded into the background and some of these like asih and drstanta came to be names of ueaRs: 'तत्र गुणालंकारादिरिति वृत्तयश्चेति काव्येषु प्रसिद्धो मार्गो लक्षयानि तुन प्रसिद्धानि' भ. भा. vol. II. p. 294. There were ten पनs about them: इदं तु दशपचयां वस्तु ॥vol. II. p. 297. 2 नाटकं सप्रकरणमको व्यायोग एव च। भारः समवकारश्ष वीधी प्रहसनं डिमः॥ र्ईद्दामृगं च विशेयं दशमं नाट्यलक्यम्। नाट्य. 20. 2-3.

NĀȚYAŠĀSTRA 35

rristics of the first variety (nataka) out of the dasarupas; what incidents may be represented or not represented on the stage1; the technique of pravesaka and vişkambhaka; the characteristics of a prakarana and the other kinds of dramatic representations and the definitions of their angas ; 21 the plot of the drama; it has a dominant part (ādhikārika) and a subsidiary one (prāsangika) ;. there are five sandhis; five avasthas (प्रारम्भ, प्रयत्न &c) ; five artha- prakrtis wiz. बीज, बिन्दु, पताका, प्रकरी, कार्य, and their definitions; sandhyantaras; the 64 angas (constituents) of the five sandhis (viz. 12 each of mukha and garbha, 13 each of pratimukha and vimarśa and 14 of nirvahana) and their definitions; five arthopa- ksepakas (devices referring to incidents that have happened during the intervals of the Acts and that are not to be represent -. ed on the stage) viz. बिष्कम्भक, चूलिका, प्रवेशक, अक्कावतार and अ्रङ्कमुख; there is no action, no knowledge, no lore, nor kalā and no craft that cannot be2 represented or cannot be useful in a Nātaka; 22 (or chap. 20 of GOS ed.) the four vrttis, called भारती, सात्वती कैशिकी, आरभटी, their mythical origin at the time of the fight of Visnu with the asuras Madhu and Kaitabha; the origin of the four vrttis3 respectively from ऋग्वेद, यजुर्वेद, सामवेद and आथर्वणवेद; four sub-divisions (aa) of each of the four vrttis and their definitions; particular rasas for which each of the four vrttis was to be employed; 23 dramatic representation is centred in I. क्रोधप्रसादशोका: शापोत्सर्गोडय विद्रवोद्ाहौ। अद्भुतसंश्रयदर्शनमङ्कप्रत्यक्षजानि म्युः ॥ युद्वं राज्यभ्रंशो मरणं नगररोधनं चैव। अप्रत्यक्षकृतानि प्रवेशकैः संविधेयानि ॥ अङ्कप्रवेशके वा प्रकरणमाश्रित्य नाटकं वापि। न वध: कर्तव्यः स्याद्योभ्युदयी नायकः ख्यातः ॥ नाट्य. 20. 20-22. Vide अ्र.भा. vol.II. pp. 426-427(chap.18) for several views on the question of representing death on the stage directly. अभिनव० (vol. II. p. 426) is against it (तस्माद्रङ्ग मरमप्रयोज्यमेव). 2. न तज्ज्ञानं न तच्छििल्पं न सा विद्या न सा कला। न तत्कर्म न योगोऽसौ नाटके यन्न दृश्यते ॥ नाट्य. 21. 122. It is also नाट्य. I. 113-114. अ्र. भा. comments (vol. I. 42) 'ज्ञानमित्युपादेयमात्मज्ञानादि। ... विद्या दएडनीत्यादि। ... योगो योजनं तेषामेव ज्ञानादीनां कलान्तानां स्वमेदैरन्योन्यस्त्रभेदः। ... कर्मेति युद्ध- नियुद्धादिर्व्यापार:।.' 3. या वाक्प्रधाना पुरुषप्रयोज्या स्रीवर्जिता संस्कृतवाक्ययुक्ता। स्वनामघेयर्भरतः प्रवुत्ता सा भारती नाम भवेतु वृत्तिः ॥ नाट्य० 22.25 (or 20.26 G. O. S. ed.) In अलक्कार works वृत्ति has several meanings. 4. Vide Dr. Raghavan on vrttis in J. O. R., Madras, vol. VI. pp. 346-370 and vol. VII. pp. 33-52 and 91-112 and in 'Some concepts of the Alankara-sastra' pp. 182-193. The rara-

36 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PEOTICS

āharyabhinaya which is based on nepathya (costumes, ornaments and devices of representing)1; nepathya is of four kinds, viz. Jra, अलक्वार, अङ्रचना सञ्जीव (G. O. S. ed. reads सज्जीव in 21. 5 and सजीव in 21.1 61); the definitions of these; pusta means figures made with cloth or hides for representing hills, carts, and the like; alankāra includes garlands, ornaments (from head to foot) and clothes to be worn by male and female characters of various countries and cities, tilaka, collyrium in eyes, colouring the teeth and lip; angaracana includes painting the body in order to represent the complexions of kings, well-to-do people, of kirātas, āndhras, śakas, yavanas, śūdras &c .; training the moustache and beard; sañjiva means devices to represent four- footed animals, bipeds, birds, snakes; the upakaraņas of nāta and artificial weapons; 24 (or 22 of G. O. S.) Sāmānyābhinaya (that acting that has not yet been described but must be descri- bed); outward manifestations of Hra; alankaras of young women which are angaja are three viz. भाव, हाव, हेला; ten are स्वभावज, लीला, विलास &c. and 7 are अयत्नज viz. शोभा, कान्ति, दीप्ति, माधुर्य, धर्य, प्रागल्भ्य and औदार्य; definitions of these; the manifestations of सत्त्व in males viz. JinT &c .; bodily abhinaya in relation to rasa and bhāva; twelve kinds of abhinaya as to the recitation part of a drama, such as आलाप, प्रलाप, विलाप &c .; all these are वाक्याभिनय; represen- tation of hearing, touch, seeing, tasting &c. and of desirable or undesirable matters how done; description of women of various types; ten कामावस्थाS viz. अभिलाष, चिन्तन, अनुस्मृति, गुणकीर्तन, उद्वेग, विलाप, उन्माद, व्याधि, जडता, मरण and the description of their representation; sending of दूती; eight kinds of नायिका viz, वासकसज्जा, स्वाधीनपतिका, अमिसारिका &c. how represented on the stage, since the Spectators include fathers and sons, daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law2, सुधाकर (pp.69-71) gives fanciful derivations of the names भारती &c .; from chap. 15 to 22 the नाट्यशाख deals with वाचिकाभिनय. I. आहार्याभिनयो नाम श्ेयो नेपथ्यजो विधिः । तत्र कार्यः प्रयत्नस्तु नाट्यस्य शुभमिच्छता ॥ नाट्य. 23. 2. or 21.3 in G.O.S. ed. and अ.भा. explains 'समस्ताभिनयप्रयोगचित्रस्य भित्तिस्थानीयमाहार्यम्. Vide Dr. G. S. Ghurye's brochure on 'Bharatanatya and its costume' published by Popular Book Depot, Bombay 1958. 2 न कार्य शयनं रङ्गे नाट्यधर्म विजानता । ... चुम्बनालिशनं चैव तथा गुह्यां च यद्द्रवेत्। दन्तं नखक्षतं छ्ेदं नीवीस्रंसनमेव च। स्तनाधरविमर्द च रक्मध्ये न कारयेत्। भोजनं सलिलक्रीडां तथा लब्जाकरं तु यत् । ... पितृपुत्रस्नुषाश्वश्नदश्यं यस्मात्तु नाटकम्। तस्मादेतानि सर्वाशि वर्जनीयानि यत्नतः ॥ नाव्य. 24. 285-289 ( 22.296-298 G.O.S. ).

NĀȚYA SĀSTRA 37

how loving women are to address men in love or anger and jealousy; 25 (or 23 of G. O. S.) Vaisika is one who excels in kalās and is clever in wooing women and veśyās; 33 natural and cultivated qualities of such a man; his friend and go-between (ct); signs of women who are enamoured of a man or who hate him; four stages of the youth of women; five classes of men who love; five upayas to win over women viz. साम, प्रदान, भेद, दएड, उपेक्षा; 26 (or 25 of G. O. S.) Citrābhinaya i. e. āngika abhinaya not described so far (and which is therefore a supplementary part of सामान्याभिनय); how to represent the sky, night, evening, darkness, heat &c .; how to represent joy, anger, pain and sorrow; meaning of आकाशवचन, आत्मगत, अपवारितक, जनान्तिक; how old men and children are to recite their speeches; how to represent that a man is dying; other gestures should be learnt from the people;1 27 siddhi (successfull dramatic performance); siddhi is मानुषी and दैवी; the audience should indicate that the performance is a success by gifts of clothes &c., by smiles, loud laughter (when the Vidūsaka plays mischievous tricks), by saying 'sadhu' or 'aho' (in wonder- ful or love scenes), 'kastani' (in a pathetic scene); दैविकी सिद्धि consists in there being no noise nor disturbance, no ill omen and the audience hall being full; accidents and portents are such as fire, whirlwind, elephant, snake &c. cr clapping of hands and throwing of cowdung or mud by persons who hate the actors, forgetting one's speech, the fall of a crown or of ornaments; qualifications of dramatic judges or critics; 28 musical instru- ments of four kinds, viz. तत (stringed likc lutes), अवनद्ध (on which a hide is spread as in the case of a drum), घन (tala), सुषिर (hollow like a flute); the seven स्वरs (घड्ज, ऋबभ &c.) : four kinds of them viz वादी, संवादी, अनुवादी, and विवादी and their description, ग्राम, मूर्दनाs, 22 श्रुति, जातिs; 29 What जातिs and स्वरs are to be employed in which rasas; four varnas, आरोही, अवरोही, स्थायी and सश्वारी and 33 alankāras dependent on them and their definitions; gītis; 30 flutes; 3 ताल and लय; 32 discourse on ध्रुवाs (sung when a character enters the stage or leaves it, or sung at the end of an Act or sung in the course of the play or when a character falls

I नोक्ता ये च मया तत्र लोकग्राह्यास्तु ते बुधैः॥ लोको वेदास्तथाध्यात्मं प्रमायं त्रिविधं स्मृतम्। ... तस्मान्नाव्यप्रयोगे तु प्रमाणं लोक उच्यते। ... कतानुकरणं लोके नाट्य मित्य भिधीयते। लोकस्य चरितं यत्तु नानावस्थान्तरात्मकम्। तदक्गाभिनयोपेतं नाट्यमित्यभिसंशितम्॥नाट्य. 26.111-115.

38 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

down, forgets his speech or faints & c.1; the language of the Dhruvas was to be Sauraseni generallyª (verses 408-410), though a few (chap. 32. 47-55 are) in Sanskrit; qualifications of the singer and of those who are to play on such musical instru- ments as वीणा, वंश (flute made from bamboo); singing comes naturally to women and playing on musical instruments to men3; six qualifications of the teacher of music and the pupil; 33 disquisition on the instruments called शवनद्ध such as मृदङ्, पराव, ₹7; Svāti and Nārada promulgated Gāndharva and Vādya; occasions when all kinds of musical instruments are to be played; the superintending deities of musical instruments: 34 three kinds of prakrtis among men and women, viz. उत्तम, मध्यम and श्रधम and their characteristics; four kinds of heroes in plays viz धीरोद्धत, धीरललित, धीरोदात्त and धोरप्रशान्त and who are to be represented as falling in these classes; different kinds of women in plays such as महादेवी, देवी, नर्तिका, परिचारिका and the descriptions of these; atten- dants in the harem such as कञ्चुकीयs, वर्षयवरS; characteristics of नृप, सेनापति, पुरोहित, मन्त्रिन्, सचिव, प्राडविवाक, कुमार; 35 the assignment of various parts to the several members on the staff of a dramatic troupe and the characteristics required; artificial devices made with clay, wood and hides (नाट्यधर्मी) to represent a character with many hands and faces(like Rāvana) or to represent animals (like lions and elephants &c.); about men taking the parts of women and vice versa; dramatic representation is of two kinds सुकुमार (in नाटक, प्रकरण, भाष, वीथो, अक्) and आविद्ध (in डिम and the rest) ; qualifications of सूत्रधार, पारिपार्ध्रिक, actors, विट, शकार,5 विदूषक, चेट, नाथिका, गर्खिका, नट and artisans and craftsmen (such as माल्यकृत्, वेषकर, रजक, कारुक); 36 The sages, Atreya and others, ask Bharata

I. प्रावेशिकी तु प्रथमा द्वितीयाक्षेपिकी स्मृता। प्रासादिकी तृतीया च चतुर्थी चान्तरा धवा। नैष्कामिकी च विशेया पञ्चकी च ध्रुवा युधः ॥ नाट्य. 32. 23-24; vide also 32. 334, 340. 2. The Prakrit of the Dhruva verses is rather corrupt. Dr. Manomohan Ghosh has edited all prakrit verses found in this chapter; vide I. H. Q. vol. VIII. at end pp. 1-52. 3. प्रायेश तु स्वभावात्ख्नीयां गानं नृखां च वाद्यविधि:। स्त्रीखां स्वभावमधुरः कएठो नृणं बलत्वं च।। नाटय. 32.465. 4. एवं च शीलतो नणं प्रकृतिस्त्रिविधा ल्ियः ॥ नाट्य 34.8. 5. उज्ज्वलवस्ाभरणः कुध्यत्यनिमित्ततः प्रसीदति च। भधमो मागधभाषी भवति शकारो बदुविकार: ॥ नाट्य. 35. 56.

NĀȚYASĀSTRA 39

some questions, viz. what deity is worshipped in yirr, how nätya came down to the earth from heaven and how his descen- dants came to be called natas; Bharata's replies to these that his sons being intoxicated with their proficiency in nātyaveda engaged in mimicking the sages and composing dramatic pieces that were lewd and improper; sages were angered and cursed the bharatas that they and their descendants would be śūdras; Bharata said that they should transmit the Nātyasastra to other and better pupils and perform prāyaścitta; then Nahușa who had become Indra desired Bharata to promulgate Nātyaśāstra on the earth; Kohala will supplement the Natyaveda; then the sons of Bharata taught to their own sons the sastra and Kohala, Vātsya, Sāndilya, Dhūrtila propagated it in the world; the nātyaśāstra is auspicious and holy and the gods are pleased more by a dramatic performance than by worship with flowers and sandalwood paste. The above outline of the contents of the Natyasastra, though meagre as compared with the large bulk of the work, is suffi- cient to show its encyclopaedic character. It contains an elaborate analysis of the sources of the aesthetic pleasure that one derives from seeing a performance; it treats of the archite- cture of the theatre, gives an exhaustive treatment of metres to be employed, the postures, movements and gestures of actors and of the mode in which they are to deliver their speeches, of the different kinds of dramas, the analysis of the structures of the dramas and their styles. It also furnishes directions about the songs to be sung and the musical instruments to be employed and treats in detail of the musical notes and their combinations. Above all, it insists on a high and noble purpose for the drama, forbids indecent behaviour, scenes or language and holds forth before the actors a high spiritual ideal by saying that if the actors dedicate themselves to their work in a spirit of devotion to their art and attain perfection therein, they will be doing a great service to society and will acquire merit for themselves. The Natyasāstra, as narrated in its last chapter, knew well that the drama and actors had come into great disrepute for their loose character and tries hard to raise the status of both. This work is probably unique in the world's literature on dramaturgy. Hardly any work on dramaturgy in any language has the com- prehensiveness, the sweep and the literary and artistic flair of

40 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the Natyasastra. It is sad to note that in spite of the noble words of the Natyasastra, dramatic artists descended to very low depths in a few centuries after it as attested by Dāmodaragupta in his Kuttanimata (latter half of the 8th century A. D.). Verses 881-928 of the कुट्टनीमत (edited by Mr. Tanasukhram, Bombay) refer to a unique matter, viz. the actual representa- tion of the first Act of the Ratnavali of Sriharsa before a prince in a temple at Benares by accomplished veśyās led by a teacher of dancing. Both male and female parts were acted by the veśyās, one of whom named Mañjarī (verses 803-805) perfor- med the part of Sāgarikā (or Ratnāvali) and another veśyā (not named) that of king Udayana. One verse, viz. Ratnāvali I. 24, is actually quoted by the Kuttanimata (v. 926). The vesyas are out for money and make no secret of their motives. The whole work, though written in mellifluous verse, depicts. very graphically the laxity of morals prevalent among most people and particularly among the votaries of singing and dancing. It will be shown later on how the verses of the aaira shed abundant light on the text of the Nātyasastra as it stood in the last quarter of 8th century A. D. The राजतरङ्गिणी expressly mentions that king Jayāpīda of Kashmir made Dāmodaragupta, author of कुट्टनीमत, his chief councillor (स दामोदरगुप्ताख्यं कुट्टनीमत- कारिशम्। कविं कवि बलिरिव धुर्य धीसचिवं व्यवात्। राजतरङ्गिर्णीं IV. 496). जयापीड ruled from about 779 to 813 A. D.

The date of the Nātyasastra In the discussion about the original kernel of the Nātyasāstra and its authorship some remarks have already been made which have a bearing on the date of the Nātyasastra. One matter must be made clear before starting further discussion of the date. Frequent additions have been made to the Nātyaśāstra and there are substantial discrepancies in the mss. of the work. Therefore, any discussion about the date of the work refers of necessity to a time when the principal structure and chapters of the work had been put up and takes no account of the insertion of some verse or verses here and there. Various dates have been assigned to the Nātysāstra. M. M. Haraprasad Shastri assigned it to the 2nd century before Christ (J. A. S. B. for 1913 p.307). Prof. Levi, in a brilliant article translated in the Indian Antiquary vol. 33 p. 163 relying upon

ŅĀȚYASĀSTRA 4I

the use of such words as स्वामी, सुगृहीतनामन् and भद्रमुख in the works on Nātyaśāstra as terms of address, tried to establish that the नाटयशास्त्र of Bharata was composed about the times of the Indo- Scythian Ksatrapas some of whom like Nahapāna and Caștana are styled swamin and bhadramukha in their inscriptions (e. g. E. I. IX. p. 274 and E. I. XVI. at p. 238). In spite of the vigour and confidence with which the arguments are set forth the theory that the Sanskrit theatre came into existence at the court of the Ksatrapas appears, to say the least, to be an imposing structure built on very slender foundations. In the first place, rarnt is the term of address for a Yuvarāja in the Nātyasāstra (19. 12) and not for a ruling king. In the the second place, an obvious reply is that the inscriptions might have been drafted by persons thoroughly imbued with the dramatic terminology of the नाट्यशास्त्र. भद्रमुख as a term of address does not occur in the नाट्यशास्त्र but in the साहित्यदर्पण. In the Indian Antiquary vol. 46 (1917) pp. 171-183 I diścussed the question of the date and arrived at the conclusion that before 300 A. D. there existed a work on नाट्यशास्त्र ascribed to भरत and dealing with the rasa thecry and dramaturgy in general. Prof. Keith (in HSD. p. 13) holds that 'we cannot with any assurance place it before the 3rd century A. D.' More recently Mr. Manomohan Ghosh (in Department of Letters, Calcutta University, vol. 25, Art. 4 pp. 1-54) dealt exhaustively with the question of the date from several points of view such as the linguistic data (Sanskrit, Prak- rits in ch. 18 and the Dhruvas in chap. 32), the treatment of metres, the mention of only four figures of speech, the mytholo- gy, the geographical data, and came to the conclusion (p. 52) that the date cf the Nātyasastra must be placed between 100 B. C. to 200 A. D. Although I donot agree with several things that he says,1 the date he arrives at cannot, in my opinion, be far

I For example, on p. 25 he says that दाक्षिणात्या, one of the seven भाषाs mentioned in chap. 18.35-36 is not the महाराष्ट्री. भरत's words are : शौरसेनं समाश्रित्य भाषा कार्या तु नाटके। ... नानावेशसमुत्थं हि काव्यं भवति नाटके। मागध्यवन्तिजा प्राच्या शूरसेन्यर्धमागधी। बाहिका दाकिखात्या च सप्त भाषा: प्रकीतिता: ॥. What country, acc. to Mr. Ghosh, is meant by दाक्िात्या ? द्रविड and भोड्र are separately mentioned in v. 36. The काव्यादर्श (I. 34) mentions the भाषा of महाराष्ट्र as the best प्राकत and states that सेतुबन्ध was composed in that language. The सेतुबन्ध

42 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

from the truth. Dr. D. C. Sircar ( ournal of Andhra H. R. Society, vol. XII. p. 108 ff) opines that the fact that the present text mentions the countries of महाराष्ट्र (in 14. 38) and नेपाल (in 14. 43) definitely points to a date later than the 2nd century A. D., since aurer is first mentioned in Samudragupta-prasasti in the first half of the 4th century and HaRrsg is mentioned first in the HETaRT (5th century) and in the Aihole inscription (of 634 A. D.). This is a strange and unconvincing argument. Names of countries do not drop down all at once from heaven nor is there anything to show that the name was first coined by Ha or his panegyrist or by some one else at a particular period. If aureT is mentioned about 325 A. D., no reason is given why it could not have existed as a name two hundred years earlier. The same reasoning applies to महाराष्ट्र. In 634 (Aihole inscription) महा- Trs was a vast territory containing three provinces and 99000 villages).1 In the Nanaghat Inscription (A. S. W. I. vol. V. p. 60) the word Mahārathi occurs (about 200 B. C.) which can very well be explained as meaning an inhabitant of Mahārā- stra, though it must be conceded that that word is differently interpreted by several scholars.

was composed at the latest in the 5th century A. D. in HERIEA- mraa. Even if Bharata preferred Sauraseni, which might have been due to his being a native of qaa (the country round ab- out UTT) or because the art of writing dramas was very much cultivated there before his time, no reasons are forthcoming to establish that HERTt in which such an elegant poem as the Setubandha was composed in the 5th century at the latest could not have existed as a TaaHTeT at all some centuries earlier. On p. 43 he says that the avatāras of Vișnu are not mentioned, but in chap. 13. 152 (Ch. ed.) we read या कता नरसिंहेन विष्ुना प्रभविष्णुना and अभिनवगुप्त explains the verse (G.O.S.XII. 154, vol. II. p. 162). His views on महाराष्ट्री as a later phase of शौरसेनी (Depart- ment of Letters, Calcutta University, vol. 23) have been critici- zed by Dr. Ghatge in an informing paper 'on Mahārāstri Language and Literature' in Journal of the Bombay University (vol. II. part 6 pp. 19-70 at pp. 22-35). Vide also Dr. Ghatge on Saurasenī in Journal, Bom. Un. vol. III. part. 6 pp. 44-62. 1 भगमदधिपतित्वं यो महाराष्ट्रकाणा नवनत्रतिसहस्त्रग्रामभाजां त्रयाणाम्।। E. I. vol. VI. p. 1 at p. 4.

NĀȚYASĀSTRA 43

The upper limit of the Natyasastra cannot be fixed with any certainty. We can only try to fix some probable limit. The नाट्यशास्त्र mentions विश्वकर्मा on architecture and house-building (2. 7 and 12), Purāņas (14. 46 and 27.59 in G. O. S.), Pūrvā- caryas (15. 22 on शब्दलक्षय), कामतन्त्र (23.37 and 52 of G.O.S.), बृहस्पति (24.88 of GOS and 34.79 on अर्थशास्त्र), नारद (32. 1 on ध्रुकाs and 32. 484 on गान्धर्व), तएड (4.17 on अकहारs), पाशुपत (in 13.85), शबर, आभीर and द्रविड (in 18. 36), शक (18. 40). But all these details cannot lead to any certain inference about the date of the नाट्यशास्त्र. They, however, make it probable that the present Nātyaśāstra is not much older than the beginning of the Christian era. The lower limit can be indicated with more assurance. The evidence for the lower limit may be briefly set out here : (a) Kālidāsa's verse in the Vikramorvaśīya (II. 18) already noticed (p. 11) leads to the inference that before 450 A. D. at the latest Bharata had been regarded as founder of the नाटयशास्त्र, had spoken of only eight rasasa and had performed a drama before the gods. So this vouches for the existence of the legend in the first chapter and the discussion about rasas in the 6th chap. In रघुवंश 19. 21 there is a reference to खसिंडता नायिका, which reminds us of the eight नाथिंकाs enumerated and defined in नाट्यशास्त्र 31. 109-110 and the following verses. Sim- ilarly, in रघुवंश 19. 36 (अङ्गसत्त्ववचनाश्रयं मिथः स्त्रीषु नृत्यमुपधाय दर्शनम) there is a conscious following of नाटयशास्त्र 24. 1 (सामान्याभिनयो नाम शयो वागङसत्त्वज:). (b) The कुट्टनीमत speaks of the नाटयशास्त्र as ब्रह्मोक्त (in v. 75), which is a reference to chapter one, and in verse 946 (Kaga- रुपदिष्टं क्ितिपतिनडडुषावरोधनारीणाम।) there is a clear reference to the legend in the last chapter (36. 48-61) about agT and the sons of भरत. In numerous other places the कुट्टनीमत refers to subjects that are dealt with in different chapters of the present aTTTET, e. g. verses 791-92 refer to ख़सिडता and कलहान्तरिता for which नाट्य- ₹TTE 22. 216-217 (in vol. III of GOS.) and the following verses may be compared. Verses 881 and 928 refer to the singing of Dhruva called Pravesiki when the Ha4t is to enter the stage and the नैष्क्रामिकी ध्रुवा when all characters left the stage at the end of the Ist Act of the Ratanavali. This is a pointed reference to chap. 32 verses 335 and 336 where both these occur and are des- cribed. Verse 805 of the कुट्टनीमत refers to स्रास्विकभावs (for which

44 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

see नाटयशास्त्र 7. 93) and verse 809 (सदृशेप्यनुभावगयो करुयरसं विप्रलम्भतो भिन्नम) refers to नाटयशास्त्र VI.p. 73 where this matter is discussed. Therefore, it follows that the important chapters of the नाटयशास्त्र from the first to the 36th existed before 800 A. D. (c) आनन्दवर्धन in the ध्वन्यालोक says 'यदि वा वत्तीनां भरतप्रसिद्धानां कैशिक्यादीनां' (p. 202) and 'यथा वेणीसंहारे विलासाख्यस्य प्रतिमुखसन्ध्यङस्य प्रकृतरसनिबन्धनाननुगुमपि भरतमतानुसरएमात्रेच्छया घटनं' (p.185); so also 'अत एव च भरते प्रबन्धप्रख्यातवस्तुविषयत्वं प्रख्यातोदात्तनायकत्वं च नाटकस्यावश्यक- तव्यतयोपन्यस्तम्' (p. 180) and 'एतच्च रसादितात्पर्येण काव्यनिबन्धनं भरतादा- वपि सुप्रसिद्धमेव' (p.226). The vrttis called Kaisiki and others are described in the नाटयशास्त्र (chap. 20 in G. O. S. vol. III and in chap.22 in other editions and mss.) and the anga named विलास is defined in chap.21.61 and 78-G.O.S. vol.III. 22.15. In defining नाटक (chap. 16. 16-12-G. O. S. ed. chap. 18.10-12) the very first half verse is 'प्रख्यातवस्तुविषयं प्रख्यातोदत्तनायकं चैव' (10). आरानन्दवर्धन flourished in the latter half of the 9th century. The वेणीसंहार had been composed before him and the auther of that drama regar- ded Bharata as a paramount authority. Therefore, centuries before आनन्दवर्धन the नाट्यशास्त्र contained a treatment of rasas, heroes, व च्तिs and such minute particulars as the anga of the प्रतिमुख- सन्धि called विलास. (d) The काव्यप्रकाश quotes from Bharata the sutra 'विभावानु- भावव्यभिचारिसंयोगाद्रसनिष्पत्तिः' (which occurs in the 6th chap. p. 71) and gives the interpretation of that sūtra by four scholars, भट्टलोल्लट, शडकुक्, भट्टनायक and अभिनवगुप्त. Whether all these composed commentaries on the नाट्यशास्त्र will be discussed later. It will be seen later that अभिनवगुनत's literary activity lay between 980-1030 A. D. and that भट्टनायक flourished between 900 and 925 A. D. शङकुक has probably to be identified with the post शङ कु , author of भुवनाभ्युश्य, mentioned in the राजतरक्गिणी (IV.705) 'कविबुधमनःसिन्धु- शशाङ्क: शडकुकाभिधः । यमुद्दिश्याकरोत्काव्यं भुवनाभ्युदयाभिधम्॥'. This would assign him to about 840 A. D. सोमेश्वर in his commentary on the काव्यप्रकाश quotes a few verses of शङकुक on the above sutra of Bhar- ata and the criticism of Bhatta Tauta thereon. The exact date of Lollata cannot be determined. But as शङ्कुक, नायक and अभिनवगुप्त are mentioned in chronological order, it is not unlikely that लोल्लट precedes all three. He wrote रसविवरण and सोमेश्वर quotes from लोल्लट (folio 155 b) 'यमकानुलोमतदितरचक्रादिभिदा हि रसविरोधिन्यः । अभिधानमात्रमेदगद्द (ड?) रिकादिप्रवाहो वा ।'. This verse is qucted by नमिसाधु also (on रुद्रट III. 59) without the author's name. There-

NĀȚYASĀSTRA 45

fore, लोल्लट probably flourished before शङ्कुक i.e. between 750- 800. The conclusion is that the 6th chapter of the नाटयशास्त्र dealing with rasas had been the subject of several interpretations from the 8th century A. D. (e) भवभूति (about 700-740 A. D.) looks upon Bharata as the author of तौर्यत्रिकसूत्र (i. e. नाट्यशास्त्र) and as a contemporary of Valmiki, the author of the रामायण (vide उत्तररामचरित IV). (f) Bana in his कादम्बरी (para 71 of my edition) mentions the नत्तशास्त्र composed by भरत as one of the branches of knowledge in which चन्द्रापीड became proficient. In the हर्षचरित also(III. para 5) he speaks of singing which followed the path laid down by Bharata.1 In another place («so II. 4) he speaks of actors in the आरभटीवृत्ति (रैणवावर्तमएडलीरेच करासरभसारब्धनतनारभटीनटा:). रेचक is defined in नाट्यशास्त्र (4. 240-246) and आरभटी (chap.20.65 of vol. III GOS ). (g) The याज्ञवल्क्यस्मृति, after stating that by reciting the Sam- an songs according to rules and without mistakes the singer reaches Brahma (i.e. realises the Supreme Reality), extends the same reward to those who instead of the Vedic songs sing the seven kinds of non-Vedic songs called2 अपरान्तक, उल्लोप्यक, मद्रक, प्रकरी, ओवेखक, सरोबिन्दु and उत्तर; further provides that the repeated singing of four kinds of other songs (mentioned below) also tend to moksa (enabling the mind to concentrate itself on the Supreme Soul) and those who know the essence of the playing on the

I वंशानुगमविवादि स्फुटकरणं भरतमार्गभजनगुरु। श्रीकएठविनिर्यातं गीतमिदं हर्षराज्यमिव ॥ हर्षचरित III. verse 4; as to विवादी, vide नाट्यशास्त्र for the four kind of स्वरs, viz वादि, संवादि, अनुवादि and विवादि (28. 20) and 'विवादिनस्तु ते येषां विशतिस्वरमन्तरम् । तधथा वृषभगान्धारी धेवतनिषादौ' (नाट्य० chap. 28 after verse 21 p.318). For करखs (of the hand) see नाट्य. 9. 198-207. 2 अपरान्तकमुल्लोप्यं मद्रकं प्रकरीं तथा। शवेशकं सरोबिन्दुमुत्तरं गीतकानि च। ऋग्गाथा पािका दक्षविहिता ब्रह्मगीतिका। गेयमेतत्तदभ्यासकर ान्मोतसंशितम्।। वीखावादनतत्त्वश्ञः श्रतिजातिविशारदः तालज्ञश्च प्रयासेन मोक्षमार्ग नियच्छति ॥; compare याश III. 113-115. Compare ब्रह्मोक्तं सप्तरूप हि समवेताद विनिःसृतम्। दैवताराधनं पुयमनन्तं गीतवादितम् । ... ऋग्गाथापायिकानां च प्रमाण- नां तथैव च। अ्रनेनैव विधानेन युग्मौजस्त्वं विभावयेद्॥ नाट्यशास्त्र 31. 419, 421; K. M. 31. 324 is somewhat similar to the last verse. Again 31. 523 is ऋग्गाथा पाशिका चैव सप्तरूपं प्रकीर्णकम् । and 32. 2 is या ऋच: पाषिका गाथा सप्तरूपांङ्मेत्र च ।.

46 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

lute, who are experts in the knowledge of the (22) śrūtis and (18) jātis and know tāla reach the road to moksa. It is interes- ting to note that the Mitākșarā and Aparārka refer to Bharata in explaining these, while Viśvarūpa refers to Nārada and others and the Dipakalika to Visakhila and others. The seven names occur in the Nātyaśātra 31. 287 (K. M. 31. 184) but with some variation. The Nātyasastra devotes over hundred and thirty verses to the treatment of these seven and winds up by saying that these seven promulgated by Brahma are holy and propitiate the gods. The अभिनवभारती also (B.O. R. I ms.) dev- otes several pages (from p. 479 of the ms.) to the elucidation of the seven kinds of non-Vedic songs. The names of the seven acc. to the Natyasastra are मन्द्रक, अपरान्तक, प्रकरी, रोविन्दक (for सरोबिन्दु of या.), शवेयक, उल्लोप्यक, उत्तर. On several grounds it may be argued that the याशवल्क्यस्मृति borrows from the नाट्यशास्त्र. The four early commentators are agreed that TaFy has in view some work on गीतवाद्य, while the मिताक्षरा and अपरार्क refer to भरत alone. Besides, in TaFT the verses are rather abruptly introduced, while their position in the नाटयशास्त्र is natural. I am inclined to hold that the source of these verses in Yajñaval- kya is the Natyasastra. In that case the 4T5 will easily have to be placed not later than the first or 2nd century of the Christian era. (h) The Sāptaśatī of Sātavāhana (or Hāla) says in a verse 344 (Weber's ed. 27) that embraces are the yarF of the drama of love.1 This has in view the fifth chapter of the Natyasastra which treats of पूवरw. It is generally held that the गाथासप्तशती was composed between 200 to 400 A. D. Vide Prof. Keith's H. S. L. p. 224. (i) From Fleet's Sanskrit and Old Canarese inscriptions (I. A. vol. X. pp. 166-167) we find that two Sanskrit verses are incised on a pillar at Pattadakal (the characters being of the 8th or 9th century A. D.) which were composed by one Achala (or Acalada), the second of which may be quoted here to indicate how even in Southern India dancers instructed in Bharata's doctrines were supposed to vanquish their competitors brought up in another or a rival school of dancing : I मानदुमपरुसपवसस्स मामि सव्वंगगिव्वुदिभरस्स। अवऊहस्स भद्दं रहनाड- अ्पुव्बरंगस्स॥ सत्तसई (सप्तशतो) 344 and IV. 44 (of Nirn. ed.).

NĀȚYAŠĀSTRA 47

'नटसेव्यभरतमतयुतपटुतरवचनाशनिप्रपातेन । कुटिलोन्नतनटशैल: स्फुटितानतमस्तकः पतति ।।'. (j) All ancient writers on alankāra, Bhatți (between 590-650 A. D.), दएडी, Bhamaha, उद्ट, define more than thirty figures of speech. Ra defines only four, which are the simpl- est viz. उपमा, दीपक, रूपक, and यमक. भरत has a long disquisition on metres and on the Prakrts and would not have scrupled to define more figures of speech if they had been well-known then. Therefore, he preceded these writers by some centuries at least. The foregoing discussion has made it clear that the नाटयशास्त्र cannot be assigned to a later date than about 300 A. D. This does not mean that the extant नाट्यशास्त्र has come down to us intact from that date. But what is contended is that before 300 A. D. there existed a work going under the name of Bharata containing the rasa theory and dealing with dramatur- gy; this cannot be disputed. As there is no other extant work on the theory of Poetics and allied topics as old as 300 A. D. the नाट्यशास्त्र must be regarded in the present state of our kno- wledge as the oldest work on the अलक्कारशास्त्र. धनिक in his commentary on the Dasarupa (III.56-60) quotess a verse from भरत "एतच्च 'इदं त्रिपुरदाहे तु लक्षएं ब्रह्मणोदितम् । ततस्त्रिपुरदाहश्च डिमसंज्ञः श्रयोजितः ॥' इति भरतमुनिना स्वयमेव त्रिपुरदाह्ेतिवृत्तस्य तुल्यत्वं दर्शितम् ". In the नाट्यशास्त्र only the latter half is found (IV. 10). The commentator on the सरस्वतीकएठाभरण (II. p. 254 Benares ed. =Nir. ed of 1934 p 268 on कारिका 109) says that, as regards मुरजबन्ध, भरत mentions the letters to be employed 'पाठाक्षराषि मुरजे लहकारौ तथदधाच्छ्मौ रेफः। नयकखगवङाश्चेत्थं षोडश भरतादि- कथितानि ॥'. There is nothing in the नाट् यशास्त्र on this point. We must now turn to the commentaries on the Nātyaśāst- ra. The most famous and the most erudite is that of Abhinava- gupta called नाव्यवेदविवृति and also अभिनवभारती in the colophons of its mss. and by commentators of Sanskrit dramas such as Rāghavabhatta1 on the Sakuntala. A separate section will be devoted to Abhinavgupta later on. As noted above Mr. Kavi has brought out so far only three volums of the अभिनवभारती in the G. O. S. (up to chap. [27 on सिद्धिलक्षण-विधान). For the rest I 1. c. g. राघवभट्ट on शाकुन्तल (I) quotes नाव्यशास्त्र 5. 24-25 and 106-107 सूत्रधार: पठेन्नान्दी ... लङ्कृताम् ।) and remarks 'इदं पद्यममिनवगुप्ता- चार्यर्भरतटीकायाममिनवभारत्यां व्याख्यातम्'.

48 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

have used a recent transcript which is ms. No. 41 of 1924-28 in the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute. It is rather corrupt and incomplete, as it extends only up to chap. 32, verse 376 ( ध्रवाध्याय of Ch. edition) and then breaks off. So far as I know no complete ms. of the अभिनवभारती on the whole of the नाट्यशास्त्र is available at present anywhere. But even this incomplete commentary of अभिनवगुप्त furnishes very valuable information about the commentators of Bharata and about writers on the histrionic art. In the following I propose to give a brief account of the commentators of the Nātyasastra.1 According to the सङ्गीतरत्नाकर of शार्ग्देव the expounders of Bharata were लोल्लट, उद्धट, शङ्कुक, कीर्तिधर and अभिनवगुप्त (व्याख्यातारो भारतीये लोल्लटोद्भटशङ्कुकाः । भटटाभिनवगुप्तश्च श्रीमत्कीर्तिघरोऽपर: ॥ I. 19). A separate section will be devoted to Udbhata, but here a few words may be said about his commentary on भरत. उद्ट is mentioned by अभिनव on the following points. (1) On नाट्यशास्त्र VI. 10 (quoted above) the views of शद्धs are quoted and Abhinava says that लोल्लट did not accept them (vide अभिनवभारती G.O.S. vol. I. p. 266); (2) On नाव्य. IX. 182 अ.भा. (vol. II. p. 70) notes that उद्भट read the verse differently as 'उत्तानोधस्तलस्त्र्यश्रोग्रगोधोमुख एव च । पञ्च प्रचारा हस्तस्येति भट्टोद्भटः पठति; (3) about समवकार (a kind of रूपक) the नाव्यशास्त्र (18. 76) reads 'उष्णिग्गायत्र्याधयान्यन्यानि च यानि बन्धकुटिलानि । वृत्तानि समवकारे कविभिस्तानि प्रयोज्यानि॥'. अ. भा. notes that उद्भट reads नैव प्रयोज्यानि for तानि प्रयोज्यानि;2 (4) उद्दट appears to have critici- zed भरत himself as to the four वस्तिs, भारती, सात्वती, कैशिकी and आरभटी. भरत (20. 99-100) defines the play called उत्सष्टिाकाक as full of women's lamentations and as bereft of all afas except भारती. But in करुण when there is a swoon or death there can be no speech and no भारतीवत्ति (which acc. to नाव्य. 22. 25 is या वाक्प्रधाना & c. or 20. 26 in GOS ed.). For this and other reasons उद्धट gives up the four वसतिs and proposes only three व च्तिs viz. न्यायचेष्टावृत्ति, अन्यायचेष्टावृत्ति and फलसंवित्ति वृ त्ति (for मूर्छा and मरण) or

I For some further information consult Dr. Raghavan's paper on 'Writers quoted in the Abhinavabharati' in J. O. R. Madras, vol. VI. pp. 149-170 and pp. 199-223. 2 नैब प्रयोज्यानीत्युद्भटः पठति सग्धरादीन्येव प्रयोज्यानि नाल्पाक्षराणीति स व्याचष्टे । म. भा. vol. II. P. 441. The Ch. ed. (20.80) reads as उन्भट does.

COMMENTARIES ON NATYASASTRA 49

फलवृर्ति. भभिनव quotes a verse of उद्र्रट, 1 states that certain followers of a writer called शकलीगर्भ2 held that there were five वसिs, the four of भरत plus the वृत्ति called आात्मसंवित्ति (or फलवृत्ति of उन्ट) and that लोल्लट refuted those views of उद्धट and शकलीगर्भ. भभिनव does not agree with all the three and sticks to the four वशिs of भरत; (5) In a corrupt passage (in GOS ed. भ. भा. reads या सावन्वेषय०) Abhinava refers to an exposition of Udbhata about the 4th af called श्रवमर्श (नाट्य. 21. 42) and refutes it;3 (6) उद्भट explained नाट्य. 21.17 as laying down that the several sandhis and their angas must appear in a drama in the same order as is stated by mra, but A. B. rejects this view as opposed to reasoning and also to the tradition of poets. From the above it is clear that अभिनव mentions Udbhata's comments on chapters so far apart as 6, 9, 19 of the नाय्यशास्त्र (G. O.S. ed) and so probably उद्धट comment- ed on the whole of it. It will be shown that aaz flourished about 800 A.D. His views about the वृचि called भात्मसंविति were accepted by शकलीगर्भ, who was criticized by लोल्लट. So the latter must have flourished between 800 to 840 A.D. It has already been shown that he criticised saz in several places .(e. g. on नाट्यशास्त्र 6. 10 and 18. 112). His views on the theory of

1 तस्मात्फलसंवित्त्याख्या वृत्तिः वाक्चेष्टयोः फलानुभव इति यस्या लच्षयां साभ्युपगन्तव्या। अवश्यं चैतत् अन्यथा मूर्छामर खादी वाक्चेष्टयोरभावे निवं ततिकतैव स्यात् । ... तस्माच्चेष्टात्मिका न्यायवृचतिरन्यायवृत्तिर्वाग्रूपा तत्फलभूता फलसंविचिरिति त्रयमेव युक्तमिति भट्टोन्भटो मन्यते। यदाह। आाध्े वाक्चेष्टाभ्यां पुरुषार्थचतुष्टयेन चाष्टविधे। षोडशधा फलव चिस्तद्दयतोडनेकधा तु रसभेदाव् । A.B. vol.II.p. 451. 2 यच्छकलीगर्भंमतानुसारियो मूर्छादावात्मसंविततिलच्षर्यां पञ्चमों वृति सकल- कार्यनिवृत्त्यनुमेयां ...... आत्मव्यापाररूपां मन्यन्ते ... तन्मतं भावानां वाह्यग्इसस्वभावत्वमु- पपादयद्मि: भट्टलोल्लटप्रभृतिभिः पराकतम्। म. भा. (G. O. S. vol. II. p. 452). The editor regards शकलीगर्भ as a name of उद्धूट, but this cannot be accepted, firstly, because भ. भा. mentions the name Udhata half a dozen times and there is no reason given why a different name should be used and secondly, because the view attributed to शकलीगर्भ differs from उद्ट's view on वृसs noted by. अर.भा. 3 यदाह भटटोन्टः। नासान्वेषणभूमिरवमष्टिरवमर्श इति तच्चेदं व्याख्यानं लक्ष्यविरुद्धं युक्त्या च । p. 28 chap.19 of G.O.S.ed.vol. III. 4 पुनरेषामिति पुनःशब्दो विशेषदोतको लक्षय रवायं क्रमो न निबन्पने इति यावद। तेन यदुद्दटमभुतयो अक्षानां सन्धौ कमे च नियममादुस्तमुपत्यागमविरुदमेव p. 36 of vol. III of GOS ed.

50 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Rasa summarised on the Rasa sutra ay अभिनव (G. O.S. vol. I. p. 274) will be dealt with in part II. Some of his other views are : (a) Acc. to लोल्लट rasas are numerous,1 but only eight (or nine) are to be represented (on the stage) in accordance with the well-known theory of traditional works; (b) It appears that लोल्लट did not read the verse (यः कश्चित्कार्यवशाद्गच्छति पुरुषः प्रकष्टमध्वानम्। तत्राप्यक्कच्छेदः कर्तव्यः पूर्ववत्तज्: ॥ G. O. S. 18. 32, Ch. 20. 30, K. M. 18, 34);ª (c) A. B. (vol. II. p. 134) mentions the view of लोल्लट and गोपाल on ध्रुवाताल; (d) on नाट्य० 13. 1 अभिनव refers to भट्टलोल्लट's view; (e) अभिनव states (18.14) that लोल्लट read the verse as अङ्क इति गूढ शब्दो भावैश्च रसैश्च रोहयत्यर्थान्,' while अभिनव reads रूढिशष्दो; (f) on नाट्य० (G. O. S. 18.60, Ch. ed. 20. 63) A. B. mentions the view of लोल्लट that a नाटिका is षट्पदा, while शङ्कूक held that it was अरष्टपदा;3 (g) on 21. 29 (Ch.ed.) Lollata's view is that portions of the life and doings of the hero of a patākā are called अनुसन्धि.4 From the above it will be clear that Lollata also must have composed a commentary on most of the chapters of the नाट्यशाख Such as 6, 13, 18, 21 (if not on all). Two verses of Lollata are quoted by हेमचन्द्र in his काव्यानुशा- सन (chap. V. p 215) 'यस्तु सरिदद्रिसागरनगतुरगपुरारिवषने यत्नः । कविशक्तिख्यातिफलो विततधियां नो मतः प्रबन्धेषु ॥ यमकानुलोमतदितरचक्रादिभिदा हि रसविरोधिन्यः । अरभिमानमात्रमेतद्गङ्डरिकादिप्रवाहो वा ॥.' The first verse is ascribed to आपराजिति by the काव्यमीमांसा (p. 45) and the second is quoted by सोमेश्वर from लोल्लट in his commentary on the काव्यप्रकाश (folio 105b) and by नमिसाधु on रुद्रट (III. 59) without naming the author. The का. प्र. सक्केत of माशिक्यचन्द्र (Mysore ed. p. 82) who wrote in 1159-60 A. D. says that the details of the theory of rasa should be learnt from the रसविवरण of लोल्लट and others and on p. 147 hits off all three (लोल्लट, शङ्कक, and नायक) as follows : न वेत्ति यस्य गाम्भीर्यं गिरितुक्रोपि लोल्लटः। तत्तस्य रसपाथोधेः कथं 1 तेनानन्त्येपि पार्षदप्रसिद्धथतावतां प्रयोज्यत्वमिति यद्धट्टलोल्लटेन निरूपितं तदवलेपनापरामृश्येत्यलम् (१) । अ. भा. vol. I. p. 299; should we read अवलेपनापरामष्ट्येत्यलम् ? This last would mean 'because he (लोल्लट) was touched with vanity.' 2 अत एवं तद्द्ट्ट्लोल्लटाबैन पठितमेव। भ. भा. vol. II. p. 423. 3 घटपदेयं नाटिकेति संग्रहानुसारिणो भट्लोल्लटाद्याः, श्रीशङ्ककस्तु प्रयुक्तमेत- दित्यमिधायाष्टधेति व्याचष्टे। अ्र. भा. vol. II. p. 436. 4 तथा लोल्लटाधास्तु मन्यन्ते परार्थे साधयितव्ये पताकानायकस्येतिव सभागा अनुसन्धय: । p. 17 of अ. भा. vol. III (GOS).

COMMENTATORS OF NĀTYASĀSTRA 51

जानातु शङ्कुक: ॥ भोगरत्यादिभावानां भोगं स्वस्योचितं ब्रवन्। सवथा रससर्वस्वमर्मा- स्प्राक्तीन्न नॉयक: ॥ लोल्लट appears to have advanced his arguments on the basis of the पूर्वमीमांसा; vide e. g. अ. भा. vol. II. p. 196 'प्रत्येकप्रसअत्वलाभाव

बाधनादितितु भट्टलोल्लटोक्तं प्रकते सिध्यति विरोधाभावाद्।', Compare the well- known sutra of जैमिनि 'शुतिलिङ्गवाक्यप्रकरएस्थानसमाख्यानां समवाये पारदौ- बल्यं०' (III.3.14). There is a श्राद्धप्रकरण of लोल्लटाचार्य in the Anandasrama collection of mss. at Poona (no. 3175), which frequently cites the views of मेघातिथि in verse. The reference is probably to the स्मृतिविवेक of मेधातिथि mentioned by the latter in his मनुभाष्य. It is doubtful whether the author of the श्राद्धप्रकरख is identical with the लोल्लट that wrote on रस, as the former must be held to have flourished after 900 A. D. Sankuka's view on the theory of Rasa will be stated in part II. His date has already been given above (p. 43). He came after Lollata and criticizes the latter's theory of rasa (vide A. B. vol. I. p. 274). He appears to have been a regular commentator of the नाट्यशास्त्र. (a) On chap. III. verses 21-22, A.B.vol. I p. 75 mentions Sankuka's views on रङ्पीठ 'अ्रतः चतुर्हस्तं रक्पीठपृष्ठे एव मएडलमित्युक्तं भवति। शक्ककादिभिः षोडशहस्तावकाशाभावः आसनस्त- म्भादिवशात्तस्मादकृत एव रङ्गपीठे इत्यादि वृथव बहुतरसुपन्यस्तम्।'; (b) On chap. 18.10(p.411 of GOS ed.) (प्रख्यातवस्तुविषयं प्रखयातोदाशनायकम्) about नाटक, A. B. quotes शङ्कक's explanation and rejects it; (c) On the verse नृपतीनां यच्चरितं नानारसभावचेष्टितं बहुषा । (18. 12 G. O. S.) Sani- kuka's explanation of what is intended by the word नृपतीना is cited and rejected;1 (d) Sankuka's view about नाटिका (18. 60, vol. II. p. 436) has been cited under लोल्लट; (d1) On chap. 21. 40(= K. M. 19. 40) अभिनव refers to the examples illustrating that verse about प्रतिमुखसन्धि given by शङकुक; (e) Qn 21. 42 about विमशसन्धि (= K. M. 19. 42 the reading of which is followed by शङ्कुक)

1. श्रीशङ्कुकस्तु व्याचष्टे। विजिगीषुररिरमध्यमोदासीनी मित्रं मित्रमित्रमिति। एरषा चरितमितिबहुवचनेन लभ्यते। Vide H. of Dh. vol. III. pp. 218-222 for विजिगीषु and the others; chap. 18.12 of भ. भा. (GOS. II) has नृपतीना यच्चरितं नानारसभावचेष्टितं बहुधा। सुखदुःखोत्पत्तिकृतं भवति हि तन्नाटकं नाम। This is the verse on which शङ्कक commented. 2. उद्घाटितत्वाद बीजस्य स्तोकमात्रं तु शङ्ककादिभिरुदाहृतं थरतदेकदेश- लक्षयमिति द्रष्टव्यम्। p.25 of भ.भा. vol. III GOS.

52 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

the A. B. mentions Sankuka's view (p. 28 of ". HT. vol. II GOS); (f) On 21. 91 (= K.M. 19. 87) about विद्रव, one of the angas of गर्भसन्धि, the A. B. gives the reading adopted by Sankuka and its explanation and the illustration given by him (भन्ये तु शक्कराभयत्रासैः कृतो यः स विद्रव इत्यादि तत्र च विशेष्यपदमन्वेष्यं, समुदाय एव विशेष्य इति श्रीशङकः, उदाहरति च कृत्यारावये षष्ठेंके गर्भसन्धौ)' &c. (p.52 of भ्. भा. vol. III GOS.); (g) On chap. 24 (= K. M. 22 सामान्यामिनय) the views of शङ्कक are quoted at some length (p. 147 of श.भा. vol. III GOS.); (h) On chap. 24. 3 (= K. M. 22.3) A. B. offers the explanation that Sankuka gives (भव्यक्तरूपमित्यादिकं प्रबन्धं श्रीशङ्कुकादय इत्थं नयन्ति &c. p. 150 of भ्र. भा. vol. III GOS.); (i) On 24. 66-71 (=K. M. 22. 66-71) Abhinava shows how hundreds of अभिनयभेदs arise and then states that according to Sankuka they come to forty thousand (ननु यथा श्रीशङकुकेनोक्तं चत्वारिंशत्सहस्त्राणोत्यादि, p. 180 of अ०भा० vol. III GOS);(j)On नाव्यशाखत्र 5. 20-21 the अभिनवभारती quotes several verses from chap. 29 (Ch. ed. and 28 of the text of अभिनव)and states that शङकुक had different readings in some of the verses (i. e. शङ् कुक read त्रिः शम्योपरिपायौ तालोपि शेष निर्दिष्टः। ... भूयः शम्यातालानुगुणादुत्तरस्तथा द्विकलश्च।, while अभिनव read तालावित्येवमेककल: and व्वुत्तरस्तथा चैव). It may be noted that the readings in Ch. (29. 123-124) are those adopted by शज्कुक. शङ्कुक is quoted in vol. I. pp. 293, 298, 318 on the रससूत्राध्याय. From the above it would be manifest that San- kuka's comment on several chapters from 3 to 29 being quoted it should be presumed that he commented on the whole of the Nāțyaśāstra. Bhatta Nayaka is very frequently quoted by अभिनव, but the question whether he wrote a commentary on the Nātyaśā- stra or an independent work will be discussed below separately. On the laßt verse (and on the word ua therein) of chapter 4 of the नाट्यशासत् the view of कीर्तिघर is quoted, but it is doubt- ful whether the reference is to a commentary of his on the नाव्यशास्त्र. कीर्तिधर's mention of नन्दिकेश्वरमत has already been referred to above. There is not sufficient material to establish that कीर्तिघर wrote a regular commentary on the नाट्यशास्त्र. There is an author frequently mentioned by अभिनव as टीकाकार or टीकाकृद. He is twice quoted on the 6th chap. (vol. I. pp. 318, 328), His views are mentioned and generally rejected over a dozen times on.pp. 286(chap. 21. 3-5 = chap. 19 of अभिनव in GOS p. 3 as opposed to उपाध्याय's view., on

COMMENTATORS OF NĀȚYASĀSTRA 53

प्रासङ्िक इतिवृत्त), 382 (on chap. 28 verses 8-10 on आतोध), 397 (on 29. 32), 399 (on 29. 76 where his guru is said to be श्रीपाद),1 420 (chap. 30 on सुषिरवाद्य), 423 (on 30.4one verse and a half are quoted from टीकाकार), 458 (on31. 252). So he ismen- tioned on most of the chapters, if not on all. On the 12 kinds of interlocutions in the plot (22.51-53 GOS)such as आालाप, प्रलाप, उपदेश, अतिदेश, अ्र.भा. (p.176) remarks that commentators have brought in tārkika and mīmāmsaka technique in explaining upaveśa, atideśa and upamāna in the domain of sāhitya and have thereby deluded men of delicate intellect and led them astray: अत्रोपदेशाति- देशयोरुपमानस्य च साहित्यविषये तार्किकमीमांसकविषये विशेषप्रतिपादनं यत् टीका- कारै: कृतं तत्सुकुमारमनोमोहनं वृयाभ्रमषिकामात्रं प्रकृतानुपयोगादिहोपेच्यमेव। Bhattayantra is menioned on p. 208 of vol. Iof .NT. (on नाट्य and नृत्त), Priyatithi (on the लास्याड called सैन्धवक on p. 317 of the B. O. R. I. copy), Bhattavrddhi (Ch. chap. 32. 45 on tālas, p. 514 of B. O. R. I. copy);2 Bhatta Sumanas (as explaining at great length the three verses 46-48 of chap. 31, p. 434 of B. O. R. I. copy), Bhatța Gopāla (G. O. S. vol. II. p. 134 on ध्रुवाताल and on chap. 31 verse 510 of Ch.ed., on p. 502 of B. O. R. I. copy), Rudraka (Rudrața ?) on chap. 31 verse 357 (of Ch. ed. on tāla) at p. 488 of B. O. R. I. copy, Bhatta Śańkara, a devotee of God Sanikara, on वृत्तप्रकरष (chap.32.329 of Ch.ed., p. 524 of B. O. R. I. copy), Ghantaka on नाटिकामेदs (G. O. S. vol. II. p. 436). On the materials available it is not possible to say whether these authors wrote commentaries on some part of the Natyasāstra or whether they wrote independent works in which Bharata's views were discussed. Abhinava appeared to refer to Astāgama on chap.32. 360 (of Ch. ed.) at p. 529 of B. O. R. I. copy.3 The passage is cor- 1. टीकाकृद्धिस्तु सदाशिवमतादिग्रन्थान्तरालिखितं त्रयस्त्रिशदिमे प्रोक्ता अलक्कारा इत्यादि तनं (?) लिखितं अ्न्थान्तरपरिवर्तने शनिष्टप्रसङ्गात् श्रोपादप्रोक्तादिति स्वगुरुमताद् &c.p. 399 of B. O. R. I. copy. 2. तथा च भट्टवृद्धितदत्तादिपासितलयभङ्गलक्षणपुस्तकेषु सर्वत्र शता इति प्रस्तारो दृश्यते। p. 514. The passage is corrupt. Should we read भट्टृवृद्धिदत्तिलादिप्रणीतलय० ? 3. प्रावेशिकोग्रहणामुपलक्षणार्थम्। नृखामिति चेष्टाबाडुल्यमम्भावनात्। अन्ये तु श्रियमपरत्वं व्याचक्षते तच्चाष्टागमपक्षविरुद्धमित्युपेद्यमेव। p. 529.Dr.Raghavan kindly informs me that he holds that wszr7 is a corruption by the copyist of अस्मदागम. I agree and I had already suggested it in the ed. of 1951.

54 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

rupt. Astāgama may mean 'eight authoritative or traditional works on Nātyasāstra' or the word may be a copyist's error for भस्मदागम. An author called Rahula is quoted several times in the भ. भा. e.g. a verse of his is quoted in which भरत is named. On नाय्य IV.267 (GOS vol I. 172)37.अ्र.भा. says. यथाह राहुलः। परोक्षेपि हि वक्तव्यो नार्या प्रत्यक्षवत्प्रियः । सखी च नाट्यधर्मोडयं भरतेनोदितं द्रयम् ॥. On p. 115 (G.O.S. vol. I) a verse of राहुल क on वैशाखरेचित is quoted. He is credited with having recognised मौग्ध्य, मद, भावविकृत, परितपन as अलद्कारs of young ladies in chap. 24 in addition to भरत's twenty (in 24. 5-30). Abhinava once quotes मातृगुप्त on पुष्प, a technical term for a particular way of the playing of the वीया defined in नाट्यशास्त्र 29. 93 (Ch. ed.).2 He appears to have been a poet and writer on Natya and Sangita. Theभावप्रकाशन quotes his view that, though a Nataka should have a plot based on past incidents, still it should have some incidents due to the poet's creative imagination.3 Several verses of his are quoted in about 20 different places byराघवभट्ट in his अथद्योतनिका (commentary on शाकुन्तल) on सूत्रधारगुs, on आर्यावर्त, onशौरसेनी being the dialect for women of all castes in dramas, on नाटकलक्षण (51 verses), on बीज (3 verses), one verse on who were to speak Sanskrit in dramas, definition of भूष (the first of 36 लक्षण of नाट्य), on definition of यवनी attendants (1 verses), definitions of सेनापति, of हसित, of स्मित, पताकास्थानक, कञचुकिन्, परिचारिका, कार्य, when संस्कृत may be spoken by those who are ordinarily to speak प्राकृत. The नाटकलक्षरत्नकोष of सागरनन्दिन् quotes several verses of मातृगुप्त on pp.5,14,20,21,23,50. In the वक्रोक्तिजीवित (p.52) he is referred to as a great poet whose work is full of सौकुमार्य and the औचित्य विचारचर्चा quotes his verses(e.g. on p. 142). The राजतरकिणी (III. 125-323) describes at great length how मा तृगुप्त was the court poet of हर्षविक्रमादित्य, how he was a conte- mporary and patron of भतृ मेएठ (राजतर. III.260-262), how he beca- me regent or king of Kashmir for about five years after हर्ष and how ultimately he became an ascetic (यति) at Benares (राजतर.III.

1. तेन मौग्ध्यमदभावविकृतपरितपनादीनामपि शाक्याचार्यराहुलादिभिरभिधानं विरुद्धमित्यलं बहुना। p. 164 of अ.भा. (vol.III GOS) on सामान्याभिनय .. 2. यथोक्तं भट्टमातृगुप्तेन । पुष्पं च जनयत्येको भूयोनुस्पर्शनान्वितः । इति । p. 402 of B. O. R. I. copy. 3. पूर्ववृत्ताश्रयमपि किंचिदुत्पाधवस्तु च। विधेयं नाटकमिति मातृगुप्तेन भाषितम्। भा. प्र. p. 234.

COMMENTATORS OF NĀȚYASĀSTRA 55

320). It does not appear that he was a commentator of the Natyasastra, though one may hold that the areua patronized by r may have written a work in verse dealing with the topics of dramaturgy. The राजतर० ascribes two verses to him(III.181 and 252). Theनाट्यप्रदीप of सुन्दरमिश्र composed in 1613 A.D. quotes the definition of नान्दी from भरत'S नाट्यशास्त्र (5.25 and 106) and then remarks 'अस्य व्याख्याने मातृगुप्ताचायँ: षोडशाडिघ्रपदापीयमुदाहृता' (vide I.O. Cat. of mss. part III. p. 348 No. 1199). But this remark by a late writer need not be taken too literally. All that it means may be that मातृगुप्त in his work on dramaturgy dealt with भरत's defini- tion of नान्दी. Dr. De (H. of S.P. vol.I.p. 33)was inclined to hold that the poet मातृगुप्त of the राजतरहिखी was different from the writer on dramaturgy, but he was not probably aware, when he wrote, that अभिनवquotes a half verse on पुष्प from मातृगुप्त who writes on dra- maturgy.At one time it was thought by scholars such as Dr.Bhau Dāji (in J.B. B. R. A. S. for 1861 pp. 208 ff.) that mragea was to be identified with कालिदास,but hardly anyone now holds that view. If we rely on the राजतर०, मातृगुप्त must have flourished in the first half of the 7th century. Prof. T. R. Chintamani collected 'the fragments of Matrgupta' in J. O. R. Madras vol. II pp. 118-128. Whether Bhatta Tauta, the teacher of Abhinava in the Nātya- śāstra, wrote a commentary on the Nātyaśāstra will be discussed later on. Utpaladeva, who was the teacher's teacher of Abhinava in the Pratyabhijñasastra, is frequently quoted by the A. B. on chapters 29. 31, 32 (on ETaTs.). But it is difficult to say whether he wrote a commentary on these chapters or an independent work on music. On p. 436 (of the B. O. R. I. copy) Abhinava appears to differ from him (उत्पलदेवपादास्तु अस्मत्परमगुरवो व्याचवते ... घयं तु मन्महे). The लोचन on the ध्वन्यालोक (p. 217) quotes from भरत the verse बहूनां समवेतानां रूपं यस्य भवेद्द। स मन्तव्यो रसः स्थायी शेषा: सक्वारिणो मताः॥ (नाट्यशास्त्र GOS.ed.20. 76=Ch.22. 68 which reads सर्वेषां for बहूनां), states that it was variously interpreted and sets out the view of भागुरि 'तथा च भागुरिरपि कि रसानामपि स्थायिसञ्चारितास्तीत्यात्िप्याभ्युपगमेनवोत्तर- मवोचद्वाढमस्तीति' (लोचन p.217). भागुरि as a commentator of भरत is not yet known from any other source. A few words must be said about ancient writers on drama- turgy as their works have not yet been found. The सङ्गीतरत्नाकर (I.15-18)mentions many divine, semi-divine and human authors, such as सदाशित, शिवा, ब्रह्मा, भरत, कश्यपमुनि, मतङ्, याष्टिक, कोहल, विशा-

56 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

खिल, दन्तिल, कम्पल, अश्वतर, नारद, तुम्धर, भञ्जनेय, मातृगुप, रावण, नन्दिकेश्वर, रुद्रट, नान्यभूपाल, भोज, सोमेश्वरपरमदी, जगदेकमहीपति. Kohala is one of them and a good deal has already been said about him above (pp. 24-25). He appears to have written on all topics of नाट्यशास्त्रं especially on music, acting and dance. See my paper on 'the fragments of Kohala' in the proceedings of the 6th Session of the All India O. Conference at Patna pp. 577-580. Mr. Kavi (in J. Andhra H. R. S. vol. III. at p. 24) says that the सक्गीतमेरु of कोहल is not now available except the chapter on ताल and अमिनय. It was Kohala who started the definitions of Uparupa- kas like सट्टक (नाट्यदर्पण p. 25 and अभिनव vol. II.p. 407). That the Aubhatas thought that the verse रसा भावा (नाव्यशास्त्र 6.10) puts down the elements of the historionic art at eleven according to the view of कोहल has already veen stated (p.24 n. 2). A. B. very frequently mentions the views of Kohala and quotes his verses also. On नाव्य 9.4-6 (vol. II p.26) Kohala is said to be नृत्ताचार्यं (शून्यभा- स्वरविद्युदाद्यभिनयविषये नृत्ताचार्यप्रवाहसिद्ध: कोहललिखितोपि हस्तः सकतो भवतीति). His views are mentioned on ra0 9. 126 (vol II. p. 55), on 12. 2-3 (vol. II. p.130), vol. II. p. 142 (about a धरुवाताल being called सुमद्र), vol. II. p. 144 (modes of moving about called नर्तनक and उत्फुल्लक in रौद्ररस), vol. II. p. 146 (a लय called जम्भटिका), vol. II. p. 151, on नाव्य 12.113 (vol. II p.155 about gaits called खञ्जक, हेला, विलम्बित), on नाव्य 18. 1 (vol. II. p. 407, saying that if the word प्रयोगत: is properly interpreted, then तोटक, स्टक, रासक and other auqas will be included), on 18. 7-8 (vol. II: p. 410) Kohala separately named several varieties of plays, but they are practically included in the definitions of the ten रूपकs); on 18. 14 (vol. II. pp. 416-17, the रूपक called अकू is of three kinds acc. to कोहल from whom 2t verses are quoted), on 18. 26 (vol. II. p. 421 कोहल spoke of five अर्थोपच्षेपकs), vol. II. p. 434 (quotes an आर्या from कोहल about विष्कम्भक), vol. II. p. 452 (कोहल's view 'शृङ्गारहास्यकरुणैरिह कैशिकी स्यात्' is opposed to भरत's), vol. II p. 459 (two आर्याs of कोहल quoted on वीथी), vol. II. p. 133 (an श्रनुष्टभ् of कोहल on दविपदी is quoted. On p. 72 of अ. भा. vol. III. G. O. S. it is said that rūpakas are of many varieties, acc. to Kohala on the basis of the languages employed and that Bharata must be regarded as holding the same view since he accepts a play called Saindhavaka composed in the Saindhava speech ((तेन दशरूपकस्य यद्दाषाकृतं वैचित्र्यं कोहलादिभिरुकं तदिह मुनिना सैन्धवा-

ANCIENT WRITERS ON NĀȚYA SĀSTRA 57

अनिरूपयो स्वीकृतमेव)1 On p. 146. (chap.22.)(and 24.1 of Ch.ed.) of भ. भा. it is said that former writers who followed Kohala's doctrines regard that सामान्याभिनय is of six kinds and a verse of कोइल is quoted. On chap. 25. 124. श. भा. p.289 says that oneshould study also the चित्राभिनयs well-known from Kohala's sastra and cites over thirty explanatory verses. The भावप्रकाशन frequently quotes Kohala's views (vide pp. 204, 210, 236, 245, 251). मार्कएडेय, author of प्राकृतसर्वस्त्र, states in the third Intro. verses that after studying the works of शाकल्य, भरत, कोहल, वर रुचि, भामह, वसन्तराज and others he composed his work. This shows that कोहल wrote on Prakrits also, as did Bharata. The रसार्यंवसुधाकर of शिक्ष्भूपाल (p. 8 verses 52-54) states that the sons of Bharata, viz. शाश्डिल्य, कोहल, दत्तिल and मतङ् wrote works on नाव्यशास्त्र. In the कामसूत्र (I. 1. 11, VI.2.55, VI.3.44) mention is made of दत्तक who at the request of the Ganikas of Pataliputra expounded the वैशिक section of कामशास्त्र. The कुट्टनीमत (verses 77, 122) mentions दत्तकाचार्य (v. 1. दन्तिलाचार्य). The अभिनवभारती (vol. I. p. 205, chap. 4.326-327 on ध्रुवा) quotes a sloka from दत्तिलाचार्य. In the B. O. R. I. copy the verses of दत्तिलाचार्य are very frequently quoted on आतोद and ताल. Vide pp. 383 (on chap.28.10),403 (chap. 29. 101 of Ch. ed.), 435, 439 (on chap. 31. 31), 442, 446, 447, 450, 478, 487, 489 (a verse on ओवेयक), 491. Mr. Kavi (in J. Andhra H. R. S. Vol. III. p. 24) stated that his work is called गान्धर्ववेदसार and is now available. दन्तिल andदत्तिल are clearly forms of the same name, but whether theदत्तक mentioned by the कामसूत्र is the same as दत्तिल of the नाट्यशाख is doubtful. Matanga is mentioned as an expert in hollow musical instruments (such as a flute) by 1. Vide नाट्यशास्त्र 31. 513 (Ch. ed.) सैन्धवीमाश्रितं भाषां ज्ञेय सैन्धवक दुध:। रूपकाधादिसंयुक्त सैन्धवं स्यादथोद्धतम् ॥. The corresponding verse in K. M. 31. 315 presents a better reading in the second half as 'रूपवाद्यादिसंयुक्त युग्मतालकृतं तथा'. 2. 'कोहलमतानुसारिभिवृद्धः सामान्याभिनयस्तु षोढा भएयते। तथाहि कोहलः। शिष्टं कामं मिश्रं वक्रं सम्भूतमेकयुक्तत्वम्। सामान्याभिनये यत् षोढा विदुरेतदेव बुधाः। इति। 3. The Vijagapatam ed. of प्राकृतसर्वस्व, 1927 4. Similarly, the रसरत्नप्रदीपिका (recently edited by Dr. R.N. Dandekar in the · भारतीयविधाभवन series) mentions numerous authors and works that the author of the work studied such as कश्यप, कोहल, मतन, दत्तिल, विशाखिल, नारद, तुम्बर, रावण

58 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

दामोदरगुप्त.1 So he is very much older than अभिनवगुप्त. The B. O. R. I. copy of A. B. p. 420 (on chap. 30, 1 ) states that formerly the sage naF and others propitiated the great god Maheśvara (Siva) by means of the flute made of a bamboo, that it became well-known as वंश, that any hollow tube made even of the Khadira tree can be called सुषिर आतोध2 and then quotes a sloka to the same effect from मत and says later on that मतन has made it clear that even hollow metallic flutes may be used "तथाहि मतङ्- मुनिना 'चत्वारो धातवो वंश इत्यादिना धातुविनियोगोपि प्रदर्शित एव.' On chap. 30 verse 11 the B.O.R.I. copy p. 426 quotes two verses (ślokas) of मतङ्ग. The सङ्गीतचूडामणि of जगदेकमल्ल (1138-1150 A.D.) refers to मतङ and भोज as great writers before him (I.H.Q. vol. 20 p. 87). The सङ्गीतरत्नाकर (I. 15 ff) mentions many authors (p.55). कल्िनाथ on सं. र. I. 3.24 p.38 states that मतङ explained how the स्वरs called षड्ज and others are significant and on I. 3.25 remarks 'सरिगादीनां मतङ्गाभिमतः उद्धारकक्रमः उच्यते.' On सं. र. I. 4. 9. कल्विनाथ says that मतद्ग and नन्दिकेश्वर speak of twelve मूर्छनाs.On सं. र. I. 8. 19 p.146 कल्लिनाथ states the view of मतङ् 'सामवेदे गीतप्रधाने आवृत्तिषु भर्था नाद्रियन्ते इति.'On सं. र. II. 1. 7 कल्लिनाथ remarks that मतङ speaks of seven गीतिs taking into account भाषाs and dialects (विभाषा), while भरत speaks of only four viz. मागधी etc.8 Mr. Kavi (J.Andhra H.R.S.,vol. III. at p. 24) says that मतङ् is the author of बृहद्देशी about 2500 slokas of which are now available. The बृहद्देशी has been referred to dozens of times in the भरतभाष्य of नान्यदेव (ms. ll1. of 1869-70 at B.O.R.I. e. g. folios 86a, 86b, 107 &c.). Recently a work called भरता- सव of नन्दिकेश्वर with translation in English and Tamil has been published in the Tanjore Sarasvati Mahal series No. 74 (1957). It deals with 'नर्तन' (Dance). The ms was incomplete and conta- ins first fiftecn chapter of over 800 verses out of 4000. विशाखिल

1. सुषिरस्वरप्रयोगे प्रतिपादनपसडितो मतक्ञमुनिः। कुट्टनीमत verse 877. 2. पूर्व भगवन्महेश्वराराधानं मतङ्गमुनिप्रभृतिभिर्वशुमितं (वेुना कृतं ?) ततो वंश इति प्रसिद्ध:, वस्तुतस्तु छिद्रात्मकसुषिराभिव्यक्तस्वरविशेषरूपतयवास्योपयोग इति खादि- रादिनिर्मित व्यसनं (?) भवत्येव । तथा चोक्तम्। वंशे सृष्टं यदा पूर्व वंशसक्ता तु वैवी। वंशास्तु खादिरारोप्या : शंशवायत्क ... इति। 3. Vide नाट्यशास्त्र 29. 76-77 अ्रत ऊर्ध्वं प्रवच््यामि गीतीनामपि लक्षयम्।। प्रथमा मागधी शैया द्वितीया चार्धमागधी। सम्भाविता तृतीया च चतुर्थी पृथुला स्मृता।।. These four are also mentioned in सं र. 1.8. 14-16 and कल्लिनाथ says 'अस्या मगधदेशोन्भ्रवत्वान्मागधीति निरुक्तिर्मतशोका'

VĀRTİKA ON NĀȚYASĀSTRA 59

is cited as a writer on कलाs in वामन's काव्यालक्वारसूत्रवृत्ति (I.3.7.). The कुट्टनीमत (v. 123) has भरतविशाखिलदन्तिलवृक्षायुर्वेदचित्रसूत्रेषु। पत्रच्छेदविधाने भ्रमकमषि पुस्तसूदशास्त्रेषु ॥. The A. B. (vol. I. p. 199 on chap. 4. 312) states that लास्यगान was expounded by विशाखिल. On नाट्यशास्त्र 28. 10 the A. B. (B.O.R.I. copy p. 383) states the view 'तथा च विशाखिलाचार्या: स्वरपदतालसमवाये गान्धर्वमिति.' On नाट्य 29. 81-83, B. O. R. I. copy p. 401 makes the following remarks and thereby suggests that अभिनव thought that भरत knew विशाखिल 'एवकारेण चतुष्प्रहर एासत्रिप्रहर यमङगुलीनां विभागो द्े वृती समलेखा च त्रिलेखा इत्यादिकं विशा- खिलाचार्यान्तरप्रोक्तं सर्वंथव ध्रुवागानज्ञानवैकल्प्योपयोगात् मया नोक्तमिति सूचयति।.' विशाखिल is mentioned also on pp. 408, 422(on 30.3 अतएव शारीरवद्वंश्यानामारोहयमिवारोहयं वेति विशाखिलाचार्य: ।), 429, 431, 432, 497 (विशाखिलादिलन्ितं सर्वमेव लास्यगानं). It appears that there was a work called Vartika on the Nātyasastra. It was composed by one Srīharșa or Harșa. He is frequently referred to sometimes as simply वार्तिककृत and some- times as श्रीहर्ष; (1) On नाट्य. II. 97-98 (A. B. vol. I. p. 67) the views of the वार्तिककृत on the numbers of columns(स्तम्भ) to be erec- ted in various parts of the नाट्यमएडप are quoted in 11 aryas that are rather mutilated. On p. 68 there are four more āryas with gaps that are also probably from the वार्तिक; (2) on नाट्य I. 84 नेपथ्यभूमौ मित्रस्तु, A. B. (vol. I. p. 31) mentions the view of वार्तिककार which cannot be made out clearly as the passage is corrupt; (3) on नाट्य 4. 267-268 (vol I. p. 172) the वार्तिककृत् asserts that in essence नाट्य and नृत्त are not different,1वाच्यानुगतेऽभिनये प्रतिपाधेर्थे च गात्रविक्षेपः। उभयोरपि हि समानः को भेदो नृत्तनाव्यगतः ॥l; (4) The same view is enforced by another arya from the वार्तिक (vol. I.

1. नाट्य means all dramatic performance. It comprehends drama, singing and dance. In several kinds of रूपकs drama predonimates, in the other रूपकs and in उपरूपकs song and dance predominate. Sometimes a distinction is made between नाट्य, नृत्य and नृत्त. नाट्य is represented by several persons, नृत्य and नृत्त are the business of one (they are एकहार्य). नृत्य and नृत्त are also distinguished. Vide दशरूपक 1. 7-9 अवस्थानुकृतिर्नाट्यं ... दशधैव रसाश्रयम्। अन्यद् भावाश्रयं नृत्यं नृत्त ताललयाश्रयम्।'. The भावप्रका- शन p. 298 says: 'पदार्थाभिनयो नृत्यं डोम्बीश्रीगदितादिषु। अरभविक्षेपमात्रं यल्लयतालसमन्वितम्॥ तन्नृत्त &c .; also p. 45 नटकमैव नाट्यं स्यादिति नाट्यविदां मतम्। करसैरडहारैश्च नि्वृत्त नृत्तमुच्यते ॥. What is common to all three is अनुकृति or अनुकरण. The भमरकोश has तौर्यंत्रिकं नृत्यगीतवाचयं नाट्यमिदं त्रयम्।'

60 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

P. 174 एवमवाम्तरवाक्यैरुपदेशो रागदर्शनीयेषु। सिंहादिवर्षकैर्वा क्वचिदप्यर्थान्तरन्या- ma n); (5) On IV. 331 (vol. I. p. 207) th same view is further asserted by a mutilated quotation from हर्षबार्तिक; (6) Śrīharsa's view about the interpretation of the word पूर्वरज् (नाव्य. 5. 7) and one arya of his are quoted (vol. I. p. 211) श्रीहर्षस्तु रक्शब्देन तौर्यंत्रिकं ब्रुवन् नाट्याङ्गप्रयोगस्य तस्यैव पूर्वरक्गता मन्यमान: पूर्वश्रासी रज्न इति समासममंस्त। यदाह-दृष्टा येडवस्थार्थे (वस्त्वर्थे ?) नाट्ये रज्ाय पादभागा: स्युः । पूर्व त एव यस्मिन् शुद्धा: स्युः पूर्वरक्गोऽसौ ॥।; (7) On नाव्य. 5. 8-15 which mention th~ angas of पूर्वर, A.B. (vol.I p. 212) quotes a prose passage from the वार्तिक which is mutilated; (8) on नाय्य. 5. 180 श्रीहर्ष is quoted in conncction with the प्रस्तावना in पूर्वरङ्न (vol. I. p. 251, यदाह श्रीहर्षः-अत एव हासो नाम कविः कस्मिश्चि- न्नाटके 'दिवं यातश्वित्तज्वरेख कलिरित एवाभिवर्तते, अशक्यमस्य पुरतोध्वस्थातुम्' इत्यादि).1 From the above it follows that the हर्षबार्तिक probably dealt with all the chapters, that it was composed mostly in Āryā verses with prose passages and illustrations from dramatic Lite- rature. Mr. Kavi (Intro. p. XXIII to vol. II.) says that a large fragment of वार्तिक on अम्हार has been recovered. Dr. Raghavan (in his paper on writers quoted in the Abhiniva- bhāratī in J. O. R. Madras vol. VI at p. 205) remarks 'Here also it is quoted only in the first six chapters. Not even a single reference to it is available in the remaining bulk of the Abhinava- bharati.' This statement argues from silence and is therefore not to be taken as deciding for certain that there was no arfefes on any chapter after the book. We have no comment of Abhinava on the 7th (except on the first few verses) and 8th chapters and there are gaps in other chapters also and there is no com- mentry after chap. 32. The भावप्रकाशन quotes a view of Harsa that तोटक differs from नाटक in this that in the former there is no विदूषक (p.238). Dr. Sankaran in 'History of the theory of Rasa' p. 13 identified the great emperor 4 of Kanoj with this Śrī Harșa. But this is mere conjecture. The भावप्रकाशन (p.238) speaks of सुबन्धु as a writer on dramatu- rgy who divided natakas into five kinds viz. पूर्ण, प्रशान्त, भास्वर, ललित, and समग्र. The नाव्यशासत्र (24.41) divides शारीराभिनय into six varieties 1. The editor suggests that भास should be read for हास but there are no grounds to do so. FTH may well have been the name of a dramatist, now unknown.

COMMENTATORS OF NĀȚYASĀSTRA 61

one of which is माट्यायित (defined in verse 48). On this भ.भा. (vol. III. p.172) refers to वासव दत्तानाव्यधार composed by the great poet Subandhu as an instance of नाव्यायित (तत्रास्य बहुतरव्यापिनो बहुगर्मस्व- प्नायिततुल्यस्य नाव्यायितस्योदाहरणं महाकविसुबन्धुनिबद्धो वासदत्तानाट्यधाराख्य: समस्त एव प्रयोग:। तत्र हि बिन्दुसार: प्रयोज्यवस्तुके उदयनचरिते &c.) This drama of Subandhu appears to be referred toin A.B. (vol. II. 427) as वासवदत्तानृत्तधार. Whether the महाकविसुबन्धु and the writer सुबन्धु on dramaturgy (referred to by भावप्रकाशन) are identical is doubtful. Probably they are different. In the Govt. collection of mss. (at B.O.R.I.)there is a ms. (No. 111 of 1869-70, described in Cat. vol. 12 pp.377-383) which is called भरतभाष्य or सरस्वतीहृदयालक्कार (and also भरतवार्तिक in the colophon at the end) and which was composed by नान्यपति or नान्यदेव styled in the colophons महासामन्ताधिपति and धर्मावलोक, king ofMithila. It was intended to be a huge work; the above deals only with one (viz. वाचिकांश) out of the four kinds of अभिनय. It is principally a com. on chapters 28 to 33 of the Natyasastra, which deal with music. The author states that he was also called राजनारायख (folio 12a) and was a younger brother of कीतिराज (folio 199a). He mentions another work of his called अ्रन्थमहार्णव. The last verse on folio 221 ends 'तेनायं मिथिलेश्वरेण रचितोऽध्यायोवनद्धाभिष:'. He promises that in 17 chapters he will expound the वाचिकाभिनयs and gives a summary of the names and contents.The ms. (221folios) is old and employs qsawras and is written very closely but in a legible hand. There is some confusion in the ms. Chapters 5 (on अलक्कार), 16 and 17 are wanting. The work is not a commentary on each verse of Bharata, bu the latter is profusely quoted hundreds of times. कश्यप,दत्तिल and नारद also are quoted hundreds of times.बृहत्कश्यप and वृद्धकश्यप arequotedon folios lllb and l14b respectively. बुदद्देशी, मतक, याष्टिक and विशाखिल are quoted dozens of times. Among the other authors and works quoted are नारदीयशिक्षाविवरणकृत (folio 16b), देवराज (sometimes written as देदराज as on folios 69b,70), मेर्वाचार्य (folio 70a), नन्दिमत (205a, 210b), स्वरसंहिताचार्यं (197b), स्वाति (201 a, is called स्वरमुनिः), याज्ञवल्कयस्मृति III. 112-116 (on folio 182a), तुम्बुरु (181b), कालिकापुराख (13la), भगवतपुराख or भागवतपुराख . (138a, 138b). The author closely follows भभिनवशुप्त but rarely na- mes him as on falios 10a,184b. पाखिनि, नारद andअपिशालि(भापिशलि?) are mentioned in one place (8b). He sometimes contrasts his own views with those of भरत, e.g. (13a) गान्धारभामक् भरतेनालौकिकशात्रोपद: र्शितः । अस्मामिश्चागमानुसारेय प्रदर्सित: 15a भरताचार्यस्यास्य शास्त्रे

62 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

... प्रयोगागता अस्माभिश्च कश्यपमतकतुम्बरविशाखिलाधाचार्यनिखिलमुनिवचनात् &c. In places the author quotes uTs (e.g. on folios 21a, 39a, 43a on गान्धारपञ़्चमीलक्षण, 43b on भान्ध्रीलक्षण). So also he quotes in classical Sanskrit padas and catuspadis called बह्मोक्त (folio 22b, 42a अस्यां ब्र्मोक्तं चतुःपदी यथा-सोस्यां गौरीमुखाम्भोजरुहदिव्यतिलकपरिचुम्बितार्चित &c.) The date of the author of the भरतभाष्य, viz. of king Nanya- deva would not present any difficulty but for one circumstance. The 4th Introductory verse is 'लक्ष्यप्रधानं खलु शास्त्रमेतान्नःशङ्कदेवोपि तदेव वष्टि (वक्ति ?). Verse 23 of the first chapter (which is in उपजाति) also refers to निःशक्क 'नोपाधि ददेधस्य (?) विकारभेदं निःशङ्कसूरि: खलु कूटताने। सवषु तास्तेपि कृताश्च शुद्धाश्चतुदशैवेति मतं मदीयम् ॥.' निःशक्क is a somewhat unusual name for an author. It was borne by the author of the सङ्गीतरत्नाकर who was called निशङ्कशाङ्गदेव and whose father afeer was patronized by king Bhillama and also by Singhana of the Yadavas of Devagiri. faru ruled from about 1210 to 1247 A.D.So शाङ्गदेव would have to beplaced about 1233 to 1270A.D. Then if नान्यदेव refers to निःशक्काशाङगदेव, the former cannot be much than about 1280 to 1300 A. D. But there is no Nānyadeva, known at present, who ruled over Mithila in the latter half of the 13th century. The king नान्यदेव of Mithila was the founder of the Karnātaka dynasty of Mithila and is said to have ruled from 1097 to 1147 A.D. Vide the Proceedings of the 14th session of the Indian History Congress 130-135 (by Mr. Radhakrishna Choudhury) on 'Nanyadeva and his contemporaries.' He was defeated by Vijayasena, king of Bengal, who ruled from 1095 A.D. to 1158 A.D. Vide the Deopara plate (E. I. vol. I. 305 at p. 314) and Dr. R. C. Majum- dar in I.H.Q. vol. VII.pp. 679-687, where he says that विजयसेन came to the throne in 1095 A.D. This would indicate that this Nānyadeva flourished about 1100 A.D. Therefore, either the references to निःशङ्कदेव in the ms. of the भरतभाष्य are interpolations (which is quite possible, in view of the fact that the ms. is not complete and no other ms. is available at present for comparison) or the निःशङ्कदेव referred to in the भरतभाष्य is some one other than शाङदेव or that there was some otherनान्यदेव of Mithila not yet disco- vered. The matter of the date of the भरतभाष्य will have to rest there for the present. At the end of the नाटकलक्षरत्नकोश of सागरनन्दिन् occurs the verse श्रीहर्ष-विक्रमनराधिप-मातृगुप्त-गर्ग-श्रश्मकुट्ट- नखकुट्टकवादराखाम्। एवां मतेन भरतस्य मतं विगाध् धुष्टंमया समनुगच्छत रत्नकोशम्॥ It appears that according to सागर नन्दिन् these seven authors had

COMMENTATORS OF NĀTYASASTRA 63

either written commentaries on Bharata's work or at least had treated of Nātyaśāstra topics in their works. As the Natyasastra of Bharata was spoken of as Bharata- sutra by अभिनवगुप्त and others (vide above pp. 10-11, 26 &c.), it is natural that following the precedents of the sastras of Grammar, Logic, Vedänta and the like certain works were composed on the Nāțyaśāstra called Vārtika and Bhāșya. We had occasion above to say something about Mr. Kavi and his method (p. 14). In reply to criticisms, particularly of Dr. De, Mr. Kavi justifies his work at length in I. H. Q. vol. V. pp. 558-577. Dr. De's brief rejoinder may be read In I. H. Q. vol. V. pp. 786-789. Vide Dr. Raghavan's 'Number of Rasas', Adyar Library pp. 92-106 and 'Bhoja's Śrngāraprakāsa' pp.536- 543 (Karnataka Publishing House) for a revised version of the अभिनवभारती and Adyar Library Bulletin, vol. XVIII. parts 3-4 pp. 196-209 for emendations in some passages from vol. I and II of the अभिनवभारती (G.O.S. edition) 4 Medhavin. HIHT twice mentions a writer on Alankāra named Medhavin who enumerated seven faults of Upamā (a a उपमादोषा: सप्त मेधाविनोदिता: II. 40). In another place he says 'यथासं- ख्यमथोत्प्रेक्षामल क्वारद्वयं विदुः । संख्यानमिति मेधाविनोत्प्रेक्षाभिहिता कचित्॥'(II.88). The latter half as printed means 'Utpreksā has been in some places designatedIT by Medhavin.' But this does not make good sense. HeT7, we are told by Dandin, is the name given to यथासंख्य by other writers ('यथासंख्यमिति प्रोक्तं संख्यानं क्रम इत्यपि' काव्यादश II.273). Therefore the passage in Bhämaha's work seems to be corrupt.If weread मेधावी नोत्प्रेच्ा etc. then there is correspondence with Dandin's words, the meaning being 'Medhavin calls यथासंख्य by the name aIT and in some places (in some works on alankāra) उत्प्रेक्षा has not been spoken of as an Alankara.'नमिसाधु in commenting upon Rudrata's काव्यालक्कार (I. 2) says, ननु दण्डमेधाविरुद्रभामहादिकृतानि सन्त्येवालक्वारशाख्त्ायि.The question is whether मेधाविरुद is one name or whether there were two writers on Alankāraśāstra named Medhā- vin and Rudra. No work on Alankāra composed by Rudra has been referred to by another writer. The शभ्गारतिलक of रुद्रभट्ट as its contents show cannot be called a work on theअलक्वारशाख.Therefore, it is probable that the full name is मेधाविरुद्र. धर्मकीर्ति and भर्तृ हरि are often cited as कीति and हरि; s0 there is no wonder if मेधाविरुद्र be cited as मेधाविन् (vide my article in J. R.A.S.1908 at p. 545 on भामह and दविडन्). शाs० quotes a verse of मालवरुद्र (No. 1091) and of

64 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

कपिलरुद्र (No. 3787) and सुभा० of a कपिलरुद्र (1666). This shows that there were many Rudras. On रुद्रट (XI.24) नमिसाधु again quotes मेधाविन् about the seven दोषs of simile and the manner in which he deals with this topic suggests that the examples he gives are taken from Medhavin's work, अत्र च स्वरूपोपादाने सत्यपि चत्वार इति ग्रहयाधन्मेधाविप्रभृतिभिरुक्तं यथा लिग्वचनमेदौ हीनताधिक्यम- सम्भवो विपर्ययोऽसादृश्यमिति सप्तोपमादोषा :... तदेतन्निरस्तम्' नमिसाधु quotes seven verses illustrating the seven faults of Upamā mentioned by Medhavin. Five of these seven occur in भामह's काव्यालक्कार II.40, 47,55, 58, 63. The two verses illustrating उपमानोप मेययोलिंन्वचनभेद and हीनता that do not occur in भामह are, 'भच्िताः सक्तवो राजषशुद्धा: कुलवधूरिव। परमातेव निःस्नेहा शीतला: परकार्यवत् ।' and स्फुरन्ति निखिला नीले तारका गगने निशि। भास्कराभीशुसंस्पृष्टा कृमयः कदमे यथा ।.' नमिसाधु mentions the seven examples immediately after mentioning मेधाविन and does not name भामह with regard to them. नमिसाधु mentions भामह by name on रुद्रट 8.84. If the verses were भामह's he would have probably so stated. Therefore, NTHE should be taken as quoting five verses from मेधाविन्. On p.9 (on रुद्रट II.2) नमिसाधु tells us that मेधाविरुद्ध and others gave only four divisions of शब्द 'एत एव चत्वार: शब्दविधा इति येषां सम्यङ मतं तत्र तेषु नामादिषु मध्ये मेधाविरुद्रप्रमृतिभिः कर्मप्रवचनीया नोक्ता भवेयुः'. The त्रिकाएडशेष gives मेधाविरुद्र and कालिदास as synonyms. The काव्यमी० tells us that मेधाविरुद्र and कुमारदास were poets blind from birth (p. 12) and quotes कालिदास as a writer on Poetics (p. 14). The work of मेधाविन् has not come down to modern times. 5. A passage in the वासवदत्ता of Subandhu (Hall's ed.p.235) 'बौद्धसङ्गतिमिवालक्वारभूषिताम' led many scholars like Aufrecht(Indische Studien, vol.16 pp. 205-207), Hall, Peterson (Preface to सुभा० p. 47 and J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. 16 p. 173) and Telang (in J. B. B. B. R. A.S. vol. 18 pp. 148, 150) to regard धर्मकीर्ति as one of the oldest writers on Alankara, following the explanation of शिवराम that अलक्वार was a work of धर्मकीर्ति. But the Srirangam edition reads (p. 303), 'सत्कविकाव्यर चनामिवालक्कारप्रसाधिताम्'. Moreover, there is nothing beside this passage to show that धर्मकीति wrote a work on Poetics. Prof. Batukanath in 'Brief Survey of Sāhitya-sāstra' (J. of Dept. of Letters, Calcutta, vol. IX. p. 119) simply repeats what Aufrecht said. That the Buddhist Dharmakirti was a poet appears to follow from quotations contained in the anthologies where he is often cited as अदन्तवर्मकीर्ति (शाङ०No. 947, सुभा०657; सुभा 737,1587, 1617, 2246, 3232). The ध्वन्यांलोक (p.270) quotes the

DHARMAKĪRTI AND ALANKĀRASĀSTRA 65

verse 'लावएयद्रविशाष्ययो न गशितः क्लेशो महानर्जितः स्वच्छन्दरं चरतो जनस्य हृदये चिन्ताज्वरो निर्मितः। एषापि स्वयमेव तुल्यरमणभावाद्राकी हता कोऽर्थश्चेतसि वेधसा विनिदितिस्तन्व्यास्तनं तन्वता ।।' and says that some explained this verse as an example of व्याजस्तुति while it is really an example of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. Then it remarks 'तथा चायं धर्मकीतेः श्लोक इति प्रसिद्धि: सम्भाव्यते च तस्यैव'. The reason assigned is that the verse quoted has underlying it a current of ideas similar to another verse which certainly was composed by धर्मकीर्ति. The verse is then quoted (ध्व.p.272). क्षेमेन्द्र (in औचित्यवि०), सुभाषितावलि and other anthologies follow the ध्वन्या० in ascribing the verse लावएयद्रविख० to धर्मकीर्ति. So the Buddhist logician and philosopher धमकीर्ति may have been a poet, but there is nothing to substantiate the claim to regard him as a writer on Alankāra. It is quite possible that what सुबन्धु wrote was बौद्धसङ्गीतिमिवा- लङ्कारभूषिताम्. सक्गीति means 'Council' (vide Introduction to धम्मपद S.B. E.vol. X. p. XXXI).It is also the name of that class of Buddhist Literature where in the very opening lines Buddha is introduced in an assembly of the faithful (vide Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. X. at p. 5n). Mrs. Rhys Davids explains 'sangiti' as 'standardized scriptural recital'. There are two works that have the title ser- क्ार, one is the सूत्रालक्वार of अश्वघोष, which was translated into Chinese by कुमाराजीव (405 A. D.) and is a compilation of stories that illustrate the retribution of Karma (vide Dr. B. C. Law on 'Aśvaghoșa' p. 6, and Journal Asiatique for 1929 at pp. 270-280, and K. G. Saunders' 'Epochs in Buddhist History' p. 56, E. J. Thomas in 'Indian Culture' vol. XIII. pp. 143-146). The other is the महायानसूत्रालङ्कार attributed to असङ and commented on by वसुबन्धु (in the 4th century A.D.). Prof. Ui tries to prove that the महायानसूत्रालङ्कार is a work of मैत्रेय (and not of असङ) commented on byagary. Vide Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranistik, vol.VI. for 1928 pp. 215-225 for Prof. Ui's article. M. Sylvain Levi edited the text of महायानसूत्रालक्कार with French translation (1907 and 1911).In his Introduction (p.16) Levi reads बौद्धसक्गीतिमिवालक्कारभूषि- ताम् and states that a commentator called नरसिंह explained भलक्कार as 'sastra bouddhique.' In spite of the fact there is no positive evidence so far for holding that ynfailfa wrote on Sanskrit Poetics, Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya in his paper called 'Neo-Buddhist nucleus in Alankāraśāstra' J. A. S. B. vol. XXII, 1956, part I pp. 49-66 cannot help nourishing the hope that it might ultima- tely turn out that Dharmakirti, did write on Poetics (p. 64).

66 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Further, his reference to Sākyācārya Rāhula (m. by A. B.) on N. S. 22. 26-31, p. 164 of G.O.S. vol. III) and to Śauddhodani on whose Kārikās Keśavamiśra composed his Alankāraśekhara (No. 37 below) are very slender reeds for building the theory of his paper. Rāhula is quoted in the three volumes of A. B. only 3 times and there is no reason to suppose that he is much earlier than the 10th century while Kesavamiśra is a late writer of 16th century and the Kārikās ascribed to Sauddhodani have been shown below to have been composed after 11th century. The science of Sanskrit Poetics had been solidly based without Buddhist help before these two writers flourished. 6. The विष्णुधर्मोत्तरपुराण. Itis a matter for some surprise that, though the yfagrru has come in for treatment at the hands of seve- ral scholars, this gTIu, which contains very valuable material on Dramaturgy and Poetics in its third section (khanda) has not been thoroughly studied by any scholar so far. Even Dr. Raghavan who has bestowed great labour and thought on the studies of numerous topics of नाट्यशारत्र and काव्यालक्कार refers to अलक्कारs in this yTr in one or two places (e.g. on p. 97 of his paper on 'the History of Svabhāvoktī', and in 'Some concepts of Alankāraśāstra, p. 97 he refers to वार्ता as mentioned in the विष्शुधर्मोत्तर)1. For reasons of space I cannot deal at great length with this work. The Purāna contains about 1000 verses on topics of नाट्यशास and काव्यालक्कार, be- sides four chapters in prose, viz. 18, 19, 32, 36 on गीत, आतोध, मुद्रा- हस्तS, प्रत्यङ्गविभाग respectively. It may be noted that the knowledge imparted here on painting, image-making, dramaturgy and Poetics is calledfarua2. The following account is based on a ms. of the grr in the Bhau Daji collection of the B.B.R.A.S. and the Venk.

1. Mr. Kavi on p. XX. of his Introduction to vol. II of the अभिनवभारती refers to विष्णुधर्मोत्तर on वृत्तिs (भारती &c.) 2. It is noteworthy that in the कुट्टनीमत, the technical चित्रसूत्र begins with III. 35 of विष्युधर्मोत्तर and चित्रसूत्र is mentioned as one of the subjects studied along with भरत, विशाखिल and दन्तिल by the accomplished courtesan. दामोदरगुप्त probably refers to some ancient work on painting or he may have this yrru in view. Verse 123 of कुट्टनीमत is: भरत-विशाखिल-दन्तिल-वृक्षायुर्वेद-चित्रसूत्रेषु। पत्रच्छेद- विधाने भ्रमकमषि पुस्तसूदशास्त्रेषु ॥. From the nature of the विष्युधर्मोत्तर, which is an encyclopaedia, it follows that it had some work on चित्रसूत्र before it.

VIȘŅUDHARMOTTARPURĀŅA 67

Press edition of it (published in sake 1834). A brief account of some part of the 3rd section of the विष्णुधर्मोत्तर may be given here. The first chap. starts with a dialogue between वज्र and मार्कएडेय in which the latter says that divinity dwells in the image of a devata, which is manufactured according to the canons of faaur and which has a pleasing form and that a wise man should worship such an image: चित्रसूत्रविधानेन देवतार्चां विनिर्मिताम्। सुरूपा पूजयेद्विद्वान् तत्र संनिहिता भवेत् ।। v. 7). It is stated in chapter 2 that प्रतिमालक्षण (the art of making images) cannot be under- stood except by one who has studied चित्रसूत्र, which) itself cannot be known without studying नृत्तशास्त्र; नृत्त does not exist without musical instruments and in these latter proficiency is unattainable without the study of singing ( विना तु नृत्तशास्त्रेय चित्रसूत्रं सुदुर्विदम् । ... आतोधेन विना नृतं विधते न कथंचन। न गीतेन विना शक्यं श्ञातुमातोधमप्युत ।।). The सं. र. (I. 24) also says: नृत्यं वाद्यानुगं प्रोक्तं वार्धं गीतानुवृत्ति च. Song is either in संस्कृत or प्राकृत or अपभ्रंश which last is endless, as the provincial dialects are numerous (3s2 तृतीयं च तदनन्तं नराधिप। देशभाषाविशेषेय तस्यान्तो नेह विद्यते॥ भध्याय 2.9-10). 4TE (recitation) is either in prose or in verse. Chap. 3 and 4 deal with metres and vākya-parīksā respectively. Chap. 5 defines u, the five अवयवs of a syllogism, the sixfold व्याख्या of a सूत्र, three प्रमाणS (प्रत्यक्षानुमानाप्तवाक्यानि) and their definitions, with what is authori- tative, with स्मृति, उपमान, अर्थापत्ति. Chap. 6 is on तन्त्रयुक्ति1 (the arrange- ment or plan of a treatise into topics or divisions). Chap. 7 deals with Prakrit (in l1 verses), chap. 8 with देवादिशब्दपर्यायवर्णन, chap. 9 and 10 deal with lexicography; chap. 11, 12, 13 (each in 15 verses) with nouns that are of feminine, masculine or neuter genders. Chap. 14 names and defines figures of speech (which are set out below on p. 71 and are only 17); chap. 15 speaks of kavya, distinguishes it from शास and इतिहास (तदेव काव्यमित्युक्तमुपदे-

1. The 15th अधिकरण of the कौटिलीय is called तन्त्रयुक्ति and it is stated therein that there are 32 युक्तिs in the work such as भविकरण, विधान, योग, पदार्थ, हेत्वथ, &C. Most of these words occur also in chap. 6 of the पुराख. Vide a paper on कौटिलीयततयुक्तय: in J.O. R. Madras, vol. 4 for 1930 pp. 82 ff. The चरकसंहिता (Siddhi- sthāna, chap. 12 verses 40-45) speaks of 36 'tantrasya yuktayah' and Suśruta (Uttara-tantra, chap. 65) names 32 tantrayuktis. The appellations of the yuktis in the two medical works substantially agree with those in Kauțilya.

68 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

शैर्विना कृतम्) and it is stated that it should be endowed with nine rasas ((रसैः कार्य समन्वितम्। verse 14); chap. 16 names and defines 21 Prahelikās (15 verses); chap. 17 speaks of rūpakas which are of 12 varieties (नाटकादिषु रूपेषु कर्तव्यं द्वादशस्वपि, verse 60) and not ten as Bharata states (नाट्यशास् 20. 1-3=G.O.S. vol. II chap. 18. 2-3). Verses 12-13 state that death (of the hero), loss of kingdom, the siege of a city, battles, should not be shown directly on the stage but should be narrated by means of Praveśakas.1 Verses 56-59 of this chap. speak of the eight kinds of Nayikas; chap. 18 (mostly in prose) treats of गीत, the स्वरs, ग्राम, मूछना; two verses of it (भपरान्तकमुल्लोप्यं मद्रकं प्रकरी तथा। उवेशकं सरोबिन्दुसुत्तमं गीतकानि तु।। ऋग्गाथा &c.) are the same as Yaj. III. 113-14 quoted above (p. 45, n. 2) and they read सरोबिन्दु (as विश्वरूप and मिताक्षरा do) for रोविन्दक of the नाव्यशास्त्र (31.290); chap. 19(in prose)deals with the four kinds of musical instruments and 20 with मएडलs (two kinds of ten varieties each), अङ्हारs(36in verses 29-35, while the नाय्यशा speaks of 32 in chap.4.27), करणs (108 described in ना्य० IV. 61-169), पिएडीबन्धS, four वृत्तिs and four प्रवृत्तिs; the first verse of chap.20 is that natya is an imitation of another and nrtta (dance) gives it polish and charm (परस्यानुकृतिर्नाट्यं नाट्यश्ै: कथितं नृप। तस्य संस्कारकं नृत्तं भवेच्छोभाविवर्धनम्।।1). It also speaks of लोकधर्मी and नाट्यधर्मी; the four kinds of भभिनय; chapters 21-23 deal with शय्या, आसन, स्थानक; chap. 24-25 deal with movements and postures of the hand and other limbs of the body; chap. 26 with 13 gestures of the joined hands (संयुतकर) and 22 of the unjoined hands (असंयुतकर); at the end it is stated 'सर्व करायत्तमिदं हि नृत्तम्'; chap. 27 deals with आहार्याभिनय which is of four kinds प्रस्त (पुस्त ?) अलंकार, अङ्गरचना, सजजीव (vide नाव्यशास्त्र2 23.5); chap. 28 on सामान्याभिनय (the last verse viz. 62 saying नाट्यं हि विश्वस्य यतोनुकारं कृत्स्नं ततो वक्तुमशक्यमीश ॥); chap. 29 on गतिप्रचार (gaits and manner of movement on the stage of several chara- ters); chap. 30 on रसवर्णन (in 28 verses, the first being हास्य श्रङ्गार ... नव नाट्ये रसा: स्मृता:); chap. 31 on 49 भावs in 58 verses (53 being

1. मरयं राज्यविभ्रंशो नगरस्योपरोधनम्। एतानि दर्शयेन्नाङ्के तथा युद्धं च पार्थिव। प्रवेशकेन कतव्यं तेषामाख्यानकं बुधः। विष्णुध० III. 17. 12-13; compare नाय्यशाख 20. 21=GOS. vol. II. chap. 18. 38. and भावप्र० (VII.) p. 216 for a verse similar to the above. 2. Verses 21-25 of chap. 27 of विष्युधर्मोत्तर are identical with नाट्यशाख 23. 102-104 about the complexion of characters from various countries.

VIȘŅUDHARMOTTARAPURĀŅA 69

बहूनां समवेतानां रूपं यस्य भवेदड्ठ । स मन्तव्यो रसः स्थायी शेषा: सज्ारियः स्मृता: ।I);1 chap. 32 on मुद्राहस्तs (here even वेदाङs like छन्दोविचिति are indicated by postures of hands); chap. 33 on नृत्तशाख्त्रमुद्राऽ (in 124 verses); chap. 34 (in 32 verses) on how a arose when विष्ु killed the asuras मधु and कैटभ that had snatched away the Vedas;2 verse 17 is नृत्तेनाराधयिष्यन्ति भक्तिमन्तस्तु मां शुभे। त्रलोक्यस्यानुकरयं नृत्े देवि प्रतिष्ठितम्॥I; verse 28 condemns him who makes dancing his livelihood or who sells dancing (i.e. makes a business of it) by employing actors; but other verses say that he who engages in dance for propitiating God secures all desired objects and finds the path to moksa and that such dancing is blessed, gives long life and heaven, it removes the sorrows of the distressed (देवताराधनं कुर्याधस्तु नृतेन धर्मवित्। स सर्वकामानाप्नोति मोक्षोपायं च विन्दति॥ धन्यं यशस्यमायुष्यं स्वर्ग- लोकप्रदं तथा। ईश्वराणां विलासं तु चार्तानां दुःखनाशनम्। मूढानामुपदेशं तत् स्त्रीणां सौभाग्यवर्धनम्॥;3 chap.35 winds up by saying that नारायय produced चित्रसूत्र andimparted it to विश्वकर्मन् and that there is imitation of the three worlds in painting as there is in nritta (यथा नृत्ते तथा चित्रे त्रैलोक्या- नुकृति: स्मृता । verse 5).It is not necessary to deal with the other chapters as they dilate upon painting (36-43), image-making (44-85), house-building (chap. 86 ff.). The विष्युधर्मोत्तर closely follows the नाट्यशास्त्र of भरत, though in certain matters such as the number of rūpakas and rasas it differs from it. So it is much later than the नाट्यशास्त्र. The other chapters of the विष्ुधर्मोत्तर such as those on dana and sraddha are quoted in works from the 12th century. For example, the हारलता of अनिरुद्ध quotes a verse from it which is found in the विष्ुधर्मोत्तर I. 142. 16-17.4 The दानसागर of बल्लालसेन expressly states in the intro- ductory verse 14 that it relies for its sources on the विशुधर्मोत्तर along with several other Puranas. In chap. 5 of the 3rd part there is

1. This verse is the same as नाट्यशास्त्र VII. 119 (GOS. ed. VII. 181) and XXII. 68 (GOS. ed. where नाव्य० has सर्वेषां for बहनाम्· 2. Compare नाट्यशाख chap. 22.1-23(=GOS.ed.20.1-25) for a similar story. 3. Compare नाट्यशाल 1. 110-13 for very similar verses on the benefits of नाट्य. 4. तथा च विष्युधर्मोत्तरे मार्कएडेयः। अच्छिन्ननाड्यां कतव्यं श्राद्धं वे पुत्रजन्मनि। अशौचोपरमे कार्यमथवापि नराधिप। हारलता p.19 (B.I. ed.) For the dates of the हारलता and बल्लालसेन, vide H. of Dh. vol. I, pp. 337-341.

70 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

this half verse; सूत्रेष्वेव हि तत्सवं यद्वृत्तं (यद्वृत्तौ१) समुदाहतम्. This is almost the same as a verse quoted by Kumarila in the तन्त्रबार्तिक from a (predecessor सुत्रेष्वेव हि तत्सर्वं यद्वृत्तौ यञ्च वार्तिके। सूत्रं योनिरिहार्थानां सर्व सूत्रे प्रतिष्ठितम्।। इति ये वदन्ति तान्प्रत्युच्यते।).1 So this would indicate that the विष्णुधर्मोस्तर cannot be very much earlier than about 500 A. D. Besides, the युक्तिकल्पतरु of भोज (Calcutta p. 85) quotes six verses from the विष्ुधर्मोत्तर on precious stones. It is interesting to note that Alberuni who wrote his work on India about 1030 A. D. quotes about thirty passages from the विष्युधर्मोत्तर of which 22 have been identified by Buhler in I. A. vol. 19 pp. 381-409. Buhler holds that the पुरायS विष्युधर्म (under which name Alberuni mentions the quotations) and विष्णुधर्मोत्तर were canonical works in Kashmir in Alberuni's time and that many of the passages quoted by Alberuni from Visnudharma can be traced in the विष्ुधर्मोत्तर (but not all) . Vide I. A. vol. 19 pp. 402, 407. This indicates that the विष्ुधर्मोत्तर was regarded as a very authoritative work befure 1000 A.D. In Hemadri's2 व्रतखएड alone the विष्युधर्मोत्तर is quoted about 150 times. The third aru3 on image-making is often quoted. For reasons of space only two or three examples are set out. On aaeus part I p. 123 seven verses about the image of महादेव are quoted from विष्णु; they occur in विष्युध. III. chap. 44. 14-20. On p. 110 of व्रतखएड part I five verses are quoted about the image of विष्यु which occur in विष्णुध. III. 44. 9-13. On p. 108 of व्रतखएड eight verses are quoted from विष्यु. on how the images of the four Vedas and of शार्तs like पाञ्रात्र, पाशुपत, पातजल, अर्थशाख and कलाशाख are to be made and all of them occur in chap. 73 of विष्ुध. (part III) at the end. So also seven verses about वरुण image quoted in व्रतखएड I pp. 145-146 occur in विष्ुध. III chap. 52. 1-7. The दानसागर of बल्लालसेन quotes numerous verses of the विषयुय० 3rd खएड. For example, verses 1-5 of chap.290 on ब्राह्मणाप्रशंसा are quoted in it at the very beginning; similarly, 15 verses of chap. 307 on घृतधेनु are quoted in दानसागर and 15 verses from विष्ुधर्भीत्तर chap. 309 on जलधेनु; 15 verses of chap. 308 on तिलधेनु are alsu quoted therein. Mr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya, who has now brought out the whole of the Danasagara (text in 3 parts and Introduction in 4th ) for the B. I. series, originally conveyed to 1. Vide तन्सवार्तिक p. 602 (Anan. ed.) on जैमिनि II. 3.16. 2. हेमाद्रि flourished about 1270 A. D .; videH. of Dh. vol. 1 p. 357.

VIȘŅUDHARMOTTARAPURĀŅA 71

me this information. The दानसागर was composed in 1169 A. D. (vide H. of Dh. vol. 1, p. 341). Therefore, it follows that the third part of the विशुधर्मोत्तर was an integral part of it from early times. There is another very important consideration which weighed with me in placing the विष्ुधर्मोत्तर even before Bhatti. According to the commentators Bhatti gives examples of about 38 figures of speech. Dandin, Bhāmaha, Vāmana and Udbhata all mention between 30 to 40 Alankaras, while the विष्णु- धर्मोत्तर enumerates and defines only 17 alankaras in chap. 14, all the verses of which are set out here. The अलद्कारs are: एककस्य तु वर्सस्य विन्यासो यः पुनः पुनः । अर्थगत्या तु संख्या तमनुप्रासं पुरातनैः॥१ अत्यर्थ तत्कृतं राजन् ग्राम्यतामुपगच्छति। शब्दाः समानानुपूर्व्या (ms. समाना भिन्नार्था) यमकं कीर्तितं पुनः ॥२ आदौ मध्ये तथवान्ते पादस्य तु तदिष्यते। सन्दष्टकसमुद्गाख्यौ तथैव यमकौ मतौ ॥३ समस्तपादयमकं दुष्करं परिकीर्तितम्। उपमानेन तुल्यत्वमुपमेयस्य रूपकम् ॥४ रूपकाभ्यधिकं नाम तदैवैकगुणाधिकम्। गुणानां व्यतिरेकेश व्यतिरेकमुदा- हतम् ॥५ उपमानविरुद्धैश्च गुणैस्तदपरं मतम्। द्विव्यर्थवाचकैः शब्दः श्लेष इत्यभिधीयते॥६ अन्यरूपस्य चार्थस्य कल्पना यान्यथा भवेत्। उत्प्रेक्षाख्यो हलक्कारःकथितः स पुरातनैः।७ उपन्यासस्तथान्यः स्यात्त्रस्तुतादत् क्वचिद्भवेत्। श्ञयः सोर्थान्तरन्यास: पूर्वार्थानुगतो यदि ॥८ उपन्यासेन चान्यस्य यदन्यः परिकीत्यते। उपन्यासमलङ्गारं तन्नरेन्द्र प्रचक्षते ।६ हेतु विना वितततां प्राप्ता सा तु विभावना। प्रोक्ता चातिशयोक्तिस्तु ह्वतुलरुपमागुयै: ॥१० यथास्वरूपकथनं वार्तेति परिकीर्तितम् (ms .; स्वभावोक्तिः प्रकोर्तिता । Venk. ed.)। भूयसामुपदिष्टानां निर्देशः क्रमशस्तथा ॥११ यथासंख्यमिति प्रोक्तमलक्कारं पुरातनैः । विशेषप्रथनादुक्ता (ed. has विशेषप्रापणा०) विशेषोक्तिस्तथा नृप ॥ १२ या क्रिया चान्यफलदा विरोधस्तु स इष्यते। स्तुतिरूपेश या निन्दा निन्दास्तुतिरिहोच्यते ॥१३ निन्दास्तुतिस्तथैवोक्ता निन्दारूपेय या स्तुतिः । वस्तुनस्तूपमानेन (ed. has वस्तुना रूप्यमायेन) दर्शनं तन्निदर्शनम् ॥१४ विना तया स्यादुपमा तु यत्र तेनैव तस्यव भवेन्नृ- वीर। अनन्वयाख्यं कथितं पुरासैरेतावदुक्तं तव लेशमात्रम् ॥१५. The figures are: अनुप्रास, यमक, रूपक, व्यतिरेक, श्लेष, उत्प्रेक्षा, अर्थान्तरन्यास, उपन्यास,1 विभावना, अतिशयोक्ति, वार्ता, यथासंख्य, विशेषोक्ति, विरोध, निन्दास्तुति, निदर्शन, अ्नन्वय. It must of course be said that it knew 34HT also. So at the most eighteen Alankäras were thought worthy of being mentioned by the विष्युधर्मोत्तर. We know from Bhamaha II. 4 that certain prede- cessors of his named only five alankaras viz. अनुप्रास, यमक, रूपक, दीपक and उपमा and that according to Udbhata's काव्यालक्कारसारसंग्रह

1. उपन्यास is probably the same as व्याजोक्ति of later writers or it may be the first अतिशयोक्ति of मम्मट; वार्ता and स्वभावोक्ति may be taken to be the same.

72 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

some predecessors of his mentioned only eight1 viz. पुनरुक्- वदाभास, छेकानुप्राम, अनुप्रास, लाटानुप्रास, रूपक, उपमा, दीपक, प्रतिवस्तूपमा Therefore, the विष्णुधर्मोत्तर should be placed between भरत, (who spoke of only four figures of speech), the predecessors of भामह and उद्दट that enumerated only five and eight alankaras on the one hand and भटि, दशिडन्, भामह, उद्गट and वामन. (that enume- rate between 30 to 40 अलक्कारs) on the other. The विप्ुधर्मोत्तर not only quotes गीता, मनु, नाव्यशास्त्र, but also नारदस्मृति for several verses e.g. विष्णुo III. 333.10 is नारद VII.9, III. 336.1. (पाषएड ... जनपदेतथा) is नारद XIII. 2. If we hold that the 2nd section of विष्णुधर्मोत्तर is of the same date as the 3rd section, then it would follow that the पुरास is later than वराहमिहिर. विष्ुधर्मोत्तर II. 176.9-11 are borrowed from the बृहघोगयात्रा of वराहमिहिर, since the अद्भुतसागर pp. 494-5 quotes seven verses from the बृहधोगयात्रा of which विप्ु० II. 176.9-11 are three. Besides, विष्णु० II. 124.15-26 are identical with बृहत्संहिता 45. 82-94 (Dwivedi's ed.) on उत्पातऽ. So the विष्ुधर्मोत्तर (3rd part) will have to be placed between 575 to 650 A.D., the period during which aft most probably flourished or a little earlier. Dr. Miss Priyabala Shah recently edited (G. O. S. 1958) the 3rd khanda (118 chapters) of the विष्णुधर्मोत्तर based on four mss.' I thank Mr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya who drew my attention to the following verse from the कालिकापुराण chap. 92.2 (Venkateshwar Press ed.): 'विष्ुधर्मोत्तरे तन्त्रे बाुल्यं सर्वतः पुनः । द्रष्टव्यस्तु सदाचारो द्रष्टव्यास्ते प्रसादतः।।'. 7 Bhatțikāvya. This poem in 22 cantos was composed mainly for illustrating the rules of Sanskrit grammar. It is divided into four sections, called प्रकीर्णकाएड (sargas I-V), अधिकारकाएड (VI-IX),प्रसन्नकाएड (X-XIII) and तिङन्तकाएड (XIV-XXII). In the प्रसन्नकाएड, Bhatti illustrates matters that fall to be treated in works on Poetics. In the tenth sarga (75 verses, 74 in मल्लिनाथ) he gives illustrations of 38 Alankaras (including the two शब्दालक्कारS of अनुप्रास and यमक). The I1th illustrates माधुयगुय (in 47 verses);

1. अनुप्रासः सयम को रूपकं दीपकोपमे। इति वाचामलक्वाराः पञ्चवान्यरुदाहताः॥ भामह II. 4; पुनरुक्तवदाभासं छेकानुप्रास एव च। अनुप्रासस्त्िधा लाटानुप्रासो रूपकं चतुः।। उपमा दीपकं चैव प्रतिवस्तूपमा तथा। इत्यत एवालकारा वाचा के शिचिदुदा- हता: ॥ काव्यालक्कारसारसंग्रह 1. 1-2. The com. of तिलक on उद्धट says 'वगेवगैरल क्वारोपादानं चिरन्तनालक्वारकृतामल्पदर्शितां प्रकटयितुम्।' (G.O.S. ed. p.l).

BHAȚȚIKĀVYA 73

the 12th illustrates the figure भाविक (which is said to be प्रबन्धविषय by भामह III.53 and दएडी II. 364) in 87 verses and the 13th elucidates IHTHH in 50 verses (where the same verse may be regarded as composed in Sanskrit as well as in Prakrit). On account of these four sargas Bhatti deserves at least a passing notice in the History of Alankāra Literature. It will be seen from the comparative table in section 13 below that Bhatti illustrates almost the same figures as are defined by भामह and दएडी. He treats the alankāras generally in the order in which arHg defines the figures, though in a few cases he deviates from भामह. For example, भामह defines रूपक first (II. 21) and then दीपक (II. 25) and आक्षेप before अर्थान्तरन्यास; while भदि illustrates दीपकand अर्थान्तरन्यास before रूपकand आक्षेप respectively; भामह defines तुल्ययोगिता (III.27) immediately after विरोध, (III.25)while भटि illustrates तुल्ययोगिताafter उपमारूपक and before विरोध भट्टि does not illustrate अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, which is defined by भामह; while भदि illustrates the figures हेतु and वार्ता to which भामह denies the status of alankaras. The mss. of भदि mention X.74 as an example of the figure निपुरा which is found in neither भामह nor Dandin. भदि does not illustrate लेश and सूच्षम which are said to be excellent ornaments of speech by Dandin (along with हेतु), while भामह denies to all three the position of alanka- ras (II. 86). भदि devotes about 20 verscs to the illustration of यमक and herein is similar to the treatment of यमक in the नाट्यशास्त्र and काव्यादर्श, while भामह is very brief on this point. From this it is clear that Bhatti does not follow either Bhamaha or Dandin, but bases his examples on some other work or works that were prior to both of them. It may be stated here that af (in 10th f ) does not expressly name any figure of speech. It is the mss. that mention the several figures over the verses and the commentators differ among themselves as to the figures of speech in several verses. K. P. Trivedi in his Introduction to भट्टिकाव्य mentions thirteen commentaries on it. जयमङ्गला quotes the defini- tions of भामह (II and III) thirty-three times, quotes one verse of भामह (II. 27) on भट्टि (X. 23.), another verse of भामह (II. 87) on भटटि (X.46) and appears to refer to the काव्यादर्श II. 275 once about ऊजस्वि on X.49 (the verse प्रचपलमगुरु &c.). मल्लिनाथ who flou- rished in the 15th century and who often relies on such late works as the प्रतापरुद्रीय differs about 20 times at least from the जयमझला and sometimes very harshly criticizes the latter. For example, on भहि X.25 (गरुडानिलतिग्मरश्मयः पततां यदपि संमता जवे । अचिरेय कुनार्थमागतं

74 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

तममन्यन्त तथाप्यतीव ते ॥I) which the जयमझला regards as an example of दीपक (of the मध्य kind) मल्लिनाथ remarks (with biting sarcasm against the name जयमझला) अत्र गच्छन्नित्यादिश्लोकत्रये क्रमादाधयन्तमध्यावसानेषु क्रियापद- प्रयोगादाधन्तमध्यदीपकानीत्युक्तं जयमङ्कलाकारेण तत्परममङ्कलं लक्षणापरिध्ानात्'. Vide Dr. De's H.S. P. vol. I. pp. 50-57 and Prof. H.R. Divekar in J. R.A. S. for 1929 pp. 825-841 for comparison and contrast between भहि and भामह. Recently, Dr. C.Hooykaas contributed a learned and exhaustive paper on 'some arthālankāras in the Bhattikāvya X' to the Sir Ralph Turner Presentation volume (1957) pp. 351-363. On p. 357 he sets out an exhaustive table of the arthālankāras from Daņdin's Kāvyādarśa, from the Bhatțikāvya and from Bhāmaha and adds valuable criticisms on individuals Alankāras. For reasons of space it is not possible to enter upon a discussion of his translations and explanations. On p. 351 he points out that the Bhattikāvya was the prototype of the old Javanese Rāmāyana. The date of Bhatti can be settled within certain narrow limits. In the last verse he states that he composed the poem in Valabhi ruled by king Dharasena (काव्यमिदं विहितं मया वलभ्यां श्रीधर- सेननरेन्द्रपालितायाम्). Bhatti gives no further information about him- self. The commentary Jayamangala says that his father was श्रीस्वामिन्, while another commentator विद्याविनोद says that Bhatti's father was श्रीधरस्वामिन. The name of the author himself is given in some mss. as भटटृस्वामिन् and as भतृ1 in others. This has given ri,c to several speculations, which will be briefly indicated below. There are four kings of Valabhi (modernVala in Kathiawad)that were named Dharasena. The जयमङ्गला reads 'श्रीधरसूनुनरेन्द्रपालितायां' But this is not accepted by most mss. and commentators. There is no king called नरेन्द्र, son of श्रीधर, among the Valabhi rulers. At least one hundred copperplate grants of the Valabhi dynasty have been discovered. There are at least 13 plates of Dharasena II alone. The pedigree relevant for showing the relationship of the four Dharasenas is as follows :

1. In the Bulletin of the Ramavarma Research Intitute, vol. 13 for 1946 July pp. 23-24, Mr. Pattar states that in several mss. of the Bhattikavya in Malayalam script at Trichur the poem is called wantar and that at the end of each canto of the commentary the colophon is परमगुरुहरिविरचितकाव्यटीकायां and the commentator had three names जयेश्वर, जयदेव and जयमङ्गल.

BHATTIKAVYA 75

सेनापतिभटार्क (founder)

धरसेन I द्रोपसिह ध्रवसेन I धरपट्ट

गुहसेन

धरसेन II.

शीलादित्य I alias धर्मादित्य. खरग्रह I.

• . डेरभट धरसेन III. ध्रुवसेन II alias बालादित्य

शीलादित्य खरग्रह II. ध्रवसेन III. धरसेन IV.

In the Palitana plates of Dharasena II dated Gupta- Valabhi-samvat 252 (i.e. 571 A.D.) both भटार्क and धरसेन I are styled सेनापति, while धरसेन II is styled महाराज. Vide I. A. vol. 15 pp. 335 ff. where a grant of धरसेन IV. dated in Valabhi samvat 330 (648 A.D.) is set out, in which धरसेन IV. is called चक्रवर्तिन्. A ms. of विशेषावश्यकभाष्य of जिनभद्र states that the work was finished at Valabhi in saka 531 (608-9 A.D.) during शीलादित्य's reign. Vide P. O. vol. XI. parts 3-4 p. 29. धरसेन II. styles himself महाधिराजाधिराज on his seal; vide Mr. A. S. Gadre's paper on five Valabhi grants in Journal of the Bom. University, vol. III. part. I. pp. 74 ff. The 5th plate was written by स्कन्धभट्ट son of दिविरपति (the Head of scribes) भटूटि. धरसेन IV describes himself as महाराजाधिराजपरमेश्वरचक्रवति न् (vide I.A. vol. 15, p. 335 dated वलभीसंवत् 330 i.e. 649 A. D.). From the modest and colourless manner in which Bhatti speaks of his patron as Narendra (a king) it appears to me probable that Bhatti does not refer to घरसेन I, who is described in some of the Valabhi grants as सेनापति only (vide I.A. vol. VI. p. 9, a grant of धरसेन II dated वलभीसंवन् 269 i.e. 588A.D.) while his younger brothers द्रोखसिंह and धरपटटare spoken of as महाराजand धरसेन II. is styled महासामन्तमहाराज. The Palitana plate of ध्रुवसेन, younger brother of धरसेन I (E.I.vol. XI. p. 109) and the Bhävanagar plate of the same king (E. I. vol. XV. p. 255) describe him as महासामन्त-महाराज-ध्रुवसेन and both are issued in वलभीसंवत् 210 (i.e. 529A.D.); while another grant of his dated वलभीसंवत् 217 (536 A.D.) styles him महाप्रतीहारमहादएडनायक

76 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

महाकार्ताकृतिक-महासामन्त (J.R.A.S.1895 p.379). Vide H. of Dh. vol. III. pp. 996, 995, 995, 1000 respectively for explanations of these high offices. A grant of द्रोससिंह, successor of धरसेन I and elder bro- ther of ध्रुवसेन I, is dated in गुप्तसंवत् 183 (i.e. 502 A.D.). So धरसेन I must have come to the throne some years before that date. RAT II had a long reign from about 569 A.D. to 599 A.D.The latest grant of धरसेन IV. is of संवत् of 332 of the Valabhi era (i.e. 651 A.D.). So if Bhatti flourished during the reign of धरसेन I he must be placed not later than 500 A.D .; if under धरसेन II he cannot be assigned to a date later than 600 A. D. and even if it be held that he flouri- shed under RaaIV his literary career cannot be placed later than 650 A. D. But considering the fact that धरसेन IV claims to be an emperor it appears unlikely that Bhatti refers to him merely as narendra. Therefore, the probabilities strongly favour the idea that Bhatti lived under धरसेन II (i.e. between 570-600 A.D.) or under Dharasena III who succeeded Kharagraha I, who came after Dharasena II. Therefore it is very likely that Bhatti flourished between 590 and 650. Several persons named Bhatti appear in the Valabhi plates either as donees or as दिविरपति (chief of scribes) or राजस्थानीय. Vide I. A. vol. VI.p. 12 for grant of ध्रुवसेन alias बालादित्य for दिविरपतिवत्सभट्टि, J.R.A.S. for 1895 p. 379 (dated 217 वलभीसंवत् i.e. 536 A.D.) of ध्रवसेन I for दूतक-राजस्था- नीयभदि, I.A. 15p.335 (grant of धरसेन IV) for दिविरपति-वत्रभट्टिपुत्र-दिविर- पति-स्कन्दभट्ट; E.I.vol.I.pp.89-92 forभट्टिभट (as donee). But there are no means beyond bare conjecture to identify any of these with the author of the भटटिकाव्य. Prof. Keith favoured the view that Bhatti probably flourished under घरसेन I (vide J. R. A.S. 1909 p. 435 n.). The distance between the नाट्यशाwhich defines only four figures of speech and wzf who illustrates about 38 must be far greater than between Bhatti on the one hand and arHg and «fue on the other, who define a similar number of figures and are more systematic and scientific. It is not quite iogical and appro- priate to say that waf might not have illustrated all figures that he knew just as he does not illustrate all the rules of Panini but only a few. But the analogy is fallacious. There are thousands of Panini's sutras, while the well-recognized figures of speech up to the 8th century werc not more than forty or so. One circumstance not noticed so far by anyone of the scholars that have written about Bhatti may be mentioned here. One of the introductory verses of the काशिका commentary

BHAȚȚIKĀVYA 77

on Panini's sutras by Jayaditya and Vamana is : वृत्तौ भाष्ये तथा धातुनामपारायणादिषु। विप्रकीर्णंस्य तन्त्रस्य क्रियते सारसंग्रहः॥. The काशिकाविवरण- पज्जिका alias न्यास of जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि commenting on this verse says that चूक्लि, भट्टि and नल्लूरcomposed explanations of Panini's sutras before the काशिका. According to I-tsing who wrote his work in 691 A.D. Jayāditya died about 661 A.D. It is possible that Bhatti who wrote a mahākāvya for illustrating Pāņini's aphorisms also composed a commentary thereon. If this turns out to be correct, then Bhatti must have flourished some years before the Kāsikā i.e. about 600 to 640 A. D. at the latest. This is a closer appro- ximation about Bhatti's date than made a little above, but it depends upon the identity of Bhatti, mentioned in the Nyāsa, with the author of the Bhattikāvya. The commentary जयमङ्गला is comparatively an old one. It quotes only such Alankara writers as भामहand दशिडन्, but does not quote #THz. So the author who had three names (videp. 74 note l above) flourished after 800 and before 1050 A.D. The author of the जयमङ्गला on भट्टिकाव्य appears to be different from the author of the commentary called जयमङगला on the कामसूत्र, as the latter is said to have been composed by यशोधर styled गुरुदत्तेन्द्रपाद. This latter also is an early work, as a ms. of it in the Bhau Daji collection in B. B. R. A. S. shows that it is a copy of a ms. in the भारतीभाएडार (Library) of चालुक्य वीसलदेव (1243-1261 A. D.). Vide Mr. Trivedi's introduction to Bhattikāvya pp. XV-XVII for a discus- sion of the name of the author of the भट्टिकाव्य, wherein he comes to the conclusion that the author had three names, viz. wzf, भट्टस्वामिन् and भर्तस्वामिन् and that most of the commentators speak of his father either as श्रीधरस्वामिन् or as श्रीस्वामिन. In this connection it may be noted that the oldest of the mss. on which Mr. Trivedi's edition is based and which is dated śake 1326 (1404 A.D.) reads in the colophon 'श्रीधरस्वामिसूनोभंटूटिबाहसस्य कृतौ &c. Some scholars identify the author of the भट् टिकाव्य with the donee भट् टिभट, son ofबप्प, in a grant of ध्रुवसेन dated (वलभी) संवत् 344 (653 A.D.). Dr. Hultzsch objects to this identification (E. I. vol. I. p. 92). Mr. B. C. Mazumdar (J. R. A. S. 1904 pp. 395-397) identifies the author of the Bhattikavya with the arref of the Mandasor Sun temple Inscription (Fleet's Gupta Inscri- tions No.18) dated 473 A.D. on the ground of similarity between the verses of the inscription and the description of autumn (sarad) in the भट् टिकाव्य (sarga II).This would lead to the result

78 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

that भट्टि flourished under धरसेन I or even earlier. Prof. A. B. Keith (J. R. A. S. 1909 p. 435) calls this identification a 'most unfortunate suggestion'- and Mr. Majumdar (J. R. A. S. 1909 p. 759) replies that it is not so. Both Prof. Keith and Mr. Majumdar agree that Bhatti flourished before Bhāravi and Dandin and that the Bhattikavya is not the work of adfef author of the arayatq. I myself think that it is far-fetched to hold on the mere ground of similarity of verses that the acwaf of the Mandasor inscription and the author of भट्टिकाव्य are identical. There are numerous cammentaries on the भटटिकाव्य out of which जयमझला is published by the Nirn. Press and that of मल्लिनाथ was edited by Mr. K. P. Trivedi in the Bombay S. Series. 8. The काव्यालड्र of भामह. Out of deference to the opi- nions of a majority of scholars I dealt with Bhamaha's work before that of Dandin in the last edition. The same feature is preserved in this edition also. But it should by no means be supposed that I agree with the view of many scholars about the priority of Bhamaha to Dandin. I still hold that this view of the majority is wrong. The reasons will appear in the sequel. Several scholars deal with the above question in a super- ficial manner and, I regret to say, are carried away by their enthusiasm and lack of balanced judgment. For example, Nobel in 'Foundations of Indian Poetry' (p. 16n.) had the hardihood to say that the theory of Dandin's priority to Bhamaha assumed by Prof. K. B. Pathak and others needs no further refutation and went so far as to say that Bhamaha was prior even to कालि दास (pp. 14-15). Similar remarks would have to be made against certain conclusions in the introduction to the edition of Ht's ERT written by Mr. Batuknath (in samvat 1985) and in his Sarasvati Bhavan studies, vol. VII. pp. 1-70 (1929). The last two works may be read with advantage for a historical resume of all the controversies that raged round Bhamaha till 1920. Though Mr. Sarma in his Introduction (p. 37) pays me a handsome compliment by saying 'Mr. Kane, after stating and examining all such views with admirable impartiality, has come to the conclusion' etc. But, I regret to say that I cannot return the same compliment. I am sorry to find that he does not go deeply into the several questions raised, that he makes the un-

BHÃMAHA 79

critical and unhistorical statement (Intro. p. 39) that Prakrits had not 'perhaps' been so much in vogue in the time of rHE as they were in 'the time of दएडी' and holds that भामह was sepa- rated from auet not by decades but by centuries (Intro. p. 40). Mr. Sarma indulges in several conjectures and builds thereon his theory of Bhamaha's being several centuries prior to Dandin. They cannot be all dealt with here. As to Setubandha, he appears to have forgotten or ignored what the Harsacarita says about it (Intro.verse. 14) कीर्त्तिः प्रवरसेनस्य प्रयाता कुमुदोज्जवला। सागरस्य परंपारं कपिसेनेव सेतुना ॥. Therfore, the सेतुबन्ध must have been composed at least a hundred years, if not more, before 600 A.D. Further, the same work in verse 13 praises the गाथासप्तशती of हाल containing 700 prakrit verses. That work is certainly earlier than the period (400-600 A. D.) assigned to Bhāmaha by Mr. Sarma. He is oblivious of the fact that, apart from Asoka's inscriptions, most inscriptions in North and South India from 200 B.C. onwards for some centuries are in Prakrit. Bhamaha himself divides Kavya into three kinds (मंस्कृत, प्राकृत, अपभ्रंश), the काव्यादर्श (I.32) also divides वाङमय into संस्कृत, प्राकृत, अपभ्रंश and मिश्र and the नाव्यशास्त्र states that recitation in dramas is either संस्कृत, विभ्रष्ट or देशीगीत and also names शौरसेनी, मागधी, दातिणात्या and other Prakrits. These grounds are enough to meet the conjectural speculations of Mr. Sarma. Further, the 3rd verse of the गाथासप्तशती says that Hala compiled that work out of the crore of Prakrit verses that already existed. Allowing for exaggeration it is clear that in Hala's time there existed a vast literature in Prakrit. Dr. A. Sankaran in 'Some aspects of literary criticism in Sanskrit' (1929) observes (on p. 25) 'His date (i. e. Dandin's date) is one of the greatest puzzles in the History of Sanskrit Literature No definite data are yet forthcoming to solve the problem.' After making this candid statement Dr. Sankaran does not pro- ceed to examine the several arguments advanced on the relative position of भामह and दएडी for over a quarter of a century, but relies on a passage in a solitary ms. of the शम्गारप्रकाश of भोज at Madras, holds (p. 23 of his work) that passage is Dandin's against t ie unanimous testimony of all editions of the arer based on numerous mss. and states that arng is proved thereby to be prior to दएडी. That passage is; 'तदुक्तम्। वक्रत्वमेव काव्याना परा भूषेति भामहः। श्लेष: पुष्खाति सर्वास्ु प्रायो वक्रोक्तिपु श्रियम्॥I'. The latter half is aonTaf II. 363. But the first half does not occur in

80 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

any edition of the काव्यादर्श nor does Dr. Sankaran refer to any one of the numerous commentators. The first half is probably a quotation from some predecessor of भोज orit is a dictum of भोज himself and भोज supports it with a quotation from his favo- urite author दएडी. With great respect to Dr. Sankaran I am constrained to say that this is a most perfunctory way of solving an admitted puzzle. Vide Dr. Raghavan on Śrngāra- prakāśa, vol. I part I p. 122 for further remarks on this passage. I am also surprised at the slipshod and somewhat dictatorial manner in which the acute and erudite scholar, Principal A. B. Dhruva, dismisses the question about the rela- tive position of Dandin and Bhamaha in the Foreword to Mr. Batuknath's edition of भामह. He quotes भामह's verse (V. 3) 'स्वादुकाव्यरसोन्मिश्रं शास्त्रमप्युपयुअ्जते। प्रथमालीढमधवः पिबन्ति कटुभेषजम् ॥' and then quotes दएडी (III.127) 'प्रतिज्ञाहेतुदृष्टान्तहानिर्दोषो न वेत्यसौ। विचारः ककशः प्रायस्तेनालीढेन किं फलम् ।'. Principal Dhruva thinks that this is a smashing reply of Dandin who also uses the word शलीढ and asks the question 'is विचार ever said to be आलीढ ?' He thinks that the use of the word आलीढ with विचार is unusual. But Principal Dhruva seems to have forgotten that दएडी had said in काव्या. I. 95 (निष्ठयतोद्गीर्णवान्तादि गौणवृत्तिव्यपाश्रयम्। अतिसुन्दरमन्यत्र ग्राम्यकक्षां विगाहते ॥). The use of the word शलीढ with विचार in a metaphorical sense would be very charming and not unusual. The idea of conveying instruction in sweet poetic words is an old one; vide सौन्दरनन्द 18. 63 'यन्मोक्षात्कृतमन्यदत्र हि मया तत् काव्य- धर्मात्कृतं पातुं तिक्तमिवौषषं मघयुतं हृध कथं स्यादिति ।'.Principal Dhruva forgets that the root लिह is given in the धातुपाठ (under अदादयः) as meaning आस्वादन and the root चर्व is given as meaning शदन (in म्वादिगय) and that nothing is more common in works on the रस theory than the words रसास्वाद and रसचर्वणा. Further, no less a writer than आनन्दवर्धन says: (ध्व० p. 237) "यथा वा वािअश्र हत्थिदन्ता' इत्यादि गाथार्थस्य 'करिणीत्रेहव्वकरो ... वहर' एवमादिष्वर्थेषु सत्स्वपि अनालीकतंष" and employs the word आरालीढ with अर्थ. For these reasons also the use of the word आलीढ in relation to विचार would be very natural and charming. The काव्यालक्वार of भामह was for a long time known only from quotations (vide Col. Jacob in J. R. A. S. for 1897 p. 285). In 1906 Prof. Rangacharya kindly suplied to me a transcript of a ms. of arHe's work. Then in 1909 Mr. K. P. Trivedi published the work of Bhamaha as an Appendix

BHÂMAHA 81

(VIII) to his edition of the प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण in the B. S. S. In 1927 P. V. Naganatha Sastry of Tanjore published the text based on four mss. with an English translation, notes and an Introduction. In 1928 Messrs. Batuk Nath Sarma and Baladeva Upadhyaya published in the Kashi S. Series the text with a lengthy Introduction. Unfortunately all these printed editions (including the last) are unsatisfactory. The mss. mate- rial is meagre and the editors do not explain many knotty points, nor do they bring together all the various readings in Bhamaha's text as quoted in many works and the explan- ations of his verses by numerous writers from the days of Udbhata, the Dhvanyaloka and Locana onwards. Besides, the editors of the last edition have been severely criticized by Prof. Pathak for their peculiar methods in the Introduction and for their failure to see that the text printed by them is grammatically correct or to make suggestions for the correc- tion of the text (vide Annals of the B. O. R. I. vol. XII. pp. 385-388, 392-395). A scholarly edition of Bhamaha's work is a great desideratum. In the following I have used the edition of 1928. Prof. D.T. Tatacharya of Tiruvadi brought out an edition in 1934 with the textof Bhamaha's work, a Sanskrit commentary called उद्यानवृत्ति composed by himself with an English and a Sanskrit Introduction and an English appendix on Ālankārikas (pp. I-XXXIV) which is a brief rehash of what has been said by many scholars long before him. In the English Introduction he has introduced much matter quite irrelevant to the work criticizing Max Muller, Goldstuckor, Macdonell, Prof. Rajwade and M. M. Ananta Krishna Sastri. In the Sanskrit Intro. he attacks Prof. A. Sankaran, Prof. K. S. Ramaswami Sastri and the present author in footnotes. The most important point viz. the description of the mss. on which his edition is based is touched nowhere. The काव्यालक्वार of भामह is divided into six परिचछेदs and con- tains about 400 verses (exactly 396, excluding the two verses at the end which roughly mention the number of verses on each of the five topics, viz. षष्ट्या शरीरं निर्णातं शतषष्टया त्वलङ्कतिः। पञ्चाशता दोषदृष्टि: ससत्या न्यायनियायः ॥ षष्टया शब्दस्य शुद्धि: स्यादित्येवं वस्तु- पञ्चकम्। उक्तंषड्भि: परिच्छेदभमिहेन क्रमेश वः ॥. In the Kashi edition the six ufteers have the following numbers of verses viz. 69, 96, 58, 50, 69, 66 (including the last two) i. e. in all 398. The

82 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

verses are in the sloka metre except a few at the end of each परिषछेद and a few in the body of the work. In the first परिच्छेद, after saluting Särva, he states the purposes of poetry, the quali- fications of a poet, the definition of काव्य and divisions of काव्य from different points of view into गद् and पद्, into संस्कृत, प्राकृत and भपभरंश; he divides काव्य into वृत्तदेवादिचरितशंसि, उत्पाद्यवस्तु, कलाश्रय and शाख्ाश्रय and again into five सर्गबन्ध, श्रभिनेयार्थ, भराख्यायिका, कथा, अनिवद्ध. He then defines सर्गबन्ध, omits the treatment of अभिनेयार्थ (dramas, rasakas &c.) because it has been dealt with by others, distinguishes between कथा and आख्यायिका, refers to the वैदर्भ and Te styles and remarks that the distinctions drawn between the two styles by some are meaningless; and then speaks of some faults such as नेयार्थ, सिष्ट etc. In the 2nd परिच्छेद he speaks of three gunas, माधुयं, प्रसाद and शज: and begins the treatment of Alankaras which ends with the third परि०. The अलंकारs defined by him are (in order), अनुप्रास (refers to ग्राम्यानुप्रास and लाटीया- नुप्रास of others), यमक (five varieties), रूपक (of two varieties), दीपक, उपमा (with its seven दोषs), प्रतिवस्तूपमा (as a variety of उपमा), भाक्षेप (of two kinds), अर्थान्तरन्यास, व्यतिरेक, विभावना, समासोक्ति, अरतिश- योक्ति, यथासंख्य, उत्प्रेक्षा, स्वभावोक्ति (according to some), प्रेयस्, रसवत्, ऊर्जस्वि, पर्यायोक्त, समाहित, उदात्त (of two sorts), क्रिष्ट, अपह्नुति, विशेषोक्ति, विरोध, तुल्ययोगिता, श्रप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, व्याजस्तुति, निदर्शना, उपमारूपक, उपमेयो- पमा, सहोक्ति, परिवृत्ति, ससन्द्ेह, अ्रनन्वय, उत्प्रेक्षावयव, संसृष्टि, भाविक, आशीः (according to some). He denies the status of अलंकारs to हेतु, सूक्ष्म and लेश (which must have been defined before him as figures by some writer on Poetics), as there is no वक्रोक्ति in them. After saying (in II. 83) that there can be no अलंकार without वक्रोक्ति he states that हेतु, सूच्म and लेश are not accepted (by him) as अलंकारS because there is no वक्रोकि in them (II. 86). Then in II. 87 he refers to some people speaking of araf as an alankāra and giv- ing as an instance of it the words गतोस्तमर्को भातीन्दुर्यान्ति वासाय पचियः and asks 'do such words constitute Kāvya (his obvious meaning being that they do not). Then aHT says that some speak of स्वमावोकि as an alankara, defines it as अथस्य तदवस्थत्वं स्वभावोभिहितो यथा (II. 93) and gives an illustration (II. 94 भाक्रोश- आ्रह्यन्रन्यानाधावन्मएडलनुदन्। गा वारयति दएडेन डिम्भ: शस्यावतारणीः) ॥. In order to make even a mere natural description as स्वभावोकि alankāra, there must be some charm or strikingness as in the description of the boy preventing cows from entering into a field of growing crops, viz. he raised a hue and cry, called others

BHÂMAHA 83

to his help, ran about round and round and drove the cows and this does not exist in 'the sun has set, the moon rises and birds go to their nests'. भामह refuses to apply the name काव्य to such purely matter of fact statements. Such descriptions were called वार्ता by others (such as by विष्युधर्मोत्तर p. 69): These words may mean 'these words are only news'. I prefer the first meaning, because भामइ employs the word प्रचक्षते very frequently in enumerating or speaking of alankäras or the opinions of other authors (II. 5, II. 93, III 54). In the 4th परिच्छेद he dilates upon eleven kinds of दोषs (such as अपार्थ, व्यर्थ) in kauya, defines and illustrates the first ten of them. In the fifth ufro he defines and illustrates the eleventh dosa which arises from a faulty प्रतिशा, हेतु or दृष्टान्त, the treatment being based upon a discussion of such Nyāya-Vaiseșika topics as the number and definitions of pramanas, definitions of प्रतिशा and its varieties, of हेतु and its varieties, of दृष्टान्त etc. In the 6th परि० he gives some practical hints to poets for securing सौशब्य (grammatical purity) in poetry and in this respect resembles Vämana who in the fifth अधिकरण of his काव्यालङ्कारसूत्र treats the same subject more elaborately. Bhamaha is deemed to be the oldest extant exponent of the Alankāra school of Poetics. Of his personal history we know next to nothing. In the last verse he tells us that he was the son of Rakrilagomin 'अवलोक्य मतानि सत्कवीनामवगम्य स्वधिया च काव्यलक्ष्म। सुजनावगमाय भामहेन ग्रथितं रक्रिलगोमिसूनुनेदम् ।'. This name रक्रिलगोमिंन् has given rise to a heated discussion whether Bhamaha was a Bauddha. Prof. M. T. Narasimhiengar (J. R. A. S. 1905 pp. 535-545) thinks that भामह was a Bauddha, as रक्रिल (his father's name) resembles some distinctly Buddhistic names Such as Rahula, Potala and that Gomin is a name of one of Buddha's disciples. Vide J. R. A. S. for 1908 p. 543 against this view. Prof. Pathak (I. A. 1912 p. 235) says that गोमिन् is not a contraction of गोस्वामिन्, but means 'venerable' (ysT) and that Rakrila was a Buddhist. He relies on a sūtra in the चान्द्रव्याकरय 'गोमिन् पूज्ये' (IV.2.144, गोमान् अन्यः ।). After all there is not much in a name. When Buddhists and follo- wers of Brahmanism had lived together for a thousend years, there is no wonder even if distinctively Buddhist names were appropriated by Brahmanic people, since Buddha himself came to be recognised as an avatāra of Vișnu certainly before the

84 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

10th century. The same phenomenon is seen in modern India when Hindus adopt distinctively Mahomedan names and titles and vice versa. The Khoh copperplate ('Gupta Inscriptions' by Fleet No.25 at p. 113) of 209 गुप्तसंवत् (528- 529 A. D.) shows that a certain छोडुगोमिन requested महाराज संक्षोम to grant a village to a temple of goddess पिषटपुरी. The Siroda plates of देवराज (in E. I. vol. 24 p. 143, about the 4th century A.D.) show that देवराज of the गोमिन् dynasty made a gift of tolls to two Brahmanas. So here we have ancient evidence to show that गोमिन was not a purely Buddistic appe- llation as early as the 4 or 5th century A. D. An author's religion must be judged from the contents of his books and not from his name. In the whole of the Kāvyālankara there is nothing that is peculiarly Buddhistic, nor is there any reference to the incidents of Buddha's noble life and to purely Buddhistic legends. The first verse salutes सार्व सर्वजञ. सर्वश्ञ is an appellation of शिव as well as of बुद्ध, while सार्व simply means 'सर्वस्म हित' and is not given by अमर as an appellation of Bu- ddha. भामह teaches the forms सार्व and स्वीय in VI. 53 'हितप्रकरये एं च सवशब्दात् प्रयु्जते। ततश्छमिष्ट्या च यथा सार्वः सर्वीय इत्यपि॥' (compare 'सर्वपुरुषाभ्यां खढनौ' पाशिनि V. I. 10). भामह negative the अपोहवाद of the Bauddhas as regards the expressive power of words (VI. 16-17 'अन्यापोहेन शब्दोर्थमाहेत्यन्ये प्रचक्षते। ... यदि गौरित्ययं शब्दः कृतार्थोऽन्य- निराकृती। जनको गवि गोबुद्धमग्यतामपरो ध्वनिः ॥). Bhamaha's three verses criticizing अपोहवाद (VI. 17-19) are cited in the तत्त्वसंग्रह of शान्तरचित (p.291 verses 912-914), expressly attributed to भामह by the commentator कमलशील and severely criticized. शान्तरच्षित stigmatizes भामइ, कुमारिल and others that denounce the theory of अपोह as कुदृष्टय: and दुरात्मान: (अन्याफोहापरिज्ञानादेवमेते कुदृष्यः। स्वयं प्रुष्टा दुरास्मानो नाशयन्ति परानपि ॥ verse 1003 of तत्त्वसंग्रह published in G.O.S.). So arg was apparently beyond the pale of Buddhism according to the famous Buddhist writer शान्तरच्ित (deemed to have flourished about 705-762 A. D .; vide Intro. p. XXIII to the G.O.S. edition of the तत्वसंग्रह. This would establish that Bhamaha cannot be placed later than about 750 A.D. The fact that भामह discarded the theory of अपोह and was branded as दुरात्मन by a staunch Buddhist like शान्तरक्षित is one of the strongest arguments against holding that he was a Buddhist on the ground that he paid homage to सर्वश just as चन्द्रगोमिन् did in सिद्धं प्रशाम्य सर्वशञं सर्वीयं जगतो गुरुम्।. The late Principal A.

BHAMAHA 85

B. Dhruva thought that Bhamaha was a Buddhist in spite of his diatribe against Apohavada and in spite of the fact that nothing peculiarly Buddhistic is found in the body of his work. He relies upon the example of Hemacandra, who in his Kāvyānuśāsana makes use only of Brahmaņic Literature. But the analogy does not go far enough. Hemacandra in his work leaves no doubt about his religion by putting in the forefront in the Mangalacarana a reference to the founder of Jainism 'सर्वभाषापरिणतां जॅनों वाचमुपास्महे'. It is possible that Bhamaha lived at a time when Gautama, the Buddha, had come to be rega- rded as an ayatara and wrote a HRararu verse which has two meanings, one applicable to fira and the other to Buddha. He was probably a Hindu steeped in all the ancient Sanskrit culture but with an admiration for Buddha's noble life and therefore indulged in a double-meaning opening verse and also probably he had learnt Buddhist logic that was very much esteemed from the 5th to the 8th century. In IV. 49 (भूभृतां पीतसो- मानां न्याय्ये वर्त्मनि तिष्ठताम) he exemplifies what description given by a poet would be आगमबिरोधि. सोम was to be drunk by ब्राह्मयs alone but if a poet spoke of kings that always followed the right as drinkers of Soma that would be aganist what the Veda and Dharmasastras teach. This shows that #ng was steeped in the ancient Vedic traditions. Most of his examples refer to Brahma- nical gods and heroes. He frequently alludes to the chara- cters and incidents of the रामायण and महाभारत. For example, III.7 (कर्ष, पार्थ, शल्य), III. 11) उदात्तं शक्तिमान् रामो गुरुवाक्यानुरोधकः। विह्यायो- पवनं राज्यं यथावनमुपागमत्' II), III. 5 (अद या मम गोविन्द' &c. to be quoted below), II. 41 (यदुप्रवीर and शारङ्ग), II. 55 (युगादौ भगवान् ब्रह्मा विनिर्मित्सुरिव प्रजाः), III, 24 (शम्भु and कुसुमायुध), III. 32 (राम: सप्ताभिनत् तालान् गिरिं क्रौञचं भगूत्तमः), IV. 21,(रथाङ्शले बिभ्रायौ पातां वः शम्भुशार्ङ्ियौ), V. 39 (भीम and रुधिरपान), V. 41-43 (प्रतिश्ाs of दुर्योधन, युधिष्ठिर and भीष्म), V. 44. (meeting of परशुराम and राम), V.37 (हनूमान and सीता). Bhamaha was in a way a modest man. At the end of the 4th ufto after pointing out the faults to be avoided in poetry he says 'न दूषखायायमुदाहतो विधिन चाभिमानेन किमु प्रतीयते। कृतात्मनां तत्वदृशां च मादृशो जनोमिसन्धि क इवावभोत्स्यते ।' (IV.50). But he was sometimes bitterly sarcastic; vide I. 31, IV. 45. He derived help from his predecessors, one of whom, Medhavin, he names. He briefly summarises the sum of literary criticism that existed before him and says that in enumerating the figures

86 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

of speech he saw various works of others (on Alankārasāstra) and thought over the matter himself. 'समासेनोदितमिदं धीखेदायैव विस्तरः। असङ्कगृहीतमप्यन्यदभ्यूध्यमनया दिशा ।' (II. 95) and 'इति निगदि- तास्तास्ता वाचामलङ्कृतयो मया बहुविधकृतीर्वृष्ट्वान्येषां स्वयं परितर्क्र्य च' । (V.69). Vide I.13-15 'रूपकादिरल क्वारस्तस्यान्यं बहुधोदितः। रूपकादिमलक्कारं बास माचक्षते परे ।. The above references clearly show that before arHr flourished many writers on Alankara (including Medha- vin named by him) that had attained fame. It is probable as argued above that Bhamaha quotes five verses of Medhavin. At the end of the 2nd ufto occurs a verse which has been made much of by some scholars 'स्ययंकृतरेव निदर्शनैरियं मया प्रक्लृप्ता खलु वागलक्क तिः।' (96). What is the meaning of इयं वागलक्कतिः ? If these words refer to the whole of the work called काव्यालक्कार, then the statement (said to be very emphatic on account of the occurrence of the word ua) must be qualified. There are several examples in the work that are obviously borrowed e. g. IV. 8 'दाडिमानि दशापूपा: षडित्यादि यथोदितम्' (for which see below); I. 41 हिमापहामित्रधरर्व्याप्तं व्योमेत्यावाचकम्. Therefore, it cannot be asserted that every example in the book is Bhamaha's own. If the words refer only to the examples of figures of speech, the verse should have occurred at the end of the third परिच्छेद. Besides, even in the second परिच्छेद he quotes many verses from other writers. It is true that he gives the sources from which those quotations are taken. But there is no qualifying clause in the verse (स्वयंकृतरेव etc.) making an exception in favour of such borrowed verses. It is not unlikely that the names of some authors have been lost (if thcy occurred) in the lapse of centu- ries. The number of the mss. of Bhamaha's work is not so large as to make one feel confident about the accuracy of the present text of Bhamaha. For example, the लोचन (p. 87) says भामहेन हि गुरुदेवनृपतिपुत्रविषयप्रीतिवर्णनं प्रेयोलक्कार इत्युक्तम्, but भामह nowhere defines प्रेय: and only cites an example which refers to देव (III. 5). राघबभट्ट in his अर्थद्योतनिका on शाकुन्तल I. 2 first quotes भामह's definition of पर्यायोक (III. 8) and cites यं प्रेच्य as the illu- stration thereof given by arag and states that it is taken from the work हयग्रीव वध. This verse does not occur in the printed text. It is quoted by मम्मट under पर्यायोक्त. It is possible that राघवभis wrong in stating that the verse occurs in भामह. On शाकुन्तल I(कृष्णसारे), राघवभट्ट remarks 'नोपमानं तिडन्तेन' इति भामहोके :. But these words occur in the काव्यादर्श II. 227 and not in भामह

BHĀMAHA 87

and are taken from the महाभाष्य on पाशिनि III. 1.7. The verse यं प्रेच््य is quoted by उद्भटंविवेक (p. 44) without name. No comme- ntary on the work has been found. The only one that is known to have been composed, the भामहविवरण or मामहवृत्ति of 3Rz, has not been yet recovered. Therefore, too much empha- sis cannot be laid on the words 'स्वयंकृतरेव' etc. It is possible that most of the verses being his own compositions, he could say स्वयंकृतरेव on the analogy of छत्रिन्याय. भामह is expressly named twice by the ध्वन्यालोक p. 46 (about पर्यायोत ) and p. 259 (about the verse सैषा II. 85). Vide under वामन. Among the authors and works mentioned by name are the following :- अच्युतोत्तर of रामशर्मा (II. 19 and 58), भश्मकवंश (I.33), कभक्ष (V.17), न्यास (VI. 36), पाशिनि (called also सालातुरीय, VI. 62-63), मेधाविन्, रत्नाहरण, (III. 8), राजमित्र (a work, II. 45, III. 10), शाखवर्धन (II. 47). Of these only five viz. शच्युतोत्तर, अश्मकवंश, रत्नाहरण, राजमित्र, and शाखवर्धन are names that are not known from other sources. From the भश्मकवंश no quotation is taken by भामह. It is doubtful whether रत्नाहरण is really the title of a work (उवाच रत्नाहरये चैधं शाङधनुर्यथा। गृहेष्ब- ध्वसु वा नान्नं भुन्ज्महे यदधीतिनः । न मुअते द्विजास्तच्व रसदाननिवृत्तये ।I). The examples cited from शाखवर्धन and रामशर्मा are cited only for illustrating faults and they are quoted by नमिसाधु (on रुद्रट XI. 24.) from मेधावी and in the काव्यप्रकाश (without name). Because these are deemed to be authors and works not referred to else- where, therefore it has been urged by some (e. g. Nobel in 'Foundations of Indian Poetics' p. 15) that भामह is very anci- ent. There is nothing of the sort. A few years ago even भामह's work was not found. We do not know what the future may discover to us and should be loth to dogmatise on the scanty data at present available. Besides, having decided to give illustrations composed by himself there was hardly any scope for quoting from ancient authors. Among the authors and works referred to but not named are भरत (I.24 'उक्तं तदमिनेयार्थमुक्तोऽन्यैस्तस्य विस्तर:), महाभाष्य of पतञलि (VI.31). Compar the verysimilar words of the काव्यादर्श I. 31 मिश्राषि नाटकादीनि तेष/मन्यत्र विस्तरः.' In IV. 22 he mentions सूत्रकृत (पाशिनि), पदकार (कात्यायन)and इषप्रयोग (महाभाष्य). As regards other writers and works supposed to be quoted or referred to, vide below on the age of Bhamaha. arHx refers to the story of वृत्सेश (IV.39) and of नरवाहनदत (IV. 49), both

88 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

of whom are the principal characters in the बृहत्कथा. He very often cites the views of other rhetoricians under the words अपरे, अन्ये, केषांचित् (II. 6, 8, 87; III. 12, 54) and refers to other writers (on grammar and other sastras) also (IV: 6; V. 6, 11, 60). He thought very highly of Panini's system 'श्रद्धेयं जगति मतं हि पाषिनीयं' (VI. 63); at the beginning of the 6th परि० there is a fine रूपक on grammar 'सूत्राम्भसं पदावर्तपारायणरसातलम्। धातूणदि- गणग्राहं ध्यानग्रहवृहत्प्लवम्। नापारयित्वा दुर्गाधममुं व्याकरणार्णवम्। शब्दरत्नं स्वयंगममलभ्कतुमयं जन:॥ .. He refers to दएडनीति (IV. 38) and to स्फोटवाद (VI. 12 'शपथैरपि चादेयं वचो न स्फोटवादिनाम्। नभःकुसुममस्तीति श्रद्ध्यात्कः सचेतन:). In IV. 7 (गुरुभिः कि विवादेन) it is not clear to whom he refers as J. His verses are generally smooth and polished and about 100 of them have been quoted by the लोचन and other later writers. The कामधेनु (वाणीविलास ed.) quotes many verses from भामह about definitions of सूत्र, वृत्ति and topics of Poetics which are not found in the काव्यालक्वार. नारायण in his com. on the वृत्तरत्नाकर quotes long passages from भामह (pp. 5-6) which indicate that भामह wrote on metrics also. राघवभट्ट in अर्थदोतनिका on शाकुन्तल I. 1 cites a half verse of भामह 'क्षेमं सवगुरुद त्ते मगणो भूमिदैबतः-इति भाम- होक्तेः'. Whether the भामह who wrote the टीका on वररुचि's grammar is identical with our author is doubtful. Pischel in his Prakrit grammar (p. 35) holds that the two are identical and so does Prof. Pathak in his Intro. to कविराजमार्ग (p. 16). The देशीनाममाला of हेमचन्द्र (ed. by p. Ramanujaswami, 1938) mentions on VIII. 39 भामह as follows 'अरत्र सुगिम्हओर फाल्गुनोत्सव इति सुग्रीष्मक- शब्दभवः । दृश्यते चायं संस्कृते। यद्धामहः। सुग्रीष्मकेन दृष्ट इति ।'. From what work of arag this is taken cannot be stated. This is a पाद of an आर्या. गोपाल in his commentary on काव्यप्रकाश called साहित्यचूडामखि (Tri. ed. p. 2) says 'उद्भटेनापि नम्रेय नायकेनोपलालितः । हृधो भाम इव स्त्रीखामल्पारम्भोपि भामहः॥'. We know that उद्भट wrote भामहविवरय; but it is not possible to say what नायक had to do with भामह's work. Before discussing the question of the age of Bhamaha, it would be better, in order to clear the ground, to say a few words about the काब्यादर्श. Mr. Batuknath Sarma in the Intro. to his edition of Bhamaha places Bhāmaha between 400 to 600 A.D. (p. 54). His main grounds will be discussod later on. 9 The Kāvyādaśra of Daņdin. The Kāvyādarśa has been often printed in India and Europe (at Calcutta in 1863 with

KĀVYĀDARŚA 89

the com. of प्रेमचन्द्रतर्कवागीश, in 1890 by Bohtlingk with a German translation, in 1910 at Madras by Prof. Rangacharya with two commentaries, in Poona by Dr. Belvalkar and Shastri Rangacharya Raddi and by Pandit Rangacharya Raddi with his own commentary in 1938 (from B. O. R. I.). The work is divided into three परिच्छेदs; in Prof. Rangacharya's edition there are four परिच्छेदs, the third परि० of the other editions being split up into two. The fourth परिच्छेद in the Madras edition begins with the treatment of atqs. There are in all 660 verses (in the Calcutta edition and in Pandit Raddi's ed.), while in the Madras edition there are 663 verses (the famous verse लिम्पतीव ... गता being omitted in the 2nd परि०, 2 added at the end of its 3rd ufto, one added at the begi- nning of its 4th qfto and one more in the middle viz. the verse आधिव्याधिपरीताय अध श्वो वा विनाशिने। को हि नाम शरीराय धर्मापेतं समाचरेत् ।I' after III. 160 of the Calcutta edition). It is the edition of Pandit Rangacharya from which citations are made here. The first परिच्छेद defines kauya, divides the latter into गद्य, पद्य and मिश्र; defines सर्गबन्ध; refers to two varieties of गध्य viz. आख्यायिका and कथा and remarks that there is really no distinction between the two; divides literature into संस्कृत, प्राकृत, अपभ्रश and मिश्र; speaks of the two styles वैदर्भ and गौड and of the ten gunas; defines and illustrates अनुप्रास; mentions the three essentials that contribute to the making of a poet, viz. प्रतिभा '(imagination), श्रुति (culture) and अभियोग (constant practice) The second परिच्छेद defines the word अलक्कार, enumerates 35 alankaras and illustrates them. The अलक्कारs treated of are (in order) स्वभावोक्ति, उपमा, रूपक, दीपक, आवृत्ति, आक्षेप, अर्थान्तरन्यास, व्यतिरेक, विभावना, समासोक्ति, अतिशयोक्ति, उत्प्रेक्षा, हेतु, सूक्षम, लेश (or लव), यथासंख्य (or क्रम), प्रेयः, रसवत्, ऊजस्वि, पर्यायोक्त, समाहित, उदात्त, अरह्नुति, श्लेष, विशेषोक्ति, तुल्ययोगिता, विरोध, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, व्याजोक्ति, निदर्शना, सहोक्ति, परिवृत्ति, आशीः, सक्कीर्, and भाविक. The third परिच्छेद gives an elaborate treatment of यमक, defines and illustrates. such चित्रबन्धS as गोमूत्रिका, अर्धभ्रम, सर्वतोभद्र, स्वरस्था- नवशनियम; gives 16 varieties of प्रहेलिकाs and illustrates ten kinds of दोषड. Daņdin's Kāvyādarśa is to some extent an exponent of the Riti school of Poetics and partly of the Alankara school. He gives, however, such an exhaustive treatment of

90 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Guņas and Alankāras that it is not possible.to identify him with any particular school. Of his personal history we know very little unless we are prepared to hold that the wafa- सुन्दरीकथा published by Mr. R. Kavi in 1924 in the Daksina- bharati Series is a work of Dandin. That work is full of gaps. It will be dealt with later on. Apart from the statements in the अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा, he appears to have belonged to the Deccan or to some part south of the Narmada. In the illu- strations the following figure most prominently, मलयानिल (II 174; III. 165), कावेरी (III. 166), कान्ची (III. 114 not actually named but suggested), चोल (III. 166), कलिक् (III. 165), श्रवन्ती (II. 280, the name of वासवदत्ता). The occurrence of the word पश्य in I. 5. (आदिराजयशोबिम्बमादश प्राप्य वाङमयम्। तेषामसन्निधानेऽपि न स्वयं पश्य नश्यति ॥) and in II. 172 (भगवन्तौ जगन्नेत्रे सूर्याचन्द्रमसावपि। पश्य गच्छत एवास्तं नियतिः केन लङव्यते ॥I') has led to the tradition that Dandin wrote the work for some easy-going prince. But the word is probably a rhetorical device and used for the sake of the अनुप्रास (in पश्य नश्यति). The list of अलक्कारs (II. 4-7) is suspected to be an interpolation by scholars like Dr. Belvalkar on the grounds of the use of the wrong from दीपकावृती (for ०वृत्ती, which would mar the metre), the word लव for लेश and the somewhat strange अप्रस्तुतस्तोत्र and विशेष for अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा and विशेषोक्ति Though these blemishes are somewhat suspici- ous, still to regard the verses as interpolations on these grounds is going too far. Such lists of alankāras always precede the treatment of them in ancient works. Bhamaha, Udbhata, and Rudrata have them (though not of all figurs in one place). To use syncnyms for the names of figures of speech is not an unknown proceeding. उद्भट (VI. 1) says 'काव्यदृष्टान्तहेतू चेत्यलक्का- रान्परे विदुः'. This shows that the figures are to be called काव्यहेतु and काव्यदृष्टान्त but when he comes to the definitions of these he uses the well-known terms काव्यलिक् (and not काव्यहेतु) and दृष्टान्त (and not काव्यदृष्टान्त. This would explain the use of लव for लेश and ०स्तोत्र for प्रशंसा and also of विशेष for विशेषोक्ति. The Kāvyadarsa is throughout written in a flowing, melli- fluous style. As compared with Bhamaha, the palm of supe- riority in the sphere of poetic excellence must be given to Dandin, though as regards precision and logical acumen Bhamaha stands higher than Dandin. Dandin's examples bear the stamp of originality and, except in two or three cases,

KĀVYĀDARŚA 91

which will be discussed below, it has not been possible to point out that he borrows his examples from others. The काव्यादर्श mentions the following works by name: छन्दोविचिति (I.12), बृहत्कथा (I. 38 भूतभाषामयीं प्राहुरद्भुतार्थां बृहत्कथाम्), सेतुबन्ध (I. 34 'महाराष्ट्राश्रयां भाषां प्रकृष्टं प्राकृतं विदुः। सागरः सूक्तिरत्नानां सेतुबन्धादि यन्मयम् ।।).1 The बृहत्कथा occurs in the verse 'कथा हि सर्वं- भाषाभि: संस्कृतेन च बध्यते। भूतभाषामर्यी प्राङ्कुरद्मुतार्थां बृहत्कथाम्।.' This means 'A katha may be composed in all languages (Prakrits) and in Sanskrit, they say that the Brhatkatha which contains wonderful matter (stories) is composed in Bhūtabhāsā'

1 Dr. Manomohan Ghosh tries hard to establish that no Prakrit called Mahārāștrī existed before 1000 A. D. and that 'Dandin's praise of Maharastrī was a patriotic exaggeration' (vide pp. 67, 75-76 of his Introduction to Karpūramañjarī, 1948). It would be irrelevant in this work to go into the que- stion of the relation of Maharastri to Saurasenī. But the 2nd remark about Dandin's patriotic exaggeration must be dealt with here. No one would agree with Dr. Ghosh that Dandin was an ignoramus in the matter of Prakrits. Dandin deftnitely names (I. 34-35) महाराष्ट्री, शौरसेनी, गौडी and लाटी as different Prakrits and it is too much to say that a genius like Dandin was not able to distinguish between शौरसेनी and महाराष्ट्री. Patriotism and false propaganda are a marked attitude of the last two hundred years or so. If the अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा and its सार are to be believed, the family of दएडी migrated from आनन्दपुर in the north- west of Aryadesa (in modern north Gujarat) to अचलपुर in नासि- क्यभूमि and दामोदर, great-grand-father of दएडी, came to कान्ची and acquired lands there. So four generations including aust dwelt in काञ्ची. Which was the country about which दएडी was to be patriotic, आनन्दपुर or अचलपुर or कान्ची ? There is nothing to show that महाराष्ट्र ever extended up to आनन्दपुर or down to कान्ची. He should ordinarily be supposed to love the country where four generations of his family lived i.e. aroat. He could hardly feel warmth about नासिक्यभूमि which was only the stepp- ing stone or second home of the family three generations before him. Therefore, the theory of patriotic exaggeration is absurd and if the facts do not fit in with one's theories or one's present knowledge, the theories must be given up and more knowledge awaited.

92 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

(Paisaci). The 2nd half illustrates 'सर्वभाषाभिः'. Nobel in 'Fundations of Indian Poetry' p. 136 holds that this directly refers to भामह I. 28 (न वक्त्रापरवक्त्राभ्यां युक्का नोच्छवासवत्यपि। संस्कृतं संस्कृता चेष्टा कथापभ्रंशभाक तथा). Nobel begs the question. One may say on the contrary with equal reasons that aHg refers to the काव्यादर्श. Besides the verse of भामह is not clear. What does संस्कृतं refer to ? The latter half appears to mean Katha is desired to be in Sanskrit and may be also in Apabhramsa. arHg himself says that काष्य may be पद or गद्य, again it may be in Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhramsa (I. 16). दशिडन् refers to a कलापरिच्छेद, which he contemplated writing, probably as a part of his काव्यादर्श (इत्थं कलाचतुष्षष्टिविरोधः साधु नीयताम्। तस्याः कलापरिच्छेदे रूपमाविर्भविष्यति।' III. 171).1 At one time eminent scholars thought that at- विचिति was Dandin's own work. छन्दोविचिति is, however, as shown by me in I. A. for 1911 p. 177, a name for the science of metrics and particularly for the Vedanga on metrics attributed to पिङगलनाग whois quoted even in the Sabarabhasya on जै. I. I. 5 (p.54,Anan.). The word छन्दोविचिति occurs even in कौटिल्य's अर्थशाख (I. 3. 1) and in Ap. Dh. S. II. 4.8.11. The Bulletin of the London S. of Ori. and Afri. studies vol. XXII part I p. 192 reviews the publication of a work called 'Chandoviciti-Text

1 Vide Mr. S. L. Katre's paper in I. H. Q. vol. 24 pp. 118-122, where he brings together certain quotations from जगद्धर's commentary on मालतीमाधव, which are not found in the current काव्यादर्श. On कामसूत्र I. 3. 16 enumerating the 64 कलाs, the जयमझगला commentary in explaining दुर्वाचकयोगा: (30th कला in the list) quotes a verse from the काव्यादर्श viz. दंष्रायद्धर्या प्राग्योद्राकूदमाम- म्ववन्तःस्थामुच्चित्षेप। देव ध्रुट्तिद्ध्यत्विक्स्तुत्यो युष्मान् सोऽव्यात्सर्पात्केतु: ॥. Here सर्पात् means गरुड and सर्पात्केतुः is विष्णु; देवद्रुह् means असुर and देव ... चित means 'destroyer of Asuras'. While explaining काव्यसमस्या- पूरख (which is कला No. 33 from the list of 64 kalas) जयमङला quotes from the काव्यावर्श a quarter of a verse viz. आश्वासं जनयति राजमुख्यमध्ये which is given for समस्यापूरण and points out how the remaining pādas were composed. It appears from these exa- mples that the जयमझला knew of the काव्यादर्श as containing a treat- ment of kalas. This would be the कलापरिच्छेद and a part of the काव्यादर्श. Mr. Katre cites these passeges from Jaymangala on Kamasutra in a paper read at the 15th session of the All India Oriental conference.

KĀVYĀDARSA 93

zur Sanskrit Metrik, edited by Dr. Schlingloff from a single fragment found in central Asia (Turfan). I have not been able to secure a copy. It may further be noted that chapters 14-15 of the नाव्यशास (K.M edition=15-16 of Ch. ed.) deal with numerous metres and the colophon at the end of the 15th chap. (in G. O. S. ed.) is इति भारतीय-नाट्यशास्त्रे छन्दोविचितिर्नामाध्याय: ys4V :. The following are among the authors and works not quoted by name: पतअ्जलि's महाभाष्य is quoted as आप्तभाषित 'नोपमानं तिङन्तेनेत्यतिकरम्याप्तभाषितम्' (काव्या. II. 227); भरत's नाट्यशासत्र seems to be referred to as another school (आगमान्तर) 'यच्च सन्ध्यङ्गवृत्यअलक्षयाधा- गमान्तरे। व्यावर्णितमिदं चेष्टमलङ्कारतयैव नः॥' (II. 367). For सन्ध्यङ्, वृत्त्यक् and लक्षय see chapters 21, 22, 17 of the नाट्यशास्त्र (Ch. ed.). In another place दएडी says almost in the same way as भामह (I. 24 quoted above) 'मिश्राषि नाटकादीनि तेषामन्यत्र विस्तरः' (I. 31). He refers in general terms to former Acaryas or learned men; 'ya- शास्त्राषि संहृत्य' (I. 2 .; this is a common statement with writers; compare 'समाहृत्यान्यतन्त्राणि' अमर०); सूरय: occurs at I. 9 (former sages explained the body of poetry and its ornaments) and in II. 7 (इति वाचामलङ्कारा दशिंता: पूर्वसूरिभिः); कि तु बीजं विकल्पानां पूर्वाचार्ये: प्रदर्शितम्' II. 2 and in 'एता: षोडश निर्दिष्ाः पूर्वाचायैंः प्रहेलिकाः' III.106. He refers to the opinions of other writers on Poetics as केषांचित् or कैश्षित (II. 227; I. 79) and एके (II. 268 about the definition of लेश). He quotes a half verse लिम्पतीव तमोक्गानि वर्षतीवाञ्जनं नभः (II. 226) and holds an elaborate discussion on it, pointing out that some writers were misled into regarding that verse (well- known even in Dandin's day) as an example of 34HT (as the word {a occurs in it thrice), but that the verse is an example of उत्प्रेक्षा (in the first half where two इवs occur). This discussion is pointedly referred to by प्रतीहारेन्दुराज on उद्धट (p. 26). The verse occurs in the मृच्छकटिक and also in two of the dramas discovered and ascribed to Bhāsa by M.M. Ganpatiśāstri, viz. चारुदत्त I. 19 and बालचरित I, 15. दएडी refers to कापिलड (III. 175), to सुगत (III. 174) and to न्याय which is called ह्ेतुविधा by him (III. 173). In the शार्ङ्गधरपद्धति (No. 174) and in जहय's सूक्तिमुक्तावली P. 45 No. 74 a verse of राजशेखर is quoted which makes दएडी the au- thor of three works 'त्रयोऽमयस्रयो वेदास्त्यो देवास्त्रयो गुणाः। त्रयो दशिडप्रबन्धाश्व त्रिषु लोकेषु विश्रताः ॥'. Various scholars have taxed their ingenuity to find o it these three works. All that the verse means is that three compositions of Dandin are well-known in all the worlds

94 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

and not that Dandin wrote only three works. Pischel made the desperate conjecture on account of not correctly under- standing the discussion about the लिम्पतीव verse that the मृच्छ- कटिक was a work of दएडी and along with the काव्यादर्श and the दशकुमारचरित made up the required number. But now we have two more works in which that verse occurs and they too will have Dandin fathered on them if Pischel's reasoning is to be followed. Others like Peterson (Intro. ₹To p. 5) and Dr. Jacobi (in Indische Studien, Vol. XVII) hit upon the छन्दोविचिति. as the third work. But this also has been shown to be wrong. Vide my article in I. A. vol. 40 (1911) pp. 177-78 on छन्दोविचिति. आप. ध. सू. II. 3. 7. 14-15 are षडङ्गो वेदः। छन्दःकल्पो व्याकरणं ज्योतिषं निरुक्तं शिक्षा छन्दोविचितिरिति; सुबन्धु in वासवदत्ता has 'छन्दोविचितिमिव भ्राज- मानतनुमध्याम्' p. 235 (Hall's edition). छन्दःकल्प is one word and means कल्पसूत्रS. तनुमध्या is a metre. Some took the कलापरिच्छेद as the third work. It appears that दएडी wrote a chapter on कलाs as a part of the काव्यादर्श and the कलापरिच्छेद is not his third work. To add to the confusion there are scholars who seriously question the view that the दशकुमारचरित is a work by the same author that wrote the काव्यादर्श. Mr. Trivedi (Intro. to प्रतापरुद्र० XXXI), Mr. Agashe (in I. A. for 1915 p. 67 and more rece- ntly in his introduction to the दशकुमार pp. XXV ff) argue that the author of the काव्यादर्श cannot be the author of the दश- FHIT. also. This is not the place to examine their arguments in detail. But a brief reference must be made to some of them. Mr. Agashe's first argument is that the author of the rnax was a fastidious critic, who warned all poets to eschew even the slightest blemishes (तदल्पमपि नोपेच्यं काव्ये दुष्टं कथंचन। स्याद्वपुः सुन्दर- मपि श्वित्रेणकेन दुर्भगंम् ।। I. 7) and condcmned as ग्राम्य even such apparently harmless words as 'कन्ये कामयमानं मां न त्वं कामयसे कथम्। इति ग्राम्योयमर्थात्मा वैरस्याय प्रकल्पते ॥' I. 63, while in the दश० there are numerous faults in the matter of good taste and grammar and direct references to sexual intercourse. Here two things have to be noted. There is always a great gulf between pre- cept and practice, which has been admitted by all literary critics e. g. the व्यक्तिविवेक says about his method of finding fault with the greatest poets 'स्वकृतिष्वयन्त्रितः कथमनुशिष्यादन्यमयमिति न वाच्यम्। वारयति भिषगपथ्यादितरान् स्वयमाचरन्नपि तत् ।।' (p.37); similarly, नेमेन्द्र in his भौचित्य० finds fault with his own compositions

KĀVYĀDARŚA 95

(under kārikās 20 and 21). Besides, the aTo may have been composed while qust was comparatively young and inexperi- enced; while the काव्यादश is a product of mature years. More- over, what दएडी means when he styles the verse कन्ये &c. as AT has not been clearly grasped. He condemns the down- right, rough and outspoken mode of conveying one's meaning and prefers the suggestive method. This is illustrated by uet himself in the next verse which conveys the same sense but in a different manner 'कामं कन्दर्पचाएडालो मयि वामाति निर्दयः। त्वयि निमत्सरो दिष्ट्येत्यग्राम्योर्थो रसावहः ॥' (I. 64). The second point emphasized by Mr. Agashe is that there is great difference between the chaste and smooth diction of the काव्यादर्श and the somewhat slipshod style and the long-drawn compounds of the o. Here again there is a misapprehension. The काव्यादर्श being in verse did not allow much scope for long compounds; yet it approves of a compound extending over a half verse (I. 84 पयोधरतटोत्सशलम सन्ध्यातपांशुका। कस्य कामातुरं चेतो वारुगी न करिष्यति ॥), while the aTo being in prose exhibits long compounds and therein accords with the teaching of the काव्यादश which conde- mns long compouuds only in पद्य (ओज: समासभूयस्त्वमेतद्गद्यस्य जीवितम्। पदेऽप्यदाक्िखात्यानामिदमेकं परायणम्॥ I. 80). Subandhu's introductory verses to वासवदत्ता offer a great contrast to his prose. And so do the few verses in the a{To. Sufficient reasons have not been advanced for rejecting Dandin's authorship of the दश०. The first verse of the दश० (ब्रह्माएडच्छत्रदएड: etc.) is quoted in जहण's सक्तिमुक्तावलि p. 31 No. 86 and by the सरस्वतीकएठाभरण (परिच्छेद II under लाटानुप्रास p. 262) which profusely quotes from the काव्यादर्श also. The complexion of the whole problem is changed by the publication of the अव् न्तिसुन्दरीकथा. The first verse contains obeisance to हिरएयगभ (ब्रह्मा), ईशान (शिव) and हरि, who, though regarded as different (by many devotees), are really not so (हिर एयगर्भमीशानमादं च पुरुषं हरिम्। त्रीनप्यसत्यनानात्वान्वन्दे विश्वशरीरियः॥). Then the author praises (in verses 2 to 21 that have many gaps) the following works and authors (as far as they can be made out): रामायण, महाभारत, सुबन्धु (who did not fall within the fetters of बिन्दुसार and whose heart was captivated by वत्स- राज), बृहत्कथा, मूलदेव (?), शु द्रक, भास (and his dramas), सवसेन (and his हरिविजय), सेतु, कालिदास (who wrote in the वैदर्भमाग), नारायण (who wrote काव्यत्रय), then some blind poet (कुमारदास ?), वाख and मयूर, some poetess (probably विज्जका) who though dark was the

96 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

abode of excellent svabhavokti verses and gunas (वणाहीनापि या जाता जात्युत्कर्षगुखास्पदम् ।।), another poetess or work called मनोवती. Then verse 22 describes the author as a descendant of दामोदर, then four verses follow which are not clear; the last glorifies सरस्वती and the tribe of great poets. Then begins the story in prose. In the capital city named काश्ी there was king सिंहविप्णु to whom an आर्या was recited by a गन्धव. The family of दएडी migrated from आनन्दपुर to अचलपुर in नासिक्यभूमि (modern Ellich- pur in Berar ?). The ancestor called दामोदरस्वामिन् (of the कौशिकगोत्र) following the advice of the great poet भारवि (who was a महाशव) formed friendship with prince विष्शुवर्धन.1 दामोदर met दुर्विनीत of the गाङ्रेय dynasty who was well-known for his wanderings. The आर्या that the गन्धर्व addressed to (पल्लव) सिंह- विष्ु was दामोदर's.2 सिंहविष्णु invited दामोदर to his court, got him

1 The passage as corrected by Dr. Raghavan from 'the Trivandrum mss.'and as communicated to me in a letter is'nta महाप्रभावं गवां प्रभवं प्रदीप्रभासं भारवि रविमिवेन्दुः अनुरुव्य दर्श इव पुएयकमषि विष्णु वर्षनाल्ये राजसूनौ प्रणयमन्वबध्नात्।' The printed text (of Mr. Kavi) is mutilated but the part पुएय ... बझ्ात् (p.6) is there. Vide I. H. Q. vol. III. pp. 169-171 for a similarly corrected pa- ssage by Mr. Harihar Sastri. The passage now appears on p. 10 of the T. S. S. ed. 2 The आर्या as given in the अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथासार (I. 16) is : दनुजपतिहृदय-भूधरविभेदविज्ञातशक्तिनखकुलिशम्। जगदुदयह्ेतुविष्णरवतु वपुर्नारसिंहं व: ॥. This applies both to नृसिंहावतार and to सिंहविष्यु, the Pallava king. This raises an important question, viz. whether this दामोदर, the ancestor of Dandin, is the same as the poet दामोदर many of whose verses are quoted in the anthologies. Vide सुभाषितावलि of वल्लभदेव No. 2528 (ascribed to कपिलदामोदर) and कवीन्द्रवचनसमुच्चय pp. 43-46. It is not possible to give a de- finite answer to this question in the present state of our know- ledge. It is suggested in a paper in the Bulletin of the D. C. Research Institute, Poona, (vol. I. pp. 421-424) that one of the Introductory verses of the Vāsavadattā contains a veiled allu- sion to Damodara as the Guru of Subandhu. The Introduetory verse 6 of the अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा mentions सुबन्धु but it is extremely doubtful whether he is the author of the extant prose romance called वासवदत्ता. He may be the महाकवि सुबन्धु, author of a play called वासवदत्तानृत्यधारा (धार) mentioned by भ. भा. Dr. A. N.

KĀVYĀDARŚA 97

married and made to him a gift of lands. दामोदर had three sons of whom मनोरथ was the middle one, who had tour sons, the youngest of whom was वीरदर. The latter married गौरी. Their only son was aoet whose mother died in his infancy and the father after upanayana. There was invasion, arst was devastated and दयडी left काशी. After some years दएडी returned to the पल्लव court.1 In a dream he had a vision of सरस्वती who blessed him and asked him to write the story of faur king राजवाहन. Next morning he narrated the story of भवन्तिसुन्दरी. The अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा is the first portion of the whole story, the current दशकुमारचरित is the middle portion and there is one उच्छवास for the उत्तरपीठिका. अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा was published in the Dakshinabharati Series (Madras) in 1924. For मातृदस as a friend of Dandin as stated in अवन्तीसुन्दरीकथा, vide JOR (Madras) vol. 19 pp. 159-165. Vide JOR (Madras) vol. 17 (published in parts) and JOR (Madras) vol. XXV (supplement) for भवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा- #IT edited by Mr. G. Nariharasastri with an Introduction and summary of contents. Vide Prof. V. V. Mirashi's paper on the 'Historical Data in the Dasakumaracarita' in ABORI. vol. 26 pp. 20-31, where he arrives at the conclusion that the poli- tical conditions described in the 8th Ucchvasa of the Dasa-

Upadhye in the Poona Orientalist (vol. XI. parts 3 and 4 pp .. 29-30) quotes a verse of जिनभद्र from his विशेषावश्यकभाष्य in which the two romances of वासवदत्ता and तरश्षवती are mentioned and points out that a colophon of the ms. of that work shows that the latter was written in 531 saka (i. e. 609 A. D.). This would mean that the author of the वासवदचा flourished sometime before 600 A. D. and would make it possible for us to hold that Damodara might have been Subandhu's guru. 1 Vide 'History of the Pallavas' by R. Gopalan (1928), where on p. 83 the pedigree is set out. I take only the rele- vant portion here. नन्दिवर्मन्-his sons सिंइविष्णु I and भीमवमन्- सिंहविष्णु's son महेन्द्रविक्रमवमन् I .- son नर्सिंहवर्मन I .- his sons महेन्द्र- वर्मन II. and परमेश्वरवर्मन I. The मचविलासप्रहसन was written by पल्लव king महेन्द्रविक्रमवर्मन् I. son of सिंदविष्णु (vide p.3 of the प्रहसन). Verse 22 of the प्रहसन is : 'विरोष: पूर्वसम्बक्धो युकयोरस्तु शाश्रतः। परस्परप्रीतिकर: किरातार्जुनयोरिव II'. In this there appears to be a pointed reference to the किरातार्जुनीय of भारवि, who was a contem- porary of सिंदविष्णु acc. to the अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा.

98 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

kumāracarita point to the inference that Dandin must have flourished not long after 550 AD. After the publication of the भवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा controversies arose about its being a work of Dandin. Vide I. H. Q. vol. III pp. 169-171 (Harihar Shastri) and pp. 395-403 (Dr. De) and I. H. Q. vol. I. p. 31 ff. It was pointed out that, though aRfa is called a महाकवि in the work, there is no reference to the किराताजुनीय, which is somewhat surprising, since दएडी is said to have been the great-grandson of दामोदर who was a friend of भारवि. In a paper on 'Problems of Identity' the great scholar, the late M. M. Prof. Kuppuswami, in J. O. R. Madras vol. I. pp. 191- 201 appears to have entertained doubts about दएडी being the author of the अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा (pp.200-201 and n 5). 'In J.O. R. Madras vol. V. part 2, p. 4. Dr. Raghavan points out that in a ms. of नामसंग्रहमाला of अप्पय्यदीक्तित (different from the famous Vedantin) it is stated 'निरस्ता पल्लवेषु कान्ची नाम नगरीत्यवन्तिसुन्दरीये दरिढप्रयोगाव्'. In J.O.R. Madras vol. XIII. part 4 at p. 294 Dr. Raghavan states that in some mss. of the सूक्तिरत्नहार of कालिशराय (published in the Tri. S. Series) the verse मर्त्ययन्त्रेषु (which is the 3rd Intro. verse of अवन्ति० praising the महाभारत) is ascribed to दएडी. I find that the com. called श्ुतानुपालिनी on the काव्यादर्श (D. C. ms. No. ll1 of 1919-24 entered in Des. Cat. vol. XII. No. 125 p.137) while explaining काव्यादर्श I. 81 remarks (on folio 3) 'भाख्यायिका शद्रकचरितप्रभृतिः सा आदिः येषां (यास।?) भवन्तिसुन्दर्यादिकथानां तास्वित्यर्थ:' For the genealogy of Dandin and further information about the Avantisundarī-katha, vide vol. I. of the New Catalogus Catalogorum edited by Dr. Raghavan pp. 308-310 under Avantisundari. Considering all that has been said by many scholars I am inclined to hold on the whole (though with some hesitation)1 that the Avantisundarīkatha is a

1 The hestitation is mainly due to four circumstances viz. (1) non-mention of the किरातार्जुनीय or any other work as composed by भारवि; (2) the meagre extent of the printed भवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा as compared with the दशकुमारचरित; (3) the super- natural element about a गन्धर्व singing an भार्या verse of दामोदर; (4) difference between the style of भवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा and of दशकुमार- चरित. The अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथासार must have.been composed by some other person who based the story on the भवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा, as भभि- नन्द wrote his कादस्वरीकथासार on वाख's कादम्वरी.

KĀVYĀDARŚA 99

work of Dandin (though not the aRt)and constitutes the prelude to the current qugrafia. If this is accepted then the date of Dandin can be settled within very narrow limits. Bharavi had become as famous as Kalidasa in 634 A. D. as the Aihole Inscription shows. He was a friend of the great-grandfather of दएडी. As दामोदर the ancestor became a friend of चालुक्य facyqua, when the latter was only a prince (and not a crowned king) it must be held that the event cannot be placed later than about 590 A. D. and allowing 25 or 30 years for cach generation, Dandin, the great-grandson of Bharavi's friend, should have his literary activity placed 75 to 90 years later (i. e. between 660 and 680 A. D.). Dr. S. K. Aiyangar's note on p. 229 of the History of Pallavas by Mr. Gopalan employs by inadvertence the word Gopala for Damodara. facynfa was the younger brother of सत्याश्रय पुलिकेशिन II. and founder of the Eastern TF4 dynasty of Andhra and Kalinga and he reigned from 615 A. D. to 633 A. D. Vide 'Eastern Chalukyas' by Dr. D. C. Ganguly (Benares, 1937) p. 15 for authorities. The Ganga king gfaala had a long reign from 605 A.D. to 650 (Mysore Archaeological Reports for 1921 p. 28 and 'Eastern Chalukyas' p. 19). The कविराजमार्ग of नृपतुभ् (भमोघवर्ष) of the rigae dynasty, which is the oldest extant work in the Cana- rese language (edited by Prof. K. B. Pathak in 1898) and which treats of Rhetoric (in three Paricchedas), takes, as Pathak points out, six verses on figures of speech in the roaf and most of the verses in the 3rd परिच्छेद of the कविराजमार्ग are translations or adaptations of Dandin. Prof. Pathak points out in I. A. vol. 41 p. 236 that the कविराजमार्ग copies in II. 59-85 most of the 33 varieties of उपमा in the काव्यादर्श. नृपतुभ् ascended the. throne in śaka 737 (815 A. D.) and abdicated in śake 797 (875 A. D.). Therefore, it follows that the araf cannot be placed in any case later than 750 A. D., since considerable time must have elapsed before it became famous and could be translated into Canarese. Vide Prof. Pathak's Intro. to afarra- arf p. 17 for Nrpatunga's claim that he would follow ancient authorities on Alankāra and pp. 18-19 for comparison bet- ween the two works and p. 13 for the express mention of rs- चरित, कादम्वरी, नारायण, भारवि, कालिदास and माघ. On p. 16 of the Intro. Prof. Pathak asserted that Bhāmaha was frequently criticized by Dandin, but changed that opinion later ..

100 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

A Simhalese work called Siya-bas-lakara (TTeErT) edited by Hendrick Jayatilak (Golombo 1892) possesses great importance on this question. Its first verse is the same as that of the apraxf. The 2nd verse is different and says 'Having bowed to Mahā-Brahmā, Indra, Brhaspati, the sage Kāśyapa, Vāmana and Dandin and other eminent ācāryas who wrote on the science of poetics.' In the 3rd verse the author says that having condensed former books he composes his work in his own language. The 4th and 5th verses are the same as the 3rd and 4th verses of the arran I and almost all the verses of the two परिच्छेदsof काव्यादर्श are taken up in the Simhalese work, but the 3rd परिच्छेद of the काव्यादर्श is not translated. The last verse says 'this work was written by king Siri Silameghasena who comes of a royal race, who has a well-known following and who has lit with radiance from the rays of the jewels of the crown the inside of the white umbrella of sovereignty.' Dr. L. D. Barnett (in J. R. A. S. 1905 p. 841) refers to the Simhalese work, remarks that the author was king Sena I or Silameghavarnasena. In the 'Early History of Ceylon' by Mr. G. C. Mendis and Prof. Geiger it is stated (on p. 50 of the 8th edition of 1947) that Sena I reigned from 831 to 851 A. D. Dr. Barnett refers to the opinion of Mr. Nevill who holds that the real author was probably Akbo (son of Kasup III) who ascended the throne in 741 A. D. Dr. Barnett further points out that two mss. of the Simhalese work in the British Museum read 'Bamaha' for 'Vamana' and holds that there were two traditions. In any case the Simhalese work is not later then 840 A. D. and so Dandin cannot be placed later than about 750 A. D. All these converging lines of historical data lead on to this that both Bhamaha and Dandin cannot be later than about 750 A. D. and that they are separated only by a few decades and not by centuries as Mr. Batuknath Sarma asserts (Intro. to काव्यालक्कार on p. 40). Therefore we must examine other evidence to settle their relative position. The third work of Dandin is the दिसन्धानकाव्य ascribed to Daņdin by the Śrngāraprakāśa. Dr. Raghavan kindly informs me that the Madras ms. of 9 vol. II. p. 444 mentions the दिसन्धानमहाकाव्य of Dandin as an illustration of प्रबन्धविषय

KĀVYĀDARŚA 101

faiva (presenting in the same work the stories of both the epics viz. रामायण and the महाभारत). The दिसंधान of दएडी is mentioned also on pp. 168-69 of the same ms. and the sam: volume. Vide I. H. Q. vol. 24 at p. 117 for दगिडद्विसंधान. Seth Kanailal Poddar of Muttra wrote in Hindi an article 'संस्कृतसाहित्यमें अरभिपुरायका स्थान' in the Hindustani Academy's Quarterly for July 1931 (pp. 337-349), a copy of which he kindly sent to me in which he criticizes Dr. De and myself for holding that the Agnipurana is a mere compilation and he tries to prove that Dandin, Bhamaha and the Dhvanyaloka all borrowed from the Agnipurana. Answers to his arguments have been given in my remarks on the Agnipurana and so I do not want to repeat them. But he appears to labour under two mis- apprehensions. The first is (at p. 347) that my History of Alankara is largely based on Dr. De's work (एस.के. देवाबू जिनके ग्रंथ पर श्री कायोका निबंध अधिकांशमें अवलम्बित है). For his information and for those who might not know, I desire to point out that my History of Alankara in two parts was published in 1923 June. Almost in the same month Dr. De's first volume of the H. S. P. appeared and the second volume appeared two years later. Further, in the I. A. for 1917 vol. 46 pp. 173 ff. I had discussed in detail the claims made for the afayru at greater length than in my History of Alankara Literature and shown how the Agnipurana borrows the very words of Dandin in defi- ning Alankāras like Anuprāsa (Agni 343. 1 and Daņdin I. 55), Yamaka (Agni 343. 11-12 and Dandin III. 1) and many arthā- lankaras. So my views on the Agnipurana were published six years before Dr. De's work (vol. I.) and Dr. De (in vol. I. p. 341, additions and corrections) refers to my paper in I. A. vol. 46 (for 1917). The 2nd misapprehension under which Mr. Poddar appears to labour is that I asserted that much of the Kāvyādarśa was included in the Agnipurāna (p. 337 ऐसी परिस्थिति में काव्यादर्श का भभिपुराण में समावेश किया जाना किसी प्रकार भी सिद्ध नहीं हो सकता). What 1 said was that the Agnipurana follows माधुकरी वृत्ति. It takes from several works what it chooses to take and that it is a mere compilation and not an original work. Simply because it differs in several cases from arae or auet, it does not follow that it did not borrow from them. Apart from the section on नाट्यशाल and काव्यालक्वार the अगिपुरास borrows hun- dreds of verses from aruaery and other works and borrows from

102 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

कुमारिल's तत्रवार्तिक p. 354 (Anan. ed.) on जैमिनि I. 4. 20 the verse 'अमिवेयाविनाभूतप्रतीतिलव्षणोच्यते (अभि 344. 11). The learned writer has not adverted to all these points. The following passages are common to both qouft and भामह word for word: (a) 'स्गबन्धो महाकाव्यम्' काव्या. I. 14, भा. I. 19; (b) 'मन्त्रदूतप्रयाणाजिनायकाभ्युदयरपि' काव्या. I. 17, भा. I. 20 (मन्त्रदूत ... दयैक्ष यत्); (c) 'कन्याहरणसंग्रामविप्रलम्भोदयादयः' काव्या. I. 29, भा. I. 27 (०दयान्विता); (d) 'अरघ या मम गोविन्द जाता त्वयि गृहागते। कालेनैषा भवेत्प्री- तिस्तवैवागमनाटपुनः ॥' काव्या. II. 276, भा. III. 5 (both give it as an example of प्रेय:); (e) 'तद्भाविकमिति प्राङ्ठुः प्रबन्धविषयं गुखम्' काव्या. II. 364, भा. III. 53 (भाविकत्वमिति etc.) ; (f) 'अपार्थ व्यथमेकार्थ ... विरोषि च।' काव्या. III. 125-126, भा. IV. 1-2; (g) 'समुदायार्थशून्यं यरतदपार्थकमिष्यते' काव्या. III. 128 (v. 1. थमितीष्यते), भा. IV. 8 •रथंकमिष्यते; (h) 'गतोस्तमर्को भातीन्दुर्यान्ति वासाय पत्ियः ।' काव्या. II. 244, भा. II. 87; (i) आावेपोऽर्यान्तरन्यासो व्यतिरेको विभावना' काव्या. II. 4, भा. II. 66; (j) 'प्रेयो रसवदूजस्वि पर्यायोकतं समाहितम्' काव्या. I1. 5, भा. III. 1. 10 The relative position of Bhamaha and Dandin. There prevails a sharp conflict of views on this point and on the allied question of भामह and the न्यास and keen controversies have been going on for several years and it cannot be said that the question is definitely settled now one way or the other to the satisfaction of all scholars. Mr. Trivedi (Intro. to yaro XXIII ff and I. A. vol. 42, 1913 pp. 258-274 and Bhandarkar Com. vol. p. 40), Dr. Jacobi (Z. D. M. G. 64 p. 134 and 139), Prof. Rangacharya (Intro. to edition of काव्यादर्श), Mr. Ganapati Sastri (Intro.to स्वप्न० XXV), Prof. Pathak (Intro.to कविराजमार्ग p. 16) place भामह before दएडी. Prof. M. T. Narasimhiengar (JRAS 1905 p. 535 ff) places दएडी before wHT and Prof. Pathak also seems to have changed his carlier view (JBBRAS vol. 23 p. 19 and I. A. for 1912 p. 236 ff). Prof. Keith in H. S. L. pp. 375-376 and in 'Indian studies in honour of Lanman, pp. 167-185, where he criticizes Jacobi's views and also holds that Bhamaha ridicules Bhatti (in the verse "Kāvyānyapi yadīmāni II 20") places Daņdin before Bhamaha. I shall try to summarise the views of both sides and make remarks thereon as I proceed and make my own humble contribution to this subject. Before proceeding further three points must be made clear and emphasized. One is that both भामह and दएडी have several passages in common as speoified above. The second

BHAMAHA AND DANDIN 103

point is that both expressly say that they had before them the works of older teachers on Poetics and arag actually names one of them viz. मेधाविन्. This should warn us against jumping to the conclusion that one necessarily borrows from the other when they have identical verses or one appears to criticise the other when their views conflict. This fact and our ignorance of what went before भामइ and दएडी should make all of us reluctant to dogmatise and should dispose us to regard as pro- bable the hypothesis that both are quoting from or criticizing older works now lost. The third point is that both are com- paratively very early writers and vary near to each other in point of time. As 34z who flourished about 800 A. D. wrote a commentary on arHT's work, the latter cannot be placed later than about 750 A. D. The same lower limit is arrived at by the fact of the citation of three verses of भामह by शान्तरच्षित (vide above p. 84). aust also cannot certainly be placed later than that date for the following reasons. The लोचन (composed about 1000 A. D.) names दएडी and quotes his definition of चम्पू (p. 141) as it quotes भामह and उद्गट. So does प्रतीहारेन्दुराज (about 950 A.D.) quote (p. 26) the discussion of the verse लिम्पतीव in the काव्यादर्श II. 226-233. From the relation of the कविराजमार्ग and of the Simhalese work Siya-bas-lakara to the Kāvyādarśa it has been shown above (pp. 99-100) that Dandin also cannot at all events be later than 750 A. D. I shall now set out the grounds some or all of which are relied upon by those who place anE prior to Dandin. (a) Mr. Trivedi and Prof. Rangacharya say that aHa is referred to as चिरन्तन by the अलक्कारसर्वस्व (p. 3 quoted on p. 7 para f. above). His work is styled आकर by राघवभट्ट (शाकुन्तल p. 14) and he is styled 'ancient' in the प्रतापरुद्र० ('पूर्वेभ्यो भामहादिभ्यः', 'प्राचा भामहेन' pp. 4 and 11). The only place where according to Mr. Trivedi दएडी is mentioned before भामह is by नमिसाधु on सुट्रट (I. 2) quoted above under मेधाविन p. 63. I fail to see how this proves or even suggests the priority of भामह to दण्डी. भामह is an ancient writer and so there is nothing special in calling him ya. Do these scholars mean that whenever reference is to be made to older writers all ancient names must be trotted forth ? Further, afirery is older than all the authors mentioned by Mr. Trivedi and therefore even a single positive reference where दएडी is placed by a writer before मेधावी who preceded

104 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

aat is sufficient to knock out all argument based upon mere silence. Besides, too much cannot be made of the views of authors belonging to the 12th or 14th century about the rela- tive chronology of authors that flourished five or seven hun- dred years earlier. If we followed unquestioningly such later writers in chronological details, there would be a hopeless mess. The अलक्वारसवंस्व speaks of उद्ट also as चिरन्तन. Does Mr. Trivedi think that दएडी is therefore later than उद्ट ? Mr. Trivedi forgets that upTa commenting upon the passage of the सर्वस्व specially includes दएडी among the ancients. Such argu- ments must always be modestly and cautiously advanced. In the present case all the wind is taken away out of Mr. Trivedi's sails by a passage in भ. भा. On the rasasutra in chap. VI (विभा ... निष्पचिः) the भ. भा. first sets out the explanation of the sutra by मफलोलट, then remarks that that very view is held by ancient writers and quotes as illustration two verses of Dandin II. 281 and 283 (चिरन्तनानां चायमेव पक्ष:। तथाहि दरिडना स्वालक्कारलक्षरोऽभ्यायि रतिः शृदारतां गता ... इति, 'अधिरुस्य परां कोर्टि कोपो रौद्रात्मतां गतः' ।). Here a writer about 125 years older than the अलक्कारसर्वस्व and be- longing to the lst quarter of the 11th century regards avet as चिरन्तन. Further, प्रतीहारेन्दुराज in his commentary on Udbhata's अलक्वारसारसंग्रह (p.26) names Dandin and refers to his remarks on the verse लिम्पतीव (काव्यादर्श II. 226-233). प्रतिहारेन्दुराज says 'भत एव वण्डिना लिम्पतीव गतेत्यादेगर्भीकृतातिशयोत्प्रेक्षाभेदत्वमेव महता प्रबन्धे- नाभ्यधायि'. It will be shown later on that प्रतिहारेन्दुराज flourished about 950 A. D. (b) Dandin's elaborate treatment of Yamaka and Sabdā- lankāras in a separate chapter and his numerous sub-divisions of Upama stamp him as a later writer; while arag's divisions are not minute. I am of opinion that this puts the matter exactly the opposite way. ara defines and illustrates ten varieties of यमक (17. 62-86), while भामह gives only five (II.9). No one has made bold to place भामह before the नाट्यशास्त्र. The विष्युधर्मोत्तर speaks of आदिमध्यान्तयमक, सन्दष्ट, समुद्ग, and समस्तपादयमक. यमक was highly thought of even by कालिदास (vide रघुवंश 9th sarga). It occurs even so early as in रुद्रदामन्'s Inscription of A. D. 150. It is precisely later writers that look down upon यमक. उम्ूट ignores it altogether, though he defines अनुप्रास at some length, and arnz is very brief. The same remarks apply to शब्दालक्कार. Even Subandhu and Bana knew शुङलाबन्ध,

BHĀMAHA AND DAŅDIN 105

various puzzles like भक्षरच्युतक, प्रहेलिका etc. Dandin's treatment of उपमा (of which he gives 32 varieties) is unscientific, but follows the lines of भरत (17. 44-55 GOS ed. 16. 46-59'), while भामह is the first of those who place the divisions of उपमा on a grammatical basis, as done later by उद्भट and मम्मट. From these very facts I would argue that Dandin is earlier than HE. It will be conceded by most scholars that both argu- ments are at least equally plausible. It is possible that anet and aaT follow different traditions, the former having more affinity to भरत's school, while भामह follows a school that relies more upon mere Arthālankāras. When there were diffe- ring views and works on a topic, later writers often pick and choose. For example, the कविराजमार्ग admits most of the varieties of उपमा (mentioned by दगडी); vide II. 59-85 of कवि- राजमाग. (c) The commentator तरुणवाचस्पति distinctly says that in some places Dandin criticizes Bhamaha (e.g. on दरडी I. 23, 29; II. 235, 358 and III. 127). तरुखवाचस्पति is comparatively a late writer. He quotes from the दशरूपक (on दरडी II. 281) and probably refers to the सरस्वती० in the sixfold division of ritis. The सूक्तिरत्नहार (Tri.S. series) of कालिङरायसूर्य quotes two verses from तरुषवाचस्पति. In the Tri. Curator's Library there is a commentary called तात्पर्यनिरूपण by केशवभट्टारक, son of तमण- वाचस्पति (who was the guru of महाराजाधिराज रामनाथ, the same as Hoysala वीर रामनाथ that came to the throne in 1255). Vide Dr. Raghavan in J. O. R. Madras, vol. XIII pp. 293-306 (on the सूक्तिरत्नहार) at p.305. So तरुणवाचस्पति flourished in the first half of the 13th century i. e. about 6 centuries after Dandin. He found conflicting views and thinks that दएडी criticizes भामह. A similar example will illustrate how unsafe it is to rely upon later commentators in the matter of chronology. चक्रवर्तिभट्टाचार्य in his commentary on the काव्यप्रकाश thinks that मम्मट criticizes the view of the अलक्कारसर्वस्व on the verse राजति तटीय (10th .) and so says Nagoji also; while जयरथ (who wrote about 1200 and was very near to both मम्मट and the सर्वस्व) thinks that the सर्वस्व criticizes the काव्यप्रकाश (p.250 of सर्वस्व). Therefore तरुणवाचस्पति's remarks should carry hardly any weight with us in the absence of other very cogent evidence. (d) भामह distinguishes between कथा and आाख्यायिका, while

106 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

दखडी says that the two are but different names for the same class of composition ('तत्कथाख्यायिकेत्येका जाति: संश्ञादयाह्किता' I. 28). It is supposed that दगडी criticizes भामह. भामह makes the follow- ing points of distinction between the two (I. 25-27); (1) सोच्छवासाल्यायिका मता ॥; (2) वृतमाल्यायते तस्यां नायकेन स्वचेष्टितम्।; (3) वक्तरं चापरवक्त्रं च काले भाग्यर्थशंसि च ॥; (4) कवेरभिप्रायकृतैः कथा (थ ?) नैः कैशिदक्किता।; (5) कन्याहरणसंग्रामविप्रलम्भोदयान्विता (I take these two lines as part of the description of आख्यायिका). But a कथा is न वक्त्रापर वक्त्राभ्यां युक्क्ा (thisis against No 3 above), नोच्छवासवत्यपि (against No I), अन्येः स्वचरितं तस्यां नायकेन तु नोच्यते (against No 2 above). As arar is silent about the points 4 and 5 in descri- bing the characteristics of a कथा, it is not clear whether he means that they are to be absent in a कथा. दयडी attacks all these points except one. According to दण्डी, some say that in an आख्यायिका the narrator is the hero himself while in a कथा the narrator may be the hero or someone else. This is not the distinction that भामह draws between कथा and श्रख्यायिका as shown above. 'तयोराख्यायिका किल॥ नायकेनैव वाच्यान्या नायकेनेतरेण वा। अपि त्वनियमो दृष्टस्तत्राप्यन्यैरुदीरखात्। अ्रन्यो वक्ता स्वयं वेति कीटृग्वा भेदकारखम्।।' काव्या. I. 23-25. दण्डी remarks that even in आख्यायिकाs the narrators in some cases are others than the hero. On points 1 and 3 above he remarks "वक्तं चापरवक्त्रं च सोच्छवासत्वं च भेदकम्।। चिहनमाख्यायिकायाश्चेत्प्रसभ्गेन कथास्वपि॥ आार्यादिवत्प्रवेशः किं न वक्त्रापरवक्त्रयोः । भेदश्व दृष्टो लम्भादिरुच्छ्रवासो वास्तु कि ततः॥।' I. 26-27. Hesays that as आर्याs are used in कथाs, so there is no reason why वक्त्र and अपरवकत्र verses cannot be employed in them. Similarly, the sections of कथाs are called lambhas (lambakas in the बृहत्कथा): what difference does it make if they are called उछवास as in the case of शराख्यायिका ? On points 4 and 5 दण्डी says that the topics कन्याहरण etc. occur in सर्गबन्ध (i. e. महाकाव्य) also and are not peculiar to आख्यायिकाs and that the use of some catchword (as the word श्री in the verses at the end of each sarga by माघ and अनुराग in the सेतुबन्ध) would not be a blemish in a कथा. 'कन्या- हरएसंग्रामविप्रलम्भोदयादयः। सर्गबन्धसमा एव नैते वैशेषिका गुखाः ॥ कविभावकृत चिह् नमन्यत्रापि न दुष्यति' काव्या. I. 29-30. It will be shown later on 1. The reading संस्कृतं संस्कृता चेष्टा कथाप भ्रंशमाकू तथा (भामह I.28) is hard to construe. Probably it means that भार्यायिका must be in संस्कृत, while a कथा may be in संस्कृत or अपभरंश. Mr. Naganath reads संस्कृते without mss. authority.

BHAMAHA AND DANDIN 107

(Part II) that the two classes of works, कथा and भार्यायिका, were known to पतञञलि who named several of them, that long before the 6th century A. D. (as attested by सुबन्धु and वाख) भाख्यायिकाs exhibited the special features on which भामह dwells. वाख designates his कादम्बरी as a कथा and states in the Introductory verses to the हर्षचरित that an आख्यायिका was divided into उच्छ्वासs and had some verses in the वक्त्र metre (उच्छवासान्तेप्यखिन्नास्ते वक्त्रे येषां सरस्वती। कथमाख्यायिकाकारा न ते वन्धा: कवीश्वराः ॥ रषचरित Intro. verse 10). In verse 19 au expressly states that he is composing an आाख्यायिका when he narrates हर्षचरित. Bana's हर्षचरित remained unfinished. If one may conjecture, it was probably purposely left incomplete, because by the time Bana came to write the 8th ucchvāsa, emperor Harsa had been defeated by Pulikeśin as stated in the Aihole Inscription (I. A. vol. VIII. p. 237 at p. 242 भयविगलितहर्षो येन चाकारि हर्षः). Bana did not like to hand down to posterity the defeat of his great patron. The defeat of Harsa took place before 634 A.D. and so the हषचरित was composed about 630 A. D. long before both दण्डी and भामह flourished. Vide Bulletin of the London School of Oriental Studies, vol. III. pp. 507-517 for Dr. De's article on भाख्यायिका and कथा. He agrees that the हर्षचरित does not conform to the pattern of an आख्यायिका defined by भामह (at p. 511). Dr.Nobel (p. 136 n I2 in his 'Foundations' &c.) gratuitouly surmises that बहत्कथा was unknown to Dandin. He has not properly understood काव्यादर्श I. 38 (भूतभाषामयीं प्राहुरद्भुतार्था बहत्कथाम्). What दएडी meant is that the बृहत्कथा containing wonderful stories was not composed in संस्कृत (as he begins the verse as कथा हि सर्व- भाषाभि: प्राकृतेन च बध्यते), but people said that the name of the Prakrit used in बृहत्कथा was भूतभाषा (पैशाची). In I. 34-35 the काव्यादर्श refers to महाराष्ट्री, शौरसेनी, गौडी, लाटी and other dialects, all of which, it says, are included under the word प्राकृत, महाराष्ट्री 'being the most eminent among Prakrits'. Bana who preceded Dandin knew the contents of the बृहत्कथा very well as the Introductory verse 17 and other references in the हषचरित and the कादम्बरी show. Nobel in his work (pp. 156-187) deals with कथा and आख्यायिका and indulges in many wrong translations and theories. Therefore, it is not necessary to suppose that uu criticizes the dicta of भामह, particularly because one point of attack (about the narrator) in the काव्यादर्श is not exactly the opinion held by भामह.

108 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

(e) दएडी (in II. 51 न लिक्वचने भिन्ने न हीनाधिकतापि वा। उपमा- दूषणायालं यत्रोट्वेगो न धीमताम् ।I) refers to लिक्गमेद, वचनभेद, हीनता and भधिकता between उपमान and उपमेय as blemishes in some cases, but not in all, while भामह (II. 39) speaks of seven blemishes in उपमा. But this cannot be made an argument for the priority of भामह. भामह himself says that मेधाविन् enumerated seven उपमादोषड (vide II. 40). So this was an ancient topic. One may rather use this as an argument for Dandin's priority. Dandin names only four1 उपमादोषऽ (II. 51) while मेधावी knows seven and भामह follows the latter. So दएडी was the pioneer. वामन speaks of six उपमादोषs (का. सूत्र IV. 2. 8). The अननिपुरा (346.29) says 'विभक्तिसंज्ञालिद्ञानां यत्रोद्वगो न धीमताम् । संस्यायास्तत्र भिन्नत्वमुपमानोपमेययोः'. It will be noticed that यत्रोद्वेगो न धीमताम् is common to both दएडी and अभनि ०. (f) दएडी says that even the words 'गतोऽस्तमर्को भातीन्दुर्यान्ति वासाय पच्िसः' are certainly good (poetry) in certain circum- stances of time and situation (गतो ... पतिणः। इतीदमपि साध्वेव कालावस्थानिवेदने' II. 244); while भामह says about those words 'are such words poetry ? (Some) designate them वार्ता.' His words may also mean 'such words are bad samples of poetry (गतो ... पच्िरः। इत्येवमादि किं काव्यं वार्तामेनां प्रचक्षते॥ II. 87). Prof. Rangacharya and Mr. Trivedi rely on this as proving Bhamaha's priority. But the words इत्ये ... चक्षते2 show that भामह is quoting these words as an example of वार्ता given by others and these words are not his own composition (compare the use of the words इतीदमपि of दगडी in connection with लिम्पतीव). Now वार्ता is a figure of speech illustrated by भटि (X. 45) according to जयमला. The विष्युधर्मोत्तर 14. 11 defines वार्ता (in one ms .; vide above p. 71). Dandin seems to

1. भामह(II. 38) finds fault with those who give several varieties of उपमा such as मालोपमा and states that such details are useless (मालोपमादि सर्वोपि न ज्यायान् विस्तरो मुधा). It is not in accordance with his own principles to have given instances of उपमादोषs and to have explained them in detail (as in II.40-64) when मेधावी had already named the seven उपमादोषs and had exemplified them, as shown by नमिसाधु on रुद्रट XI. 24. 2. भामह frequently employs the verb प्रचक्षते for stating others' views. Vide II. 93 (about स्वभावोक्ति), IV. 12 (about एकार्थ), VI. 16 (about अपोह).

BHÂMAHA AND DAŅDIN 109

allude to it in the words 'तञ्च वार्तामियानेषु वर्षनास्वपि दृश्यते' (I. 85). But Dandin does not define the fignre ara. He probably disapproved of it and included some examples of it under स्वभावोक्ि. He takes the example गतोऽस्तमर्क: cited by some old writer and says that even that example may be good poetry if the suggested sense be taken (but if the plain meaning is the only one intended it is not काव्य). Vide काव्यप्रकाश (5th उल्लास p. 240 of Va .. ) for nine different meanings that these words may suggest1 to different persons. These words गतोऽस्तमर्क: are well- known examples (मूर्धाभिषिक) like the famous दशदाडिमादिवाक्य (which occurs in भामह at IV. 8) that is cited in the शाबरभाष्य (p. 47 and p. 1252 on जै. IV. 3. 10 Anan ed.) and महाभाष्य (vol. I. p. 38, ed. by Kielhorn) 'भनर्थकानि। दश दाडिमानि, षडपूपा :. ' (g) The verse अद या मम गोविन्द is given by both as an example of प्रेय :. The argument of Mr. Trivedi is that Bhamaha cites his authority if he is quoting from another, while दस्डी does not do so, as in the case of the verse लिम्पतीव. This argu- ment does injustice to दगडी. दएडी does clearly indicate that he is citing another's verse 'viz लिम्पतीव' as a well-known example by using the words इतोदमपि in the latter half of काव्यादर्श II. 226. As remarked above (p. 86) भामह's text is not so imma- culate as to inspire complete confidence. So the first part of the argument really begs the whole question. There are other considerations also. भामह does not even define प्रेय: and ऊर्जस्वि and cites one example (III.5 and 7) of each; while दएडी defines both and gives two examples of प्रेय :. The obvious con- clusion is that arHT found both figures defined by some predece- ssor and was content simply to cite an example or probably he disapproved of these as figures of speech and following older authoritics simply cited examples. Therefore, it is going too far to say that दगडी takes the example from भामह. One may perhaps more plausibly argue that भामह borrows from दसडी one of the latter's two examples. The verse भध या मम (काव्यादर्श II. 276) is similar in purport to the महाभारत 'या प्रीतिः पुएडरीकाक्ष तवा- गमनकारखात्। सा किमाख्यायते तुभ्यमन्तरात्मासि देहिनाम्।' (उद्योग. 89.24).

1 सोमेश्वर in his टीका on का. प्र. (folio 88b) says 'तथा गतो ... पतियः' इत्यादौ प्रसाद-श्लेष-समता-माधुर्य-सौकुमार्यार्थव्यक्कीनां गुणाना सद्भावेशपि काव्यव्यवहाराप्रवृत्ते:।'

110 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PORTICS

(h) मामह defines उपमारूपक (III. 35), ससन्देह (III. 43), अनन्वय (III. 45) and उत्प्रेकावयव (III. 47) as separate figures of speech; while दयडी does not regard them as separate figures, but includes उपमारूपक under रूपक, ससन्देह and अनन्वय under उपमा and उत्प्रेक्ावयव under उत्प्रेक्षा (अनन्वयससन्देद्ावुपमास्वेव दशिती। उपमारूपकं चापि रूपकेष्वेव दर्शितम्। उत्प्रेक्षामेद एवासावत्मेचावयवोपि च। II. 358-359). This has been used as an argument for भामह's priority. All these figures are separately illustrated by भट्ि; vide भदि X. 68-70 for ससन्देह, भनन्वय and उत्प्रेचावयव, X. 61 for उपमारूपक aCC. to जयमझला. There is no compelling reason why दएडी must be regarded as referring to भामह and not to those Alankarikas who preceded af. There is one more reason which throws doubt on the theory advanced. उपमेयोपमा is separately defined by भामह (III. 37, while दयडी does not define it but his अन्योन्योपमा (II. 18) is उपमेयोपमा. If दखडी had the work of भामह before him, he would have said as he said in the other four cases that उपमेयोपमा was included under उपमा. (i) Bhämaha after enumerating ten dosas (which are identical with Dandin's) adds an eleventh dosa in the words 'प्रतिश्ञाहेतुदृष्टान्तहीनं दुष्टं च नेष्यते' (IV. 2) and devotes one whole परि० (V) to the discussion of this dosa. Dandin says the discussion whether प्रतिहेतुवृष्टान्तहानि is a dosa or not is dry and abstruse and no purpose is served by entering upon it (प्रतिश्ञा ...... लीढेन किं फलम्। III. 127 quoted above on p. 80). It is not to be supposed that discussions about logical matters in the province of Poetics were first started by भामह. Even the नाट्यशाख enumerates ten dosas of kauya one of which is न्यायादपेत and defines as 'न्यायादपेतं विश्वेयं प्रमाणपरिवर्जितम्' (नाव्य. 17.93=GOS. ed. chap. 16. 93 p.333). The प्रमाखs are the special province of logic. The काव्यादर्श, therefore, alludes if at all to the नाव्यशाख or some alankarika who worked up the simple statement of the नाव्यशाख into greater detail. It is more than doubtful whether, if दएड़ी had the 5th परि० of भामह before him and was in a criticizing and fighting mood, he would have let off भामह with such a mild and suave remark 'तेनालीढेन कि फलम्'. The ten दोषs of the नाव्यशास्त्र (17. 88) are अर्थहीन, एकार्थ, गूढार्थ, अर्थान्तर, विसन्धि, शब्दच्युत (or शब्दहीन as in 17.94), विषम, भिन्नार्थ, अभिप्लुतार्थ and न्यायादपेत. The first seven correspond more or less with अपार्थ एकार्थ, ससंशय, अपक्रम, विसन्धि, शब्दहीन, मिन्नवृत्र (of भामह and दरबी). The भिन्नार्थ of the नाय्य० is the same as असम्य and आ्राम्य and भभिप्लुतार्थ is defined as

BHAMAHA AND DAŅDIN 111

'मत्पादेन (यत्पादे न ?) समस्यते'. The यतिभ्रष्टदोष (of मामद) was probably included in the विषम (of the नाव्यशास) and व्यर्थ uuder the भथद्ीन (of भरत). The Alankara writers probably draw upon the न्यायसूत्र also for some of the names of the dosas; compare iree V. 2. 1 'प्रतिज्ञाहानिः प्रतिश्ञान्तरं प्रतिभ्ाविरोधः प्रतिक्ासंन्यासः हेत्वन्तरमर्थान्तरं निरर्थकमविज्ञातार्थमपार्थकमप्राप्तकालं न्यूनमधिकं पुनरुक्तमननुभाषरज्चानमप्रतिभा ... निग्रहस्थानानि.' The विष्णुधर्मोत्तर III. 15. 13 states ससंशय न वक्तव्यं प्रतिश्ञारहितं तथा। पूर्वापरविरुद्धं च यञ्च लोकविगर्हितम्। and in III. 15. 11 mentions the cases in which पुनरुक is not a दोष. I shall now mention the points relied upon for placing भामह after Dandin. (j) भामह says (I. 41) 'हिमापहामित्रधरर्व्याप्तं व्योमेत्यवाचकम्,'while qust gives the whole verse of which this is a part as an example of a kind of प्रहेलिका called परिहारिका 'विजितात्म(न्र. v.1.) भवद्वे षिगुरु- पादहतो जनः। हिमापहामित्रधरैर्व्याप्तं व्योमाभिनन्दति॥' (III.120)). शा्ङ्ग० ascribes it to दगडी and explains it.1 This is a somewhat formidable argument in favour of the view that arr borrows a verse of Dandin and points out a dosa in it and the only way of escaping from it is to assert that दुएडी is simply quoting from some older writer, whome arr also quotes. But a few considerations even against this last reply may be urged. çast has not been shown to quote any verse from another author except लिम्पतीव. The other verses suggested to be quotations are matters of controversy. It would be a gratuitous assumption to predicate of any verse in the aoaro as another's simply because otherwise it leads to inconvenient results. The words 'दोषान- परिसंख्येयान्मन्यमाना वर्य पुनः । साष्वोरेवाभिषास्यामस्ता दुष्टा यास्त्वलक्षणा:।' (. III. 107) appear to suggest that Dandin gives his own examples of good प्रहेलिकाs and as the verse हिमापहा० is an exa- mple of a good प्रहेलिका and as भामह quotes only apart of it, it is a very weighty argument in favour of the view that he is later than queT. Prahelikas were known long before the time of Bana (first half of 7th century). (k) Dandin's treatment of Upamā is unscientific as com- pared with भामह's; s0 also दसडी treats of अनुप्रास very concisely and dilates upon Yamaka at great length. But this is not such

1. शार्ङ्गधर explains 'बिना गरुडेन जितः इन्द्रः तदात्मभवः भर्जनः तददेपी कर्यः तद्गुरुः सूर्य: तत्पादहतः तत्किरणसन्तस्तः। हिमापह: भभि: तदमिन्रं पानीयं तदरा: मेघा:' (तैर्ष्याप्तं ब्योम नमः).

112 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

a strong point after all. The Agnipurana which borrows from भामह has a treatment of उपमा similar to Dandin's and even comparatively early writers like Rudrata have treated of Yamaka at great length. (1) There are many passages in Bhamaha's work where he either refers to the views of other authors on Poetics or ridicules them. In most of these cases the views animadverted upon are found in Dandin. rHg criticizes those who distin- guish the two styles वैदर्भ and गौड and prefer the former to the latter and ironically calls them सुधियः 'वैदर्भमन्यदस्तीति मन्यन्ते सुधियोऽपरे। तदेव च किल ज्यायः सदर्थमपि नापरम् ॥ गौडीयमिदमेतत्तु वैदर्भमिति किं पृथक्। गतानुगतिकन्यायान्नानाख्येयममेधसाम् ।' (I. 31-32). The last half line is important. It means ignorant people should not be told (such a thing viz. that वै दभ and गौड are different मार्गs by blindly following what others have done). mng means that in former times some Rhetoricians might have made a difference between styles as वैदर्भ and गौड, but it is not proper to persist and seriously teach such a difference to ignorant people. This shows that rar knew that there were before him writers on Poetics, who thoughtlessly harped on the diffe- rence between वैदर्म and गौड styles. Compare the well-known verse 'गतानगतिको लोक: कुट्टनीमुपदेशिनीम्। प्रमाणयति नो धर्में यथा गोघ्नमपि द्विजम् ।.' The काव्यादर्श makes this distinction and shows its preference for वदर्भमार्ग: अस्त्यनेको गिरां मार्ग: सूक्ष्मभेद: परस्परम्। तत्र वंदर्भगौडीयौ वएयेंते प्रस्फु टान्तरो ।। ... इति वैदर्भमार्गस्य प्राया दश गुणाः स्मृताः । एषां विपर्ययः प्रायो दृश्यते गौडवत्मनि॥। (I. 40 and 42). But these words (भनेको मार्ग:) of Dandin show that before him many styles had been recognised and as long as we do not possess all ancient works that preceded Dandin we cannot assert with assurance that wrHr criticizes Dandin alone and no one else. It will be noticed that also credits the Gauda style with pomposity 'गौडेष्वचरडम्बरः' (हर्षचरित, Intro. verse 7). (m) Dandin names ten gunas (I.41-42) and the names are the same as those in the नाव्यशाख (17-96). भामह has almost nothing to say on the gunas. But he seems to be the first of those who like ध्वनिकारिका II. 8, 10, 11 and मम्मट reduced the gunas to three and ridicules those who look upon भोज: as a profusion of compounds 'माधुर्यमभिवाष्छन्तः प्रसादं च सुमेषसः। समासवन्ति भूयांसि न पवानि प्रयुजते ॥ केचिदोजोभिधित्सन्तः समस्यन्ति बहून्यपि। श्रव्यं नातिसमस्तार्थ काव्यं मधुरमिष्यते॥ आविद्वदअ्नावालप्रतीतार्थ प्रसादवत्।'

BHAMAHA AND DANDIN 113

(II. 1-3). This shows, according to some, a distinctly later tendency, while Dandin follows the ancient view of Bharata. The guna ojas is defined in नाय्यशास (GOS) 16. 105 as समासवद्नि- बंडुमिर्विचिश्रैश्ष पदैरयुतम्। सानुरागरुदारैश्ष तदोज:परिकीत्तभ.ा. comments on this verse, while in Kashi SS. edition the definition is different. But, when the tendency to reduce the gunas began, no one knows. And the ten gunas are enumerated by Vāmana who is certainly later than Bhamaha. Besides, Dandin does not distinctly say that माधुर्य and प्रसाद would not allow the use of long compounds, though he distinctly says 'ओज: ममासभूयस्त्वं' (I. 89). It is possible to urge that very likely arne is referring to a writer other than दएडी. The present writer, however, feels that Bhamaha is probably referring to Dandin and that the treatment of gunas in wrHg savours of lateness in time. (n) Bhamaha says 'यदुक्तं त्रिप्रकारत्वं तस्या: कैश्चिन्महात्मभिः। निन्दा- प्रशंसाचितयासाभेदादत्राभिधीयते। सामान्यगुणनिदेशाठ् त्रयमप्युदितं ननु। मालोपमादि: सर्वोपि न ज्यायान् विस्तरो सुधा ।।' II. 37-38. He refers to the threefold division of उपमा into निन्दोपमा, प्रशंसोपमा and भाचिख्या सोपमा. These three varieties of उपमा occur in the same order in काव्या. (II. 30-32). The नाव्य० speaks of प्रशंसोपमा and निन्दोपमा (17. 51-52) but not of आाचिख्यासोपमा. On the other hand it is urged that "Hg's words, strictly interpreted, mean that उपमा was divided only into three varieties, while, दएडी gives over 30 including these three. If he meant to refer to these three as a few out of many sarrs he would have said 'प्रकाराख्य एतेपि तस्या उक्ता etc.' There is some force in this latter argument. But it has to be noted that in the same breath (with these three) भामह speaks of मालोपमा and other varieties of Upama as a mere superfluity. मालोपमा does accur in the काव्या, II. 42. (o) The काव्यादर्श says 'हेतुश्च सूक्षमलेशी च वाचामुसमभूषराम्' (II. 235), while भामह says 'हेतुश सूच्षमो लेशोथ नालक्वारतया मत.' (II.86). He puts his emphatic denial on the ground that they do not contain वक्रोक्ति. It may be argued that because भामइ said that they were not even alankaras, quet equelly vehemently asserts that they are the best ornaments of speech. (P) 'स्वभावोकिरलक्कार इति केचित्प्रचवते। अर्थस्य तदवस्थत्वं स्वमावोभिद्ितो यथा ।I' भाम II. 98; दएडी speaks of स्वमायोफि as the first of alanikaras and calls it जाति also 'नानावस्यं पदार्थाना रूप साचादिषयवती। ल्वभावोकिश् जातिश्चेत्याया सालककृतियथा ॥ (II. 8.). It is true that भामह's

114 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

definition has a very close verbal resemblance to Dandin's; but स्वभावोषि is a very ancient अलक्वार. वास speaks of it as जांति. So this is not decisive. (q) 'एतदेवापरेऽन्येन व्याख्यानेनान्यथा विदुः। नानारत्नादियुक यत् तव किलोदाचमुच्यते॥' भा. III.12; दएडी says 'भाशयस्य विभूतेवां यन्महत्त्वमनुत्त- मम्। उदारं ... ।। रत्नमित्तिषु संक्रानतैः प्रतिबिम्बशतवतः। ज्ञातो लङ्केश्वरः कच्छ्रादाअनेयेन तत्त्ववः॥ पूर्वत्राशयमाहात्म्यमत्राभ्युदयगौरवम् । सुव्यजितमिति प्रोक्तमुदारदयमप्यदः ॥' काव्या. II. 300, 302-3. It will be noticed that Dandin's example begins with the word रत्न, that भामह does not define the first variety of 3ar7 and gives as an exa- mple Rama's action of going into exile at his father's word (which also is Dandin's example in spirit). But as against the theory that भामह refers to दएडी it must be pointed out that उदात् is an ancient figure. भदि gives two examples (X.52- 53) corresponding to the two varieties of the figure. (r) भामह says 'भाशीरपि च केषान्चिदलक्कारतया मतः' (III. 55) and gives two examples. दएडी says 'आाशीर्नामामिलषिते वस्तुन्याशंसनं यथा। पातु वः परमं ज्योतिरवाङ्मनसगोचरम् ।।' II. 337. भामह may or may not be referring to दएडी. आशी: is a figure illustrated by भटटि and आाशी: is one of the 36 लक्षयs of नाव्य defined by भरत (16.29 K. M. edition of 1894, GOS. ed. 16. 28, though not in Ch. ed.). (s) 'पुनरुक्तमिदं प्राद्टुरन्ये शब्दार्थभेदतः। ... अत्रार्थपुनरुकं यत्तदेवकार्थमिष्यते। ... तामुस्कमनसं नूनं करोति ध्वनिरम्भसाम्। सौधेषु धनमुक्तानां प्रयालीमुखपातिनाम्।। भा. IV.12, 16. दएडी says 'अविशेषेय पूर्वोक्त यदि भूयोपि कीत्यंते। अर्यतः शब्दतो वापि तदेकार्थ मतं यथा ॥ उत्कामुन्नमयन्त्येते बालां तदलकत्विषः । अम्भोधरास्तडित्वन्तो गम्भीरा: स्तनयित्नवः ।' III. 135-136. It will be noticed that the view ascribed to others in the word is that of दएडी and that भामह's example also is very similar to Daņdin's. (t) As quoted above, नमिसाधु (रुद्रट 1.2) refers to the अलभ्ारशासs composed by 'दशडमेधाविरुद्रभामहादिकृतानि'. It is argued that, as मेधाविन certainly preceded भामह, नमिसाधु has purposely arranged the authors in chronological order and therefore दयडी preceded even मेघावी. There is some force in the argu- ment. But underlying it there is an assumption that नमिसाधु intends to arrange them chronologically. There is hardly any proof of such an intention. His only purpose is to assert that somne authors wrote on अलक्कार before रुद्रट. We shall have to attribute to him a double assertion (i. e. to use the language of the मीमासकs there would be बाक्यमेद).

BHAMAHA AND DANDIN 115

The upshot of the above discussion is that the reasons usually advanced by the partisans of Bhamaha's priority fall very far short of what is required and are easily explicable without the hypothesis of Bhamaha's priority and that the grounds so far urged for placing Dandin before Bhamaha, though of considerable force, are not so strong as to produce conviction in every unbiassed mind. It seems probable that HE and anet follow independent traditions, the former having more affinity with the TERT school and the latter with ara's school. Whoever may be earlier, both are very near to cach other and are to be placed between 650-750 A. D. If, however, it be said that from the materials collected above there is no option except to assert that one must be held to be borrowing from or criticizing the other and that the third alternative often suggested above about other ancient authors being referred to by both is not admissible, then I would declare myself in favour of Dandin's priority over Bhamaha. There is no use in repetition. I hold that the reasons so far assigned for Dandin's priority are far more weighty (though not thoroughly decisive) than those assigned for Bhamaha's priority. (u) A few words must be said concerning the heated con- troversy about aHg and the TH. The two great protagonists here are Prof.Pathak and Mr. Trivedi. भामह says: शिष्टप्रयोगमात्रेय न्यासकारमतेन वा। तृचा समस्तषष्ठीकं न कथन्चिदुदाहरेत्।। सूत्रज्ञापकमात्रेय पृत्रहन्ता यथोदितः । अरकेन च न कु्वीत वृत्ति तद्गमको यथा॥। (VI. 36-37). The straightforward meaning of the verses is : A poet should in no case employ (lit. utter) in his work a compound in which a word ending in the aa affix (i.e. ¿) is compounded with another word that would be in the genitive (when the compound is dissolved), by merely relying on the usage of the sistas1 1. The word fersz does not refer to Panini at all. He is too great for that word. Prof. Pathak (I. A. vol. 41 at p. 235) is wrong in holding that शिष्ट means पाणिनि. The महाभाष्य (ed. Kielhorn, vol. III. p. 174) has a discussion on that word from which the following is taken: के पुनः शिष्टाः। ... एवं तर्हि निवासत भाचारजा। स चाचार आर्यावर्त एव। कः पुनरार्यावर्तः । .. एतस्मिननायनिवासे ये बाह्मणा :... किंचिदन्तरेय कस्याश्चिद् विद्याया: पारगास्तत्रभवन्तः शिष्टाः। यदि तर्हि शिष्टा: शब्देपु प्रमायं किमष्टाध्याम्या कियते। शिष्टज्ञानार्थाष्टाध्यायी।' (on पा.V1.3.109, पृषोदरादीनि यथोपदिष्टम्). The Mahabhasya says that Panini's work enables one to find out who are frrzs.

116 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

or on the opinion of the author of Nyasa; as the word tm is employed by merely relying on the indication furnished by a sutra of Panini, one should not form a compound with a word, ending in भक as in the case of the word तद्गमक (तस्य गमकः तद्गमक:). It is not possible to go into all grammatical details here, but I shall say a few words which, I hope, will make the controversy clear to anyone having some knowledge of Sanskrit. पाशिनि says 'तृजकाभ्यां कतरि' II. 2. 15, which is an exce- ption to his general rule 'qsat' II. 2. 8 (a noun in the genitive may be compounded with another noun, as in राजपुरुषः which when dissolved becomes राज: पुरुषः). The exception means when affixes तृच (तृ) and भक are added in the sense of the doer or agent, the words so formed cannot be compounded with another word in the genitive, e. g. we must say qqt aer and भोदनस्य पाचक: (andnot अपस्ष्टा nor भोदनपाचकः). There are counter- exceptions such as those where words of the aTae group are concerned (याजकादिमिश्च-पा. II. 2.9). One can say त्राह्मणयाजक:, देवपूजक: But poets often violate these rules as said in निरक्कशा: कवयः (by भट्टोजि on पा. III. 2. 138). For example, we have the well-known भोजप्रबन्ध verse 'घटानां निर्मातुख्िभुवनविधातुश्च कलहः' (it should be त्रिभुवनस्य विधातु:). The commentators suggest several ways to get over this apparently ungrammatical use. One way to get over the difficulty is to hold that in faurg, the affix is not तृच्, but तृन् used in the sense of 'being in the habit of.' The sutras are (भा क्वेस्तच्छीलतद्धमतत्साधुकारिषु। तृन्। पा. III. 2.134-135; an example being कर्ता कटान, one who habitually makes mats). But then another difficulty presents itself viz. पाशिनि forbids, among others, the employment of words formed by a with a noun in the genitive (न लोकाव्ययनिष्ठाखलथंतृनाम्) । पा. II. 3.69).1 To this a reply is given that Panini's rules are not absolute, that there are indications («rqa) in his sūtras to that effect, since he give's such sutras as जनिकत: प्रकृति: (पा. I. 4.30), 'तत्प्रयोजको हेतुश्व' (पा. I.4.55). Here कर्त (formed with affix तृ) is compounded with afa which would be in the genitive case when the compound is dissolved; similarly प्रयोजक (formed with affix भक) is compounded with an which would be in the genitive when dissolved,

1. The word तन here is a प्रत्याहार and stands for all terminations beginning with a in qra in qr. III. 2. 124 and ending with तन् (III.2.135).

BHĀMAHA AND DAŅDIN 117

तस्य प्रयोजक: तत्प्रयोजक: Some writers hold that a compound of तृन् with qost does take place (vide Pathak in I. A. 41 pp. 234.) Pāņini's sūtras were commented upon by Jayāditya and Vamana and the commentary is called arfaraT, which in its turn was explained in a huge commentary (in 1149 printed pages) called काशिकाविवरणपजिका or न्यास composed by जिनेन्द्रवुद्धि (published by the ante Research Society at Rajshahi, Bengal). If we can settle which work is the न्यास mentioned by भामह and when that work was composed aHr's date can be settled within narrow limits. Here comes the dispute among such scholars as the late Mr. Trivedi (in I. A. vol. 42 for 1913 p. 158 ff, my paper in J. B. B. R. A. S. for 1909 pp. 91-95, the late Prof. Pathak (in I. A. 1912 p. 232-237, and J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. 23 pp. 18-31, Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. XII. pp. 246 ff. and pp. 372-395) and Mr. R. Narsimhachar (in I. A. vol. 41 p. 91, who refers to a पूज्यपाद, author of a न्यास, that flourished about 500 A.D. according to Mr. Rice and in I. A. vol. 42 p. 204). The propo- sitions clearly laid down by भामह are : (1) Sistas and न्यासकार allow the use of compounds in which the 2nd word is formed with a or 5 and the first is in the genitive; (2) that relying on सूत्रशापक, a word like वृत्रहन्ता has been employed; (3) poets employ such compounds as तद्गमक, relying on पायिनि's 'तत्प्रयोज को gu'. Prof. Pathak takes the 2nd proposition as meaning that वृत्रहन्ता is employed among the people (लोके) and not in the न्यास of जिनेन्द्र (which gives a different example viz. भीष्मः कुरूणां भयशोकहन्ता, v. 1. हर्ता). Mr. Trivedi emphatically asserts that भामह ascribes propositions I and II to the न्यास, but the न्यास does not contain the example वृत्रहन्ता nor does the न्यास of जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि allow the compound of a word formed by तृच् with another noun in the genitive. Therefore, he argues that the न्वास mentioned by भामह is different from जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि's न्यास. From other evidence I have shown that arHg must have flourished before 750 A. D .; therefore the न्यास named by भामह must be one composed about or before 700 A. D. There is no other न्यास (though there are many grammatical works called न्यास) that can be assigned to this date except the न्यास of जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि. So I agree with Prof. Pathak so far. Prof. Pathak shows (I. A. 41 p. 235) that the work of पूज्यपाद to whom Mr. Narsimhachar referred (I. A. 41 p. 91) is not called RTr by anyone. The passages of the =ara on II. 2. 15-16 do show that

118 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the =nH allowed a word in ą to be compounded with a word that in dissolution would be in the genitive case. So ATIHTE rightly says that न्यासकार allowed such compounds. I think that Mr. Trivedi is not right in insisting that a-ar must be found in the न्यास. भामह very often employs the word उदित for what is stated in a work or by an author.1 So we should hold that पृत्रहन्ता was used in some work which ामह knew, but which we do not know. Prof. Pathak is not right in under- standing लोके before उदित: (Annals B.O.R. I. vol. XII p. 390). Therefore wecome to this conclusion that the TH of जिनेन्द्रपुद्धि was known to भामह. We must now turn to the dates. I-tsing, in his 'Records of the Buddhist religion', describes the काशिका (at p. 175 of the translation by Dr. Takakusu, Oxford, 1896) and states that Jayaditya died nearly thirty years before. I-tsing wrote his work in 691 A. D. So Jayaditya died about 661-62. This date is corroborated by the fact that the काशिका on पा. I. 3. 23 quotes the किरातार्जुनीय of भारवि III. 14, viz. the पाद 'संशय्य कर्णादिषु तिष्ठते यः'. We find from the न्यास on the काशिका that numerous mss. were made of the Kāsika and that the copyists of =naaR's days by mistake added a certain example to the original examples of the Kāsikā.2 So that would require at least a generation or two. Hence the #TrH cannot be assigned to a date earlier than 700 A. D. The न्यासकार could not have been a contemporary of Jayaditya. As arHg expressly mentions न्यासकार, भामह must be placed after 700 and before 750 A. D. Prof. Pathak changed his original opinion of Bhamaha's priority to Dandin (expressed on p. 16 of Intro. to कविराजमार्ग) in ABORI vol. XII pp. 81-83. Prof. Pathak showed that Pātrakesari, Śāntarakșita and Prabhācandra were more or

1. भामह II. 5 (यथोदितम् by himself), II. 19 (प्रहेलिका सा घदिता रामशर्माच्युतोत्तरे), II. 45 (दृष्टं वा सर्वसारूप्यं राजमित्रे यथोदितम्), IV 8 (दाडिमानि दशापूपाः षडित्यादि यथोदितम्). 2. On पा. VI. 3. 79 the printed काशिका gives three exam- ples, सकलं, समुहूत, and ससंग्रह्म्। On this the न्यास says: (p. 469) 'ससंग्रहमित्येतदुदाहरयं प्रमादादिवानींतनं: लेखकंलिखितम'. The word इदानींतनै: is important. The editor (in Intro. to न्यास p. 21; furnishes other examples to show that काशिका and न्यास were separated bya good deal of time,

BHĀMAHA AND DAŅDIN 119

less contemporaries, that Prabhäcandra was the latest of them and that they belonged to the 9th century and that Bhamaha belonged to the middle of the 8th century. In his paper in the same vol. (pp. 372-395) he deals with the 5th chapter of Bhamaha on logic, particularly verses 6-9 and shows that mea- रच्षित quotes three verses of भामह (VI. 17-19) refuting the अपोहवाद and aversthat शान्तरच्ित calls भामह 'दुरात्मा कुदृष्टिः' (p.383). On pp. 389-390 he refers to हषचरित passage (कृतगुरुंपदन्यासाः f), states that Bana was a contemporary of Jayāditya (author of Kāśikā) and his commentator Nyāsakāra (p. 390). But as to this (and particularly as to Nyāsakāra) the learned professor is wrong. The Harsacarita breaks off in its treatment before Harsa's defeat by Pulikeśin and Prof. Pāthak failed to notice that the Calcutta edition of Harsacarita reads the passage quite differently (omitting all reference to qfu). Vide Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. XII. where at p. 385 he says that जयादित्य died about 661 A.D. and न्यासकार, flourished about 700 A. D. Vide also J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. 23 at pp. 248, 389 and 1. A. vol. 41 pp. 19-31. (v) I was the first to point out a passage from rafa of बा 'प्रसन्नवृत्तयो गृहीतवाक्याः कृतगुरुपदन्यासाः न्यायवादिनः सुकृतसंग्रहाभ्यास- गुरवो ... लोक इव व्याकरणेपि' (III.para 5) and stated that Bana knew both काशिकावृत्ति and न्यास. But I had not noticed that the हरषचरित as printed in Calcutta in 1876 by Jivananda read the passage1 as प्रसन्नप्रवृत्तयो गृहीतवाक्या: कृतगुरुन्यासा :... सुकृतसंग होताम्यासगुरव :. Therefore, the passage as printed in the Nirn. edition is of doubtful authen- ticity and must be left out of account in settling the date of the TH. It may have been an interpolation. It is rather strange that the editor of the Tra understands (p. 25 Intro.) that what maT meant was that the learned people and HGTT both condemned the use of the compound of a noun in aa with another and that a poet therefore should follow them. This interpretation is against the whole drift of Bhamaha's words and particularly loses sight of the word 'HIU'. We may set out the chronology of some authors mention- ed in the above discussion in a chain as follows: HRfa (about 1. The Intro. to काशिका-विवरणपब्जिका (or न्यास) printed in 1913-16 at Rajshahi cites on p. 24 the rsafd passage as noted above.

120 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

580-590)-भतंहरि1 author of वाक्यपदीय (died about 650 A.D.)- अयादित्य author of काशिका (died 661 A. D.)-दरिडन (about 660- 680)-न्यास of जिनेन्द्रवुद्धि (about 700)-भामइ (about 725-750)- माघ (who in शिशुपालवय II. 112 mentions वृत्ति and न्यास) about 750 नृपतुर्, who namesमाघ inिाजमर्ग I.31, about 825-850. (w) Attempts are made to fix the age of both भामह and दएडी by reference to parallel passages from early writers and it is argued that they are later than those poets. Unless the very words are quoted I am not at all disposed to attach weight to parallelism of thought. There is no monopoly in the realm of thought as was observed by the ध्वनिकारिका (IV.11. 'संवादास्तु भवन्त्येव बाडुल्येन सुमेघसाम्।') p. 306. It is said that दएडी's (I. 45) 'इन्दोरिन्दीवरधुति। लक्ष्म लक्ष्मीं तनोतीति प्रतीतिसुभगं वच: ।।' is taken from the शाकुन्तल I. Similarly 'प्रभामात्रं हि तरलं दृश्यते न तदाश्रयः' (काव्या. II. 129) may besaid to be a reminiscence of 'न प्रभातरलं ज्योतिरुद्ेति वसुषातलात' (शाकुन्तल I). So also काव्या. II 286 is similar to verses in the कुमार० and रघु०; and the words (भरत्नालोक्संहार्य- भवार्य सूयरश्मिभिः। दृष्टिरोधकरं यूनां यौवनप्रभवं तमः॥' (काग्या. II. 197) are supposed to have been suggested by बाख's words 'केवलं च निसगंत एवाभानुभेधयमरत्नालोकोच्छेद्यमप्रदीपप्रभापनेयमतिगहनं तमो यौवनप्रभवम्' (कादम्बरी, para 103 of my edition). Prof. Pathak (I. A. vol. 41 for 1912 at p. 237) thinks that Dandin's disquisition on the three kinds of कर्म (निवत्य, विकार्य and प्राप्य in काव्या. II. 240-241) is borrowed from the वाक्यपदीय Supposing for argument that the वाक्यपदीय was the first to make this distinction, this argument is not worth anything. According to Itsing's rather confused statements (Dr. Takakusu p. 180) the author of the वाक्यपदीय died about 650 A.D. The काशिका on पा. IV. 3. 88 appears to refer to it as शब्दार्थसम्बन्धीयप्रकरणं वाक्यपदीयम्. So दएडी, who, we have seen, flou- rished about 660-680 might have borrowed from the वाक्यपदीय. In the words 'नासिक्यमध्या परितश्वतुवणविभूषिता। अस्ति काचित्पुरी यस्याम्टवर्णाहया नृपाः ।' (काव्या. III. 112, an example of प्रहेलिका called संख्याता) the com. तरुयवाचस्पति sees a reference to काश्ी and to the Pallavas. In another place Dandin refers to a king

1. I-tsing (tr. by Takakusu p. 180) states that it was forty years since his death. The काशिका on पा. I. 3. 23 quotes from Bharavi's किराताजुनीय the quarter संशय्य कर्णादिषु तिष्ठते यः (III. 14).

BHĀMAHA AND DAŅDIN 121

राजवर्म (रातवर्म according to some commentators), who had a vision of the Deity (II. 279). Prof. R. Narasimhachar (I. A. 1912 p. 90-92) and Prof. Belvalkar (notes pp. 175-178 on the काव्या० II. 279 and III. 112) regard राजवर्मा to be a पल्लव, putting the two verses together and identify him with नरर्सिंहवर्म II or राजसिहवम (690-715 A.D.) and thus place दएडी at the end of the 7th century. But this is a risky effort. Whether राजवर्मा or रातवर्मा (Dr. Belvalkar reads in काव्यादर्श II. 279 इति साचात्कृते देवे राज्ो यद्रातवर्मयः) was a पल्लव we do not know. On the contrary the commentary श्रुतानुपालिनी says that he was a king of केरल.1 राजवर्मा is a very general name. Bearing in mind that, if we rely on the अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा, Dandin was an inhabitant of काशी and was at the पल्वव court, we may accept the view of the majority of commentators that the verse नासिक्यमध्या refers to कान्ची and the पल्लव. But we cannot accept as certain the identity of राजवर्म or रातवर्म with any पल्लव king who does not exactly bear that name. Some think that the verses of भामह (I. 42-44 श्रयुक्तिमधथा दूता जलभृन्मात्रकेङ च (१मारुतेन्दवः)। तथा भ्रमरहारीतचक्रवाकशुकादयः। अ्रवाचो व्यक्तवाचश्र दूरदेशविचारियः । कथं दूत्यं प्रपधयेरन्निति युकत्या न युज्यते ॥) यदि चोत्कएठया यत्तदुन्मत्त इव भाषते। तथा भवतु भूम्नेदं सुमेवोभि: प्रयुज्यते॥ contain a covert attack on or reference to the मेघदूत. Mr. T. Ganapati Sāstri, who has his own axe to grind as will be seen later on, vehemently protests against this theory (Intro. to स्वप्र० 1916 p. 7) and says that कालिदास in his fine verse (धूमज्योतिःसलिलमरुतां) condescends to administer a gentle rebuke to the extreme theorist भामह In another part of his work भामह refers to the story of वत्सेश (उदयन) and delivers a spirited attack against some poet or poets who so narrated Udayana's story as to run counter to the dictates of sastra and worldly experience. 'अन्तर्योधशताकीर्ष सालक्कायननेत्रकम्। तथाविधं गजच्छम नाशासीत् स स्वभूगतम्।। यदि वोपेक्ितं तस्य सचिवैः स्वार्थसिद्धये। शहो नु मन्दिमा तेषां भक्तिर्वा नास्ति भतरि॥ शरा दृढधनुर्मुक्ता मन्युमद्द्िररातिभिः। मर्माखि परिहृत्यास्य पतिष्यन्तीति कानुमा ॥ हृतोनेनम म

1. The words of the श्रुतानुपालिनी (Govt. collection of mss. at B. O.R.I. Cat vol. XII. No. 125 p.137) are: केरलवंशाख्ये काव्ये रातवर्मयः इति रातवर्मा नाम केरलानामधिपतिरत्यन्तशिवभक्तः सोपि दिग्विजय- वशेन कैलासं प्राप्त: पाशुपतमन्त्रेण पशुपति त्र्यम्बकमाराध्य दृष्टवान्, तदामुं श्रोकं प्रीति- प्रकाशनायोक्तवान्.

122 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

भाता मम पुत्रः पिता नम। मातुलो भागिनेयश्च रुषा संरग्घचेतसः । भस्यन्तो विविधान्याजावायुवान्यपराधिनम्। एकाकिनमरएयान्यां न हन्युर्वहवः कथम्॥ नमोस्तु तेम्यो विळव्म्यो येऽभिप्रायं कवेरिमम्। शास्त्रलोकावपास्यैवं नयन्ति नयवेदिनः। सचेतसो वनेभस्य चर्मखा निर्मितस्य च। अन्तरं वेद वालोपि कष्टं कि नुकथं नु तत्।' IV. 41-47). Mr. Ganapati Sāstri thinks that this is an attack against the प्रतिश्ञायौगन्वरायण of भास. His theory is that भामह preceded कालिदास and followed भास and he relies upon the fact that in the speech of ran (I Act p. 13) the words 'अरेष मम भादा हदो अेष मम पिदा अशेष मम सुदो मम वभ्रस्सत्ति अएयहा भट्टियो वएणभ्रन्ता .etc.' are almost the same as the words 'हतोनेन मम भ्राता &c' (from भामह). This looks a plausible theory at first sight; but on closer examination it will be found that it is based on a very weak foundation. Several points in the passage from arHg have escaped the learned Śāstri's vigilance. For want of space, all the points cannot be set out here. But the most important thing to note is that in the प्रतिज्ञा० उदयन is accompanied by twenty foot-soldiers who are all killed in the ambush except हंसक; while भामह uses the words एकाकिनं in IV. 44. Besides, the cries of the attacking party are not identical in both. In the प्रतिशाo there is no reference to मातुल and भागिनेय which occur in भामह's work. It appears to me that the words of भामह 'नमोस्तु तेम्यो &'c. amount to this that some poet first narrated the story of उदयन and then others (referred to as विद्ङ्भयः) adapted (नयन्ति) the story for their own purposes (in a mahākāvya or drama), wherein they made the king unable to distinguish between a real elephant and a sham one and made him start on an adventure ' single-handed. Therefore, it seems that the original story is probably that of the Ea4T (referred to as कवे:) and भामह is criticizing some drama or poem based thereon. In the बृहत्कथामअरी (II. 2) where this adventure of उदयन is narrated, we are told that उदयन started alone with his वीखा (गजेन्द्रबन्धकुशलो विवेशको महदनम् । verse 34) and the author केमेन्द्र makes the sage reflection 'प्रायेश व्यसवासक्तिर्मोहाय महतामपि.' This is the real purport of the story to which probably भामह refers in the words (कवेरभिप्रायमिमम्). The कथासरित्सागर gives more details. But there also we have these statements that saqa's detectives reported to him the discovery of a wonderful elephant (taking it to be real),

BHAMAHA AND DAŅDIN 123

that he entered theforest without his army (चारमात्रसहायस्तु ... विवेश महाटवीम् II. 4. 15) and that he approached the elephant alone (एकाकी वादयन्वीणां, verse 17). Both the वृहत्कथामजरी and the कथा profess to be based upon the बृहत्कथा of गुणाढ्य. There- fore there is no force in saying that भामह refers to प्रतिश्ञा०, when besides the TGF4T, there were about a dozen dramas and poems on the 3qa saga and when there are important discrepancies. Mr. Trivedi relies upon the close resemblance between भट्ि 22. 34 (व्याख्यागम्यमिदं काव्यमुत्सवः सुधियामलम्। हता दुर्मेधसश्चास्मिन् विद्वस्प्रियतया मया ॥) and भामह II. 20 (काव्यान्यपि यदीमानि व्याख्या- गम्यानि शाख्त्रवत। उत्सवः सुधियामेव हन्त दुर्मेवसो हताः ॥l) for the latter's priority. Bhatti's verse has been misunderstood. This does not contain a boast. The Grammar of पाशिनि is difficult, भटि wrote the poem to illustrate it and thought that his work would be difficult and would require elucidation. To him learned men were dear. He would be satisfied if the learned appreci- ated, but he regrets that persons not clever enough to under- stand grammar would be disappointed. The words of भामह (in II. 20) refer to प्रहेत्रिकाs (mentioned in III. 19) and assert that they would not be eal poetry ond would disappoint ignorant men, though they may give pleasure to the scholars. Though there is resemblance in the words, the purport is different. Further, भामह also says that a महाकाव्य should not be अतिव्याख्येय (I. 20). Besides, the two verses standing by themselves would rather suggest that भामह criticizes भट्टि. Moreover, we have already seen that Bhatti flourished between 590-650 A.D. and cannot be placed later than 650 A. D., while भामह's mention of the न्यास places him after 700. So it is भामह who attacks af. Dr. H. R. Divekar held, in J. R. A. S. 1929 pp. 825-842, that Bhämaha preceded both Bhatti and धर्मकीर्ति. But the detailed discussion in the above pages will show that he is quite wrong. (x) There were two points in connection with Bhamaha's date which so far as I was aware had not been relied upon by any Indian scholar before I wrote thereon. The first is as follows : In the ध्वन्यालोक (4th उद्दोत) it is expressly asserted that the same idea, though already expressed by one poet, appears new and charming when put in a suggestive garb by another poet and among several instances (pp. 296-7)

124 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

occurs the following "तथा विवचितान्यपरवाच्यस्यैव शब्दशकत्युद्धवानुरणन- रूपव्यक्ञयप्रकारसमाश्रयेष नवत्वम्। यथा 'धरणीधारणायाधुना स्वं शेष:' (हर्षचरित IV. para 15 of my edition) इत्यादी 'शेषो हिमगिरिस्त्वं च महान्तो गुरवः स्थिरा:। यदलद्वितमर्यांदाश्वलन्ती बिभ्रते क्ितिम् ॥' (भामह III. 28) इत्यादिषु सरस्वपि तस्थैवार्थशक्त्युद्धवानुरणरूपव्यक्ञयसमाश्रयेष नवत्वम्". In my desire to be fair to the opponents of the theory that Bhmaha was posterior to Dandin I put forward their possible defence on this question for the first time. But I had indicated my own view in such matters by scouting the idea that Dandin's y लक्ष्मी तनोतीति cited above under (w) is taken from the शाकुन्तल. I had not, however, stated my position as clearly and empha- tically as I could and should have done. The purpose of several verses cited by the ध्वन्यालोक in IV. 2-7 is to show that the underlying idea may be one and the same in several verses; but if the poet has pratibha, he can body forth the same idea in such a striking manner that the product of his imagina- tion appears to be new and distinct from that of another. His object is not to declare that a certain poet is earlier or later than another. On IV. 4 the धवन्यालोक (p. 297) cites the verse एवंवादिनि from the कुमारसम्भव (IV. 84) and says that in spite of similar verses such as 'कृते वरकथालापे' the verse of Kalidasa sheds new charm. No one has proved that the verse a वरकथालापे is earlier than कालिदास's. It should further be noticed that almost everywhere on pp. 294-298 the author of the ध्वन्यालोक uses the plural सत्स्वपि. For example, his words on the verse एवंवादिनि are : यथा एवंवादिनि देवर्षो इत्यादि श्रोकस्य 'कृते वरकथा- लापे कुमार्यः पुलकोद्रमः। सूचयन्ति स्पृहामन्तलजजावनताननाः ॥' इत्यादिष सत्स्वपि अर्थशक्त्युद्धवानुरनरूपव्यङ्ग्यस्य कविप्रौढोक्तिनिर्मितशरीरत्वेन नवत्वम् (p.297). These words show that he has several verses in mind that are as charming and striking as एवंवादिनि, but he does not mean that they were all composed prior to Kalidasa's verse. Besides, there is another important consideration. The verse 'arfuyw हत्थिदन्ता occurs in हाल's गाथासप्तशती (Weber's ed. p. 500 verse 668) and is cited on p. 297 of ea-Tro and is said to have ideas similar to the verse करिणीवेहव्वकरो० (and others). But करिणीवेहव्वकरो itself occurs in गाथासप्तशती with the reading गभरव [वेहव्वकरो (गजवधू- वैधव्यकरो) as No.632 on p. 309 of Weber's ed. of 1881) No. question can arise in this case about priority of one verse to another. The same remark holds good in the case of the citations from वाख and भामह and we cannot presume that the

BHAMAHA AND DAŅDIN 125

ध्वन्यालोक meant that भामह's verse and other verses (that the author had in mind) were composed before aw. Supposing for the sake of argumentt hat the ध्वन्यालोक meant that भामह's verse is earlier than a passage from the हषंचरित, there are obvious replies. Tw flourished about two hundred and fifty years before the ध्वन्यालोक and it is quite possible that the author of ध्वन्या० had no correct chronology about the two authors before him. He was more familiar with arH< who was his contryman and a rhetorician, while au hailed from distant Pritikūta on to be banks of the Sona river and was only a poet. Besides, we should have to presume, if chronological conclusions were to be drawn, that the ध्वन्यालोक laid down two distinct propositions in the six cases where the words सत्स्वपि are used, viz. (1) that, though certain passages in the works of बाए, कालिदास and others are very similar in ideas to certain verses of 1HE yet they possess charm and novelty that make them distinct (and not mere copies of each other) and (2) that one set of verses are later and others earlier. This in the languge of rter would be the fault of वाक्यमेढ (y) In the the 5th परिच्छेद Bhamaha devotes some verses to the elucidation of blemishes resting upon logic and philoso- phical doctrines. In the first two verses he promises that he would briefly describe such dosas as प्रतिश्वाहानि, दृष्टान्तहानि, that people of little learning are scared away by sāstra because of its being difficult and that in order to induce such people to look at sastra he is going to'say a little about logic. Then comes the verse स्वादुकाष्य० (quoted above on p. 80). Then he avers 'there is no word, nor sentence, nor logical reasoning nor kalā (art) that may not subserve the purpose of poetry and the poet carries a heavy burden' (न स शब्दो न तद्ाच्यं न स न्यायो न सा कला। जायते यन्न काव्याभमहो भारो महान् कबेः ॥ V. 4).1 Then he states that the pramanas are two, refers to the definitions of yen and अनुमान given by some, the meaning of प्रतिका and faults connected with it, then describes हेतु as त्रिलक्षय (v. 21), defines दृष्टान्त, speaks of जातिs (verse 29 जातयो दूषणामासा: &c.), of प्रतिचाS based on धर्म, भर्थ, काम and क्रोष and of instances where they 1. Compare भरत's नाट्यशास 21. 122 quoted above on p.35 n.2 and र्द्रट's काव्यालक्वार I. 19. नमिसापु quotes 'न स शब्दो' (without name). With स्वादुकाव्य० (भामर V.3) compare रद्रट 12. 1.

126 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

were carried out and where they failed. It is not necessary to pursue this chapter further. I was probably the first Indian. to point out that Bhamaha quotes in this pariccheda the words of दिड्नाग and probably of ध्मकोर्ति. Great controversies have raged round the question of the works of दिङनाग and धर्मकीर्ति and on the question of arHE's relation to them. I cannot here go into these. I shall only mention those works that are rele- vant for the date of arHr. Those who desire to make a detailed study of भामह 's brief dissertation on logic in relation to other works may read Prof. Pathak in B. O. R. I. vol. 12 pp. 372- 387. भामह says 'प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनापोढं ततोऽर्थादिति केचन। कल्पना नामजात्या- दियोजनां प्रतिजानते' ।I' (V. 6). दिङनाग, the great Buddhist Logician, defines प्रत्यक्ष as प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनापोढं नामजाताद्यसंयुतम् ।' (in प्रमाएसमुच्चय chap. I. quoted in Vidyabhusana's 'History of the medieval School of Indian Logic', 1909 p. 85 and in History of Indian Logic, 1921 p.277). अकलक्कदेव quoted the latter half of the verse as 'असाधार सहेतुत्वादक्षैस्तद्व्यपदिश्यते1।' (vide Prof. Pathak in annals of B. O. R. I. vol. XII. at p. 378). The प्रमाणसमुच्चय and its वृत्ति by दिङ्नाग in its original Sanskrit are lost, but early Tibetan translations are extant. The न्यायबिन्दु (ed. by Peterson in B. I. series, 1889 p. 103) of धम कीर्ति defi- nes प्रत्यक्ष and explains it as follows : 'प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनापोढमभ्रान्तम् । अभिलाषसंसगयोग्यप्रतिभासप्रतीतिः कल्पना तया रहितम्। तिमिराशुभ्रमणनौयान- संक्षोभाधनाहितविभ्रमं ज्ञानं प्रत्यक्षम' ।2 भामह quotes दिङनाग's definition and also explains what दिङनाग meant by कल्पना in the latter half viz. 'attributing to a thing a name, a genus and the like.' It appears that दिङ्नाग detined प्रत्यक्ष as कल्पनापोढ and धर्मकोर्ति added अभ्रान्तं to that definition. In the न्यायप्रवेश, which according to the Tibetan tradition is a work of दिङ्नाग and according to the Chinese tradition is a work of शङ्करस्वामिन pupil of दिङनाग, the word अभ्रान्तं is absent. We may assume for this discussion that भामह is referring to the प्रमाणसमुच्चय of दिङनाग alone and not to 1. The न्यायप्रवेशवृत्ति (ed. by Prof. Dhruva in G. O. S. p. 35) also cites the latter half असाधारण ... दिश्यते. 2. The न्यायबिन्दुटीका explains 'कल्पनाया अपोढमपेतं कल्पनापोढम्। कल्पनास्वभावरहितमित्यर्थः। अभ्रान्तमर्थक्रियाक्षमे वस्तुरूपेऽ्विपर्यस्तमुच्यते। p.8 (B. I. series). The न्यायप्रवेश (p. 7 G. O. S. ed.) has तत्र प्रत्यकं कल्पनापोढं यज्जानमर्थेयथा रूपादौ नामजात्यादिकल्पनारहितम् on which हरिभद्र'8 वृत्ति (p.35) is नामकल्पना यथा डित्थ इति जातिकल्पना यथा गौरिति'.

BHẨM AHA AND DANDIN 127

any other work. ततोर्थात् refers to another definition of अत्यस given by बसुबन्धु. The न्यायवार्तिक of उद्बोतकर (B. I. ed. 1887 p. 42) states 'अपरे पुनवसयन्ति ततोर्थादिज्ञानं प्रत्यक्षमिति'. On this the न्यायवा- र्तिकतात्पर्यटीका of वाचस्पति (who is deemed to have written his न्याय- सूचिनिबन्ध in 841 A. D. and who composed authoritative works on many sastras) says 'वासबन्धवं तावत्प्रत्यघलक्षणं विकल्पयितुमुपन्यस्यति अपरे पुनरिति।' (p. 150). The न्यायवार्तिक of उद्योतकर again states (p. 44) 'अपरे तु मन्यन्ते प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनापोढमिति। अ्रथ केयं कल्पना। नामजातियो- जनेति। यत्किल न नाम्नाभिधीयते न जात्यादिभिर्व्यपदिश्यते।'. On this the न्यायवार्तिकतात्पर्यटीका (p.153 of the Kashi S. Series संवत् 1982) re- marks संप्रति दिङ्नागस्य लक्षणमुपन्यस्यति अपरे इति। दूर्षययतुं कल्पनास्वरूप पृच्छति भथ केयमिति। लक्षणवादिन उत्तरं नामेति।'. लक्षणवादिन् is दिङूनाग who defines प्रत्यच as above. From these quotations it is clear that most eminent and early logicians like वाचस्पति ascribed the definitions of प्रत्यक्ष given by भामह to दिङनाग and वसुबन्धु (ततोर्थाद) respectively. For the present I shall leave धर्मकीर्ति aside. Two of दिङ्नाग's works were translated into Chinese between 557- 569 A. D. Vide Dr. Vidyabhusan's 'Medieval School' &c. p. 80-81 and History of I. L. p. 272. So दिडूनाग flourished before 550 and as he was a pupil of वसुबन्धु Dr. Vidyabhusan places दिङूनाग's earlier limit at 480 (ibid pp. 81 and 273 respe- ctively). Dr. Randle in 'Indian Logic in early school's (pp. 31-32) says that Vasubandhu's date is uncertain and that दिङ्नाग's date shares the uncertainty attaching to that of his master Vasubandhu and that Dingnaga may fall anywhere between 420 and 500 A.D. (ibid p.27). Therefore भामह's reference to दिङनाग does not help any one much. There are certain other indicia which have been relied on for saying that भामह refers to धर्मकीर्ति. In V. 5 भामह says 'सत्त्वादयः प्रमाखाम्यां प्रत्यक्षमनुमा च ते। असाधारखसामान्यविषयत्वं तयोः किल ॥'. This may be compared with न्यायबिन्दु 'द्विव्रिधं सम्यग्ज्ञानं प्रत्यक्षमनुमानं च । ... तस्य (प्रत्यक्षस्य) विषयः स्वलक्षणम्। ... अन्यत्सामान्यलक्षयं सोनुमानस्य विषयः' (परिच्छेद I.p.103 Peterson). Similarly, भामह V. 11 (त्रिरूपालनिकतो ज्ञानमनु- मानं च केचन I) may be compared with न्यायबिन्दु 'अनुमानं दविया स्वार्थ परार्थ च। तत्र स्वार्थ त्रिरूपाल्लिकाबदनुमेये ज्ञानं तदनुमानम्ं' (परिच्छेद II p. 104); so also the words 'दूषयं न्यूनतापुक्तिः' (भामह V.28) are the same as न्यायबिन्दु (परि० III. p. 118) and 'जातयो दूषणामासाः' (भामह V.29) are the same as न्यायबिन्दु 'दूषखाभासास्तु जातयः' (III p. 118). It looks likely that भामह may be quoting from धर्मकीर्ति, though he may not agree with him in some details. No one has found

128 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

out any work on logic by wHT nor has any quotation been taken by any one from aHr's work as a logician either in Sanskrit, Tibetan or Chinese; while धर्मकीर्ति is regarded as the most eminent among Buddhist logicians, probably equalled only by दिङनाग. One may argue that भामह is not necessarily referring to धर्मकीर्ति but to one of his predeoessors; to suggest however (as Mr. Batuknath does in his Intro. to arHF at p. 46) that it may be equally cogent to say that धर्मकीर्ति was indebted to arHg smacks toomuch of enthusiastic partisanship. Dharmakirti flourished according to Dr. Vidyabhushan1 about 635-650 (p. 103 of his History of Medieval Indian logic and of his History of Indian logic pp. 303-305). It may be noted that Yuan Chwan who was in India from 629 to 645 does not mention धर्मकीर्ति, while I-tsing who travelled in India during 671-695 A. D. and composed his work in 691 declares how vnalfd made further improvements in Logic (Takakusu's translation p. 182). I-tsing gives three classes of Buddhist savants viz. नागाजुन, देव, अश्वघोष, 'of an early age'; वसुबन्धु, असङ्ग,, संघमद्र, and भवविवेक 'in the middle ages' and जिन, धमपाल, धमकीर्ति शीलमद्र &c. 'of late years' (Takakusu's tr. p. 181). So धर्मकीर्ति (who was a pupil of धर्मपाल) as said above flourished about 650 or 660. It is not necessary for our purposes to establish positively that भामह refers to धर्मकीर्ति. It has already been shown from other evidence that aHe could not have flourished earlier than 700 A. D. Therefore it is quite possible that he borrows Dharmakirti's words. The matter may be allowed to rest there. (z) The date of Dandin can also be arrived at in another manner. शाङ० (No. 108), जहय (सूक्तिमुक्तावलि p. 47) and other anthologies quote a verse of a poetess विज्जका 'नीलोत्पलदलश्यामां विज्जकां मामजानता । वृथव दसिडना प्रोक्तं सर्वशक्ला सरस्वती ।',2 She quotes in this verse the last pada of the first verse of the araert. धनद्देव is quoted in the शार्ङ० (No. 163) as enumerating विज्जा among poetesses. In the verse नीलोत्पल० cited above the word

1. vide Vidyabhushan in J. R. A. S. for 1914 pp. 601- 606 and also I. H. Q. XI pp. 1-31 for the relation of efant and धर्मकीर्ति. 2. Vide 'Sanskrit Poetesses Vijjā and Morikā' by Dr. J. B. Choudhuri in I. H. Q. vol. XVI pp. 543-560.

BHAMAHA AND DANDIN 129

maa1, it may be argued, conveys the idea that Dandin did not know the poetess and that she was not a contemporary of Dandin. But the word may also convey only the idea that Dandin had not seen the complexion of that accomplished lady. If that idea be accepted, she may be deemed to be his contemporary (though probably a younger one). We have to find who this Vidya or Vijjaka was. For that purpose the verse सरस्वतीव० is helpful. We have two names विजजका or विद्या1 and विजया, both of which cannot be later that 900 A. D. No ancient or medieval author says that there were two diffe- rent poetesses that flourished almost about the same period. It is possible that the poetess was known as विज्जा and राजशेखर sanskritized the name as faaar, while others sanskritized it as विध्ा. Therefore, it is very likely that विज्जका and विजया are the same. If that be conceded, then the verse सरस्व्रतीव० indicates that विज्जिका was a कार्खाटी (a princess of Karnataka or a resident thereof) and that she wrote a work or works in the Vaidarbha- mārga rivalling Kālidāsa. No work expressly ascribed to her has yet been found. If the poetess विजया was a princess, then it is probable that she is the same as the famous queen fasr- महादेवी. The Nerur grant (I. A. VII p. 163 of विजयभट्टारिका, queen of महाराजचन्द्रादित्य, eldest son of सत्याश्रय पुलकेशिन् II. and brother of विक्रमादित्य) is referred to saka 581 (659 A. D.). The Kochrem plate (I. A. VIII. p. 45) of same date speaks of her as विजयमहादेवी. Thus, if this identity be accepted (as I submit it should be), her grants being dated in 659 A. D., there is confirmation of the date of Dandin as between 660-680 arrived at above (p. 120). Prof. K. C. Chattopadhyaya in I. H. Q. vol. 14 pp. 582-606 (on Kaumudimahotsava) at p. 604 does not accept my identification of the poetess Vijjā or Vijjakā with the Queen Vijaya on the ground that a reigning queen could not have written the two verses भूपाला: शशिभास्करा- न्वयभुवः and यशःपुत्रं देव ascribed to Vijjaka in some anthologies (e. g. in सदुक्तिकर्णामृत). They might be, from a modern scholar's point of vi :w, indecent. But there are several answers. We

1. She is quoted under various names such as fassrasr, विज्जाका, विज्जिका, विज्जाका, विध्ा. विद्या is a Sanskritized form of विज्जा or it may be also vice versa i. e. the name was विद्या, and विज्जाका, विज्जिका and विजजका were popular. or affectionate names.

130 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

should not foist our 20th century notions on a poetess of the 7th or 8th century. Besides, if one tolerates a verse like nrfer as Vijjaka's, there is no reason why the two verses mentioned above could not have been composed by the महादेवी. Moreover, the verse भूपाला:1 is ascribed to मयूर in सुभाषितावलि (No. 2515); and further the plain sense is harmless enough, the sexual suggestion comes in only when we look into the puns on the words. The second verse यश:पुत्रं देव is decent enough from any point of view. On the subject of Vijjaka the following articles may be consulted viz, Dr. Raghavan in Quarterly J. of Mythic Society (Bangalore) vol. 25 at pp. 52-55, Quarterly Journal of Mythic Society vol. 24 pp. 156-159 (by Mr. V. K. Raghavacharyulu), Indian Culture, vol. XI. pp. 86-88. Vide also 'Sanskrit Poetesses' part A by Dr. J. B. Chaudhuri and English translation and Introduction by Dr. Roma Chaudhuri pp. XXXVIII-XLV, where it is pointed out that 29 verses are ascribed to विद्या or विज्जका in the anthologies and that they are composed in very fine language and deal with many topics such, as love, seasons, damsels. Dr. Roma Chaudhuri in Intro. to 'Sanskrit Poetesses' part A p. LVIII states that the following verse is traditionally ascribed to विजयाक्का2 viz. 'एकोऽभून्नलिनात्ततश्च पुलिनाद वल्मीकतश्चापरस्ते सर्वे कवयो भवन्ति गुरवस्तेभ्यो नमस्कुर्महै। अर्वाश्चो यदि गद्यपधर चनैश्चेतश्रमत्कुर्वते तेषां मूर्ति ददामि वामचरयं कर्णाटराजप्रिया ॥.' This verse composed by a Karnāta queen breathes great self-confi- dence and contempt for most writers other than Er, TTH • 1. The verse is : भूपाला: शशिभास्करान्वयभुवः के नाम नासादिता भर्तारं पुनरेकमेव हि भुवस्त्वामेव मन्यामहे। येनाऊं परिमृद्य कुन्तलमपाकृष्य व्युदस्या- यतं चोलं प्राप्य च मध्यदेशमचिरात्कान्च्यां कर: पातितः ॥. The words अञ्ञ, कुन्जल, चोल, मध्यदेश and काल्ी primarily refer to countries, but by arg sporting with a woman is suggested. It is ascribed to विद्या in सदुक्िकर्णामृत III. 15. 1 p. 196 (Punjab Oriental Series, 1933). Compare for almost the same double-meaning words रुद्रटकाव्यालंकार X. 10. 2. Dr. Raghavan in Journal of Mythic Society, vol. 25 at p. 55 and Miss Sakuntala Rao in 'Indian Culture" vol. XI p. 86 also cite the verse एकोभून्नलिनात् as विजयाका's, but none of them points out the anthology or source in which it is so ascribed. Hardly any verse is found ascribed to fern or faaner in anthologies. This is a very significant circumstance.

BHAMAHA AND DANDIN 131

and वाल्मीकि. So she must have been a great poet indeed. It is faGu alone that has many charming verses to her credit. Therefore, it may quite plausibly be argued that the uieffa- याक्का (or विजया) and विज्जा are identical, that she was a queen of कर्णाट and that she is to be identified with the विजयमहादेवी of the grants mentioned above p. (129). One very beautiful verse attributed to her in {T° (No. 582) where the sound is an echo to the sense may be quoted here viz. the one that refers to corn-threshing by young women : 'विलासमसुणोल्लसन्मुसललोलदो :- कन्दली-परस्परपरिस्खलद्वलयनिःस्वनोद्बन्धुराः। लसन्ति कल्दुकृतिप्रसभकम्पितोर :- स्थलतुद्द्गमकसङ कुला: कलमकएडनीगीतयः॥" (शाई०p. 94 and सरस्वतीक एठामरण V. p. 602). She is the greatest of poetesses. A further question about विज्जा or विज्जका arises whether she is the author of the drama कौमुदोमहोत्सव, which Mr. R. Kavi published some years ago. The name of the author is not fully preserved but in the single ms. on which Mr. Kavi bases his edition we have the following passage in the prologue 'यत्तदस्यैव राशः समतीतचरितमधिकृत्य ... कया निबदध नाटकम्'. This indica- tes that the name of the writer ended in ar and that the writer was a lady. Mr. Kavi holds that the writer was fafGarenr. Until other mss. are found no final opinion can be given. But one verse in the drama (Act IV. 19) is rather striking viz. जयति प्रथमं विजया जयन्ति देवा: स्वयं महादेवः । श्रीमन्ती भगवन्तावनन्स- नारायणौ जयतः ।'. The plain meaning here is that विजया, the goddess presiding over the Kaumudi festival in Sarad season, is glorious, but it is possible that there is a veiled reference to the author विजया (or विज्जिका). It is not necessary for our purpo- ses to go into this question. For the controversies about the authenticity, the date and authorship of the कौमुदीमहोत्सव, vide Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. XII pp. 50-55, Festschrift Moriz Winternitz pp. 382-406 (Prof. K. C. Chattopadhyaya), J. Andhra H. R. S. vol. VI pp. 139-141 (by Mr. Raghavacha- ryulu) and vol. XI. pp. 63-67 (Dr. D. C. Sircar), Indian Culture, vol. XI. p. 87 ff., I. H. Q. 14 pp. 582-606, Journal of Bombay University vol. X. pp. 141-147 (Prof. Mankad on

1. In the सदुक्िकर्ामृत II. 18. 3 p. 145, this verse is ascribed to योगेश्वर, while शाङपर (No. 582) ascribes it to विज्जका and the सरस्वतीकएठाभरय does not mention the name of the author.

132 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

मुद्राराक्षस and कौमुदीमहोत्सव, who supports Jayaswal's views). Numerous verses are ascribed to this विज्जका in the anthologies, two of which दृषटि हे प्रतिवेशिनि (No. 500 कवीन्द्र०) and धन्यासि या कथयसि (298 कवीन्द्र०) ascribed to विधा are very frequently quoted in alankara works. Vide Intro. to कवीन्द्रवचनसमुच्चय edited by Dr. Thomas (pp. 106-108) for all verses attributed to her. Both of them are quoted in मम्मट's शब्द्व्यापारविचार and the second in the काव्यप्रकाश (IV). The verse दृष्टि हे प्रतिवेशिनि occurs in the दशरूपावलोक (II. 21) and in मुकुलभट्ट's अभिधावृत्तिमातृका (p. 12). मुकुल as will be shown later on wrote about 900-925 A. D. So विज्जका could not have flourished later than 850 A. D. and Dandin is earlier still. राजशेखर, as quoted in the सूकतिमुकतावलि of जहण, speaks of a Canarese poetess 'सरस्वतीव कार्णाटी विजयाङ्का जयत्यसौ। या विदर्भगिरं वास: कालिदासादनन्तरम् ।।' (vide शाङ्र० 184, जहण's सुक्तिमुक्तावलि p.47 verse 93, and in the शह्ार प्रकाश without name). The words विजयाक्का सरस्वतीव means 'she was as if सरस्वनी named विजया'. The words may also mean that in her compositions she used the word विजय as a catch-word. For the use of words like अङ् or अक्कित, vide verses like the following 'ब्यासगिरां निर्यासं सारं विश्वस्य भारतं वन्दे। भूषणतयव संज्ञां यदक्कितां भारती घहति॥'. Since Bhamaha flourished (as shown above) after 700 A. D. and Dandin about 660-680 A. D. it is not possible to hold that Dandin criticizes arHg. It is possible that wHT may have been a much younger contempo- rary of Dandin and the bitter sarcasms in which he reveals when criticizing views such as those held by Dandin are expli- cable more easily on the hypothesis that he is criticizing a far-famed living author and probably was jealous. Dr. Hooykaas in his paper on 'some arthālankāras in the Bhattikāvya X' in Turner Presentation volume, at p. 358 n. 1 suggests an argument in favours of my view that Dandin preceded Bhamaha. Bhatti X. 63 cites as an example of निदर्शना the verse 'न भवति महिमा बिना विपत्तेरवगमयन्निव पश्यतः पयोधिः। अविरतमभवत् प्रोक्रेडसौ शिखरिपृथुप्रथितप्रशान्तवीचि: ॥ भामह on JII. 33 defines निदर्शना as क्रिययैव विशिष्टस्य तदर्थस्यापि दर्शनात्। शेया निदर्शना नाम यथेववतिभिर्विना ॥. भामह requires that in निदर्शना the words यथा, इव, वत् must not occur, but इव occur is Bhatti's example. The काव्यादर्श II. 348 says nothing ahout qa1 or ra. Dr. Hooykaas holds that the writer who vetos the use of certain characteristics must be later than him who says nothing. Some may argue that there is -not much in this.

BHĀMAHA AND DAŅDIN 133 The 6th century hadbeen accepted by many. scholars as the date of Dandin. Vide Max Muller (India; what can it teach us; lst edition p. 332), Weber (H. S. L. p. 232 n), Prof. Macdonell (H. S. L. p. 434) and Col. Jacob (JRAS 1897 p. 284). That date must now be given up in favour of the view that Dandin's literary activity lay between 660- 680 A. D. Among the commentaries on the काव्यादर्श are: (1) the व्याख्या of तरुणवाचस्पति (edited by Prof. Rangacharya), (2) the com. हृदयक्मा by an anonymous author (edited by Prof. Rangacharya) on the first two परिच्छेदs only; (3) a टीका called मार्जन by महामहोपाध्याय हरिनाथ, son of विश्वधर and younger brother of केशव (Govt. mss at B. O.R.I. Cat. vol.XII.No.24, copied in संवत् 1746); (4) काव्यतत्त्वविवेचककौमुदी by कृष्णकिक्र तर्कवागीश of गोपालपुर in Bengal (I. O. cat. p. 221); (5) the श्रृतानुपालिनी of वादिघङ्ुल (D. C. ms. No. 111 of 1919-24, cat. vol.XII No.125); (6) वैमल्यविधायिनी by मल्लिनाथ, son of जगनाथ; and a few more men- tioned by Aufrecht. For तरुषवाचस्पति's date vide above p. 105. हरिनाथ tells us that he wrote a com. on the सरस्वतोकएठाभरख called मार्जन (folio 5b in D. C. ms No. 373 of 1895-96). He quotes विश्वकोश, शाश्वतकोश, हारावली and विदग्घमुखमएडन. There is a com. by विजयानन्द (vide Cat. of Govt. O. mss. at B. O.R.I. vol. XII. No. 123). There is another com. by यामुन (ibid. No. 126) who divides the काव्यादर्श into four परिचछेदs, the 4th being formed of verses dealing with काव्यदोषs. Recently (in 1957) Prof. Anantlal Thakur of the Mithila Institute has published the काव्यलक्षण of Dandin with a commentary called रत्नश्री by रत्नश्री- शान from Ceylon. 11 The अलखरसारसङप्रह of उ्ड्ट. This work was translite- rated by Col. Jacob in JRAS 1897 pp. 829-847. It has been issued by the Nirnayasagara Press (1915) with the comme- ntary (called लघुवृत्ति) of प्रतीहारेन्दुराज; and Mr. N. D. Banhatti has edite1 it for the Bombay Sanskrit Series (1925) with the commentary of प्रतीहारेन्दुराज, an Introduction and notes. Here the references are to the Nirn. Ed. The work of axz is divided into six chapters (called vargas) and contains about 79 kārikās defining 41 alankāras and over 90 illustrations. They are taken, as we are told by the commentor प्रतीहारेन्दुराज़, from the author's own work styled कुमारसम्भव 'अ्नेन अन्थकता स्वोपरचित- कुमारसम्भवैकदेशोत्रोदाहर सत्वेनोपन्यस्तः । तत्र पूर्व दीपकस्योंदाहरखानि। तदतु-

134 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

सन्धानाविच्छेदायात्र उद्शकमः परित्यक्तः। उद्दशस्तु तथा न कृतो वृत्तभङ्गभयात्।' (p. 15-p. 16 of B. S. S. ed.). The alankāras defined and illu- strated are the following (in order); I (वर्ग), पुनरुक्तवदाभास, छेका- नुप्रास, अनुप्रास (of 3 kinds, परुषा वृत्ति, उपनागरिका, ग्राम्या or कोमला), लाटानुप्रास, रूपक (four varieties), उपमा, दीपक (आदि, मध्य, अन्त), प्रतिवस्तूपमा; II. आवेप, अर्थान्तरन्यास, व्यतिरेक, विभावना, समासोक्ति, अति- शयोकि; III यथासंख्य, उत्प्रेक्षा, स्वभावोकि; IV प्रेयः, रसवत्, ऊजस्वि, पर्या- योक, समाहित, उदात (of two kinds), िष्ट ( of two kinds); V अपछ्नुति, विरोषोक्ि, विरोध, तुल्ययोगिता, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, व्याजस्तुति, विदशना, उपमेयोपमा, सहोक्ति, सक्कर (of four kinds), परिवृत्ति; VI. अ्नन्वय, ससन्देह, संसृष्टि, भाविक, काव्यलिक्, दृष्टान्त. It will be noted that the alankaras are enumerated almost in the same order as that of भामह. उ्ट omits a few अलक्कारs which भामह defined such as यमक, उपमा- रूपक, उत्प्रेक्षावयत; while he adds a few अलक्कारs to those that were either defined or alluded to by भामह, viz. पुनरुक्तवदाभास, सङ्कर, काव्यलिक and दृष्टान्त. It is noteworthy that उद् employs the term विदर्शना for निदर्शना (unless it is due to copyist's mistake) and illustrates only one of the two varieties of that figure and his commentator had to cite an illustration of the second variety from मामह "यत्र तु पदार्थसमन्वय उपमानोपमेयभावकल्पनया स्वात्मानमुपपादयति तस्य विदर्शनाभेदस्योदाहरणमुद्भटपुस्तके न दृश्यते तस्य तु भामहोदितमिदमुदाहरम् (भामह III. 34) 'अयं मन्दतिर्भास्वानस्तं प्रति यियासति। उदयः पतनायेति श्रीमतो बोधयन्नरान्।' इति" (p.62 and p.67 of B.S. S.ed.). The विवेक of तिलक on उद्धट's work also notices that उद्ट's work contains no example of the 2nd kind of विदर्शना (p. 45 G. O. S. ed.). On comparing उद्दट's definitions with भामह's it will be seen that the definitions of आत्तेप, विभावना, शतिशयोक्ति, यथासंख्य, पर्या- योक, अपहनुति, विरोध, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, सहोक्ति, ससन्देह, अनन्वय are word for word the same in both and the definitions of several other figures such as अनुप्रास, उत्प्रेक्षा, रसवत्, भाविक contain closely similar phra- seology. This is probably due to the fact that 3az wrote a commentary भामहविवरण or भामहवृत्ति on the काव्यालक्कार of भामह. प्रतीहारेन्दुराज says (p.13) "एकदेशवृत्तीत्यत्र हि एकदा अन्यदा ईशः प्रभविष्णुरयो वाक्याथस्तवृत्तित्वं रूपकस्याभिमतम। विशेषोकतिलक्षणे च भामहविवरण भट्टोङ्गटेन एकदेशशब्द एवं व्याख्यातो यथेहास्माभिर्निरूपितः । तत्र विशेषोक्तिलक्षयं 'एकदेशस्य विगमे या गुणान्तरसंस्तुतिः। विशेषप्रथनायासौ विशेषोक्तिमता यथा॥ (भामह III. 23)." Thework भामहविवरण seems to have been an elabo- rate one and it appears that the अलक्वारसारसंग्रह was only a summary of that work, as its ve:y name indicates. Later writers very frequently refer to the भामहविवरण of उद्धट; e. g. the

UDBHAȚA 135

लोचन (ध्व. p. 12) Says "भामहोक्ं 'शब्दश्छन्दोभिधानार्थ' (भामह I. 9.) इत्यभिधानस्य शब्दाद्धंदं व्याख्यातुं भट्टोन्टो बभाषे शब्दानाममिधानममिधाव्यापारो मुख्यो गुरवृत्तिश्च इति'; लोचन p. 47 'यत्तु विवरसकृद् दीपकस्यसर्वत्रोपमान्वयो- स्तीति बहुनोदाहरणप्रपञ्चेन विचारितवांस्तदनुपयोगि नितरां सप्रतित्षेपं च'; on the verse 'आहूतोपि सहायेरेमीत्युकत्वा विमुक्तनिद्रोपि। गन्तुमना अपि पथिकः सक्कोनं नैव शिथिलयति' (quoted in ध्वo p. 45 as an example of भनुक्तनिमित्ता विशेषोक्ति) the लोचन remarks 'शीतकृता खल्वार्तिरत्र निमित्तमिति भट्टोङ्ड्रटः'. प्रतीहारेन्दुराज (p. 49-p. 53 of B. S. S. ed.) seems to be quoting from the भामहविवरख when he says "एषां च शृक्गारादीनां नवाना रसानां स्वशब्दादिभि: पञ्चभिरवगतिर्भवति। यदुक्तं भटटोङ्भटेन 'पञ्चरूपा रसाः' इति । तत्र स्व्रशब्दा: शृद्गारादेर्वाचका: शृक्गारादय: शग्दाः।" (this last sentence is प्रतीहारेन्दुराज's comment on the words 'स्वशब्दस्थायिसन्चारि विभावाभिन- यास्पदम्' of the अलक्कारसारसंग्रह 4th वर्ग); हेमचन्द्र (in विवेक p. 110) says "एतेन.रसवद्दर्शितस्पष्टशङ्गारादिरसोदयम् । स्वशब्द ... स्पदम् ।।' इत्येतद्व्या- ख्यानावसरे यद्ह्वोन्भटेन 'पञ्चरूपा रसाः' इत्युपक्रम्य 'स्वशब्दाः श्रृङ्गारादेर्वाचकाः शृङ्ारादय: शब्दाः' इत्युक्तं तत्प्रतिन्िप्तम्"). It appears from this that हेमचन्द्र simply quotes the words of प्रतोहारेन्दुराज, had not the भामहविवरण before him and confounds the verse रसव ... स्पदं, which is really उद्धट's own definition, with भामह's definition of रसवत्, which is simply 'रसवद्दर्शितस्पष्टशृङ्गारादिरसं यथा' III. 6). The काव्य- प्रकाशसक्कत of माशिक्यचन्द्र (p. 269 Mysore ed.) falls into the same confusion and savs 'एतेन शृद्गाराधाः शब्दाः शृद्गारादेवाचका इत्युद्धद्टोक्तं निरस्तम्;' so also सोमेश्वर (folio 75 a) says एतेन रसवद् ... स्पदमित्यस्य व्याल्यायां पञ्चरूपा रसा इत्युपक्रम्यतत्र स्वशब्दाःशरृक्गारादयः शृ्गारादेवाचका इति भट्टोङ्टोक्तं निरस्तम्'; हेमचन्द्र (विवेक p. 17) "एतावता शौयादिसदृशा गुखाः केयूरादितुल्या अलद्धारा इति विवेकमुक्त्वा संयोगसमवायाभ्यां शौर्यादीनामस्ति भेद:, इह तूभयेषां समवायेन स्थितिरित्यभिधाय 'तस्माद्गड्डरिकाप्रवाहेय गुणालक्कार- भेद:' इति भामहविवरणे यद्द्टोद्भद्वोभ्यधात् तन्निरस्तम्;" मायिक्यचन्द्र (सक्केत p.289, Mysore ed.) says the same 'शब्दार्थालङ्गाराणां गुरवत्समवायेन स्थितिरिति भामहवती भट्टोद्भटेन भणनमसत्' and so does सोमेश्वर (folio 88 a); समुद्रबन्ध (on the सर्वस्व p. 89) S3ys उद्भटेन च काव्यालक्कारविवतौ सत्कवि- त्वविरहिताया विदग्धताया अस्थैयंस्याशोभनस्य च प्रतिपादनाय निदर्शनदयमिति वदता का श्रीरित्यस्य श्रीरस्थिरेत्यर्थोभिहित:'. 3.R exercised a profound influence over the Alankāra- Sastra. He eclipsed भामह and it is probably owing to his great fame that भामह's work remained in the background and was rarely to be had up till a few years ago. He is always quoted with respect by his successors, even when they differ from him. He is the foremost representative o fthe Alankara school and his name is associated with sev. ral doctrines in

136 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIGS

the Alankārasāstra. In several important points he differs from भामह. For example, प्रतीहारेन्दुराज says: (p. 1) 'भामहो हि आ्राम्योपनागरिकावृत्तिभेदेन द्विप्रकारमेवानुप्रासं व्याख्यातवान्। तथा रूपकस्य ये चत्वारो भेदा वच्त्यन्ते तन्मध्यादाधयमेव भेददितयं प्रादर्शयत्।'; उद्तट speaks of three kinds of अनुप्रास and four varieties of रूपक; "भामहो हिं तत्सहो- क्त्युपमाहेतुनिर्देशात्त्रिविधं यथा' (भामह 3. 17) इति श्लिष्टस्य त्रैविध्यमाह" (प्रतीहारेन्दु. p. 47, while उद्रट divides श्लेप into two varieties); the लोचन says 'भामहेन हि गुरुदेवनृपतिपुत्रविषयप्रीतिवर्णनं प्रेयोलक्वार इत्युक .. उद्भटमते हि भावालक्वार एव प्रेय इत्युक्तः' (p. 87); भामह does not speak of three वृत्तिs viz परुषा, ग्राम्या and उपनागरिका, while उद्धट does (vide लोचन p.6). For respect shown to उद्ट vide ध्व. p. 131 (तत्रभव-

कारा:); व्यक्तिविवेकटीका (p. 3) 'इह हि चिरन्तनैरलखरतन्त्रप्रजापतिभिर्भटटो- डूटप्रभतिभि: शब्दार्थधर्मा एवालक्वारा: प्रतिपादिता नाभिधाधर्माः' It is not necessary to refer to the numerous passages where 3Rz is quoted or referred to by later writers. Some of the doctrines that are peculiar to 3az are : (I) 'अथभेदेन तावच्छष्दा भिधन्ते इति भट्टोद्भटस्य सिद्धान्तः' प्रतीहारेन्दु० (p.55.); (II) श्लेष is of two kinds, शब्दश्लेष and अर्थश्लेष and both are अर्था- लक्कारs. This view is severely criticized by मम्मट (9th उल्लास) 'शब्दश्लेष इति चोच्यते, अर्थालक्कारमध्ये च लक्ष्यते इति कोयं नयः' (p. 527 Va.). (III) श्लेप is stronger than other figures and that wherever other figures are combined with it, श्लेष is the principal figure and the apprehension of other figures is slight and dispelled by श्लेष, 'अलक्कारान्तरगतां प्रतिभां जनयत्पद:' aS उद्ट says in (IV p.54, p. 58 of B. S. S. ed.). The sa. (p. 116) refers to this view. मम्मट criticizes this view also. (IV) The काव्यमीमांसा (of राज०) says 'तस्य (वाक्यस्य) च त्रिषाभिधाव्यापार इति शङ्धटा :. ' (V) अर्थ is of two kinds 'किन्तु द्विरूप एवासौ विचारितमुस्थोऽविचारितरमणीयः। तयोः पूर्वमाश्रितानि शास्त्राखि तदुत्तरं काव्यानीत्यौ्धटाः' (काव्यमीमांसा p. 44); a somewhat similar view is attributed to उङ्ट in the व्यक्तिविवेकटीका (p.4) 'शास्त्रे तिहास वैल क्षएयं तु काव्यस्य शब्दार्थवैशिष्टयादेव नाभिधावैशिष्टयादिति भट्टोद्गटादीनां सिद्धान्तः.' (VI) 'सङूटनाया धर्मो गुणा इति भट्टोद्भटादयः' लोचन p. 165. (VII) The later divisions of Upama based upon grammatical considera- tions as in the काव्यप्रकाश seem to have been elaborated by उद्ट (वर्ग I q. in notes to साहित्यदर्पण p. 105). (VIII) उद्ट holds that as like aFIT are manifested by their being expressly mentioned in so many words and in four other ways 'रसवत् ... स्वशब्दस्था- यिसन्चारिविभावाभिनयास्पदम्', whil, acc. to मम्मट, o mention a rasa like शg by the use of the word शFार is a blemish (दोष).

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

138 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

him several times with respect (pp. 116, 131). Therefore, Udbhata is earlier than 850 A. D. The Kashmirian tradition identifies him with a learned man called 3z who was the सभापति at the court of Jayapida, king of Kashmir (779-813 A.D.). The राजतरद्विणी says 'विद्वान्दीनारलक्षेण प्रत्यहं कृतवेतनः । भट्टोभूदुङ्ग- टस्तस्य भूमिभत: सभापतिः ॥। IV. 495'. If the tradition is accepted axz must have flourished about 800 A. D. Even if the tradi- tion be not accepted, no difference is made. In any case 32 flourished between 750 and 850 A. D. The commentary of प्रतीहारे-दुराज is among the oldest com- mentaries on Alankara works. He tells us that he was the pupil of Mukula (विद्ृदग्रयान्मुकुलकादधिगम्य विविच्यते। प्रतीहारेन्दुराजेन काव्यालक्वारसंग्रहः ॥ Intro. 3rd verse). The last verse of the commentary bestows high praise upon मुकुल, who is said to have been deeply versed in मीमांसा, व्याकरण, तर्क and साहित्य. प्रती- हारेन्दुराज in that verse speaks of himself only as श्रीन्दुराज and as a कौङय (an inhabitant of Konkan). The commentary of प्रतीहारेन्दुराज is concise, lucid and learned. He names भमरुक, उद्गट, कात्यायन, चूर्षिकार (पतब्जलि), दएडी, भामह, भामहविवरण of उद्ट, वामन and quotes frequently from the नाट्यशास्त्र, रुट्रट's काव्यालक्कार and from the ध्वन्यालोक. As मुकुल flourished about 900-925 A. D. his pupil प्रतिहारेन्दुराज must have flourished about 950 A. D. That he is separated from 3R by a long period follows from the fact that he discusses various readings in 3Re's exa- mples e.g. on p.4 he says (on स देवो दिवासान्निन्ये तस्मिन्शैलेन्द्रकन्दरे) 'निन्ये तस्मिन्' इत्यत्र 'निन्येन्यस्मिन्' इति पाठ :. Whether he is identical with the इन्दुराज whose disciple was the great अभिनवगुम्त will be discussed later on. The विशमिनी com. of जयरथ on the अलक्कारसर्वस्व had been known to refer to राजानकतिलक as a commentator of Udbhata's work and as further stating that the author of the अलक्कारसर्वस्व generally followed the views of तिलक; एतच्चोद्गटविचारे राजानक- तिलकेनैव सप्रपन्चमुक्तमिति न तथास्माभिराविष्कृतम्। अलं.स. वि. p. 15; एतदेव राजानकतिनकेनाप्युक्तम्। कारणासामधर्यमिह बाधकत्वेनैव प्रतीयते कार्यानुत्पत्तिस्तु वाध्यत्वेनेति। ग्रन्थकृञ्च प्रायस्तन्मतानुवर्त्येव। तदुक्तसमानन्यायोऽस्माभि: पाठो लक्षितः । अलं. स. वि. p. 158; उङ्धट V. 4 is 'यत्सामभयेऽपि शक्तीनां फला- नुत्पत्तिनिबन्धनम्। विरेषस्यामिधित्सातस्तद्विरोषोक्तिरच्पते ॥'; एतच्चोद्गटविवेके राजा- नकतिलकेन सप्रपञ्चमुक्तमिति ... चिरन्तनेति (from अलं. स.)। अ्रनेनास्मामिः सर्वत्रैव तन्मतानुसृतिरेव कृतेत्यात्मविषयमनौद्धत्यमपि ग्रन्थकृता प्रकाशितमिति। अलं. स. वि. p. 227. This commentary of राजानकतिलक on उद्भट's शलं. सा.

UDBHAȚA 139

å. has been published in the G. O. series based on a single ms. (1931). From these quotations it follows that the comme- ntary of Tilaka was called उद्गटविवेक or उद्टविचार. The rele- vant reference in the com. of faora to the matter mentioned in the Ist quotation from the विमर्शिनी will be found at p. 22 of the com. of facra. I have not been able to find the second reference in the printed text of the उद्दटविवेक, unless the meagre explanation on p. 41 is treated as the one referred to. The word सामध्य appears in उद्धर's definition of विशेषोक्ति (V. 5) and not in faera's comment. The 3rd extract probibly refers to P.40 of the printed text (काव्ये दोषगुशालद्कारायां च शब्दारथगततयान्व- यव्यतिरेकाभ्यां विभाग: क्रियते। तिलक). In this case the अलं.स. (P. 257 तस्मादाश्रवाश्रयिभावेनैव चिरन्तनमतानुसृतिरिति) appears to differ from तिलक and follows older authors. The commentary of तिलक, though brief, is always to the point and acute. He criticizes प्रतीहारेन्दुराज several times and it appears that he had several commentaries on Udbhata before him. ₹47 who wrote the काव्यप्रकाशसक्केत1 learnt Poetics under तिलक and acc. to the colophon of the सहृदयलीला, the author रुचक whose another name was रुय्यक was the son of राजानकतिलक. As the अलं.स. was composed between 1135-1155, तिलक must have flourished about 1100-1125 A. D. He was probably a younger contemporary of HFHz. I do not at all agree with the arguments, which look like special pleading, of the learned editor of the उद्भटविवेक (Intro. pp. 42-45) that HEE had read Tilaka's work and borrowed ideas fiom him. To me it appears that the truth is just the other way about. Similarly, the editor's attempt (Intro. pp. 38-39) t) show that तिलक wrote some other work is based on nothing more solid than mere conjectures. The ms. of तिलक's commentary on 3a2 refered to by Dr. De in Bulletin of the London School of Oriental Studies, vol. 4 p. 279 is the same as the one on which the G. O. S. edition is based. 12. The काव्यालकरसूत्र of वामन. This work has been edited several times, the best edition being that of the

1. The 2nd Introductory verse of the काव्यप्रकाशसक्केत is : शात्वा शतिलकात्सर्वालक्वारोपनिषत्क्रमम्। काव्यप्रकाशसक्केतो रुचकेनेह लिख्यते॥. Vide Cat. of Govt. mss at B.O. R. I. vol. XII. No. 102 at pp. 108-I09.

140 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Vanivilas Press (1909). Dr. Cappeller brought out an edition at Jena in 1875 with a German Introduction. The work is divided into three parts, the sutras, the authoor's own urtti thereon and examples. वामन himself says 'प्रथम्यं परमं ज्योतिर्वामनेन कविप्रिया। काव्यालक्वारसूत्रायां स्रेषां वृत्तिर्विधीयते ।।'. This is further corroborated by the fact that s. early a writer as प्रतीहारेन्दुराज ascribes noi only the sutras (e. g. araa III. I. 1 2 on p. 17 and IV. 3. 8 on p. 81) but also passages from the वृत्ति to वामन (c. g. the two verses युवतेरिव रूपमक्र काव्यं and यदि भवति which arc cited by वामन under III. 1. 2 are ascribed to वामन on p. 76 and the words 'लक्षयायां हि कगित्यर्थप्रनिपत्तिक्षमत्वं रहस्यमाचक्षते' which occur in the वृत्ति on IV. 3. 8 are ascribed to वामन on p.8t by प्रतीहा- रेन्दुराज. Similarly, the लोचन (p. 43) cites वामन's definition of शाच्ेप and quotes the two instances given in the वृत्ति on IV. 3.27. Most of the examples cited in the qfa are taken from standard works as वामन himself says 'एभिर्निदर्शनैः स्वीयै: परकीयैश्च पुष्कलैः। शब्द्रवैचित्र्यगर्भेयमुपमैंव प्रपन्चिता ।' (on IV. 3. 33). वामन's वृत्ति quotes about 250 verses or parts of verses. As वामन is coparatively a very early writer, his work, which is full of quotations, is of capital importance for settling the chronology of many Sanskrit writers. In this work I have given references to the Nirņayasāgara edition of 1926. Vämana writes in the sūtra style and also borrows the ter- minology of sutra writers in divid ng his work into five अधिकरएs. Each अधिकरण is divided into two or three अध्यायs. There are in all 12 अध्याय (the Ist aud 4ih अधिकरणs having three अo and the rest two each) and 319 sutras. It will be noticed that he reverses the relation of अध्यायs and अधिकरखs, but he appears to have followed कौटिल्य's अर्थशास्त and the कामसूत् in this. Ancient सूत्रकारs divide their works into अध्यायs, each comprising several अधिकरसs. The first अधि० (called शारीर) of वामन speaks of the प्रयोजनs of काव्य, those who are properly qualified to receive ins- truction in Poetics, declares that riti is the soul of poetry, speaks of three रीतिऽ, वैदर्भी, गौडी and पाल्चाली, dilates upon the subsidiary aids to poetry and the divisions of poetry. The 2nd sfio (called दोषदर्शन) speaks of the दोषs of पद, वाक्य and वाक्यार्थ; the third अधि० (called गुणविवेचन) distinguishes between गुख and ACTERT and defines and illustrates the ten gunas (such as शजस्! of words and of sense; the 4th अधि० (called आलक्कारिक) treats uf यमक and अनुप्रास, of उपमा and the six dosas of उपमा, and

KĀVYĀLAŃKĀRASŪTRA OF VĀMANA 141

treats of other अलक्ारs based more or less upon उपमा; the fifth अषि० (called प्रायोगिक) speaks of certain conventions to be observed by poets, such as not employing the same word twice, observance of rules of सन्धि in the padas of a verse except at the end of the first half, non-employment of words like ag at the beginning of a ura and points out how grammatical purity may be secured, examines and tries to explain away some apparent irregularitics in the works of poets of old. The last अध्याय (on शब्दशुद्धि) resembles the 6th परिच्छेद of भामह's 'work. But there is a differencce between the two. arHE (in VI. 32-60) illustrates certain formations of words based on Pāņini's sūtras that should be employed or not employed by poets and he generally follows the serial order of chapters and pādas of the Āstādhyāyī; while Vāmana (in V. 2. 1-92) takes up words (but not in the order of the chapters of the Astā- dhyāyi) that have been used or are likely to be used and shows how the use is wrong or may in some cases be explained away. For example, (in V. 2. 1) he says that the use of the word t as an एकशेषद्रन्द् (to represent रुद्रश्च रुद्राणी च) is not proper, if we read पा. I. 2. 67 with पा. IV. 1. 48. In the वृत्ति on V. 2. 1 he says the forms इन्द्री, भवौ, शर्वों are not proper. This appears to be aimed at भामह VI. 32 (सरूपरोषं तु पुमान् ख्तिया यत्र च शिष्यते। यथाह वरुणा- बिन्द्रौ भवी शर्वां मृडाविति ॥). In V. 2. 15 वामन says that the word बिम्बाघर frequently used by poets should be अवरबिम्ब if we consider पा. II. 1. 56 (उपमितं व्याघ्रादिभिः सामान्याप्रयोगे), but that word can be justified if it is taken as a मध्यमपदलोपिसमास (बिम्बाकारोऽघरः बिम्बाधरः). The अलक्ारs defined and illustrated (besides अनुप्रास, यमक and उपमा) are (in order): प्रतिवस्तूपमा, समासोक्ति, अप्रस्तुत०, अपह्नुति, रूपक, श्लेष, वक्रोक्ति, उत्प्रेक्षा, अतिशयोक्ति, सन्देह, विरोध, विभावना, अनन्वय, उपमेयोपमा, परिवृत्ति, क्रम, दीपक, निदर्शन, अर्थान्तर०, व्यतिरेक, विशेषोक्ति, व्याजस्तुति, व्याजोकि, तुल्ययोगिता, आन्षेप, सहोक्ति, समाहित, संसृष्टि, उपमारूपक, उत्प्रेक्षावयव (i.e. 33 in all). It will be noticed that arga does not define such figures as पर्यायोक्त, प्रेयः, रसवत्, ऊर्जस्वि, उदास, भाविक, सूचम Some of the definitions of वामन appear to be hased on भामह e.g. उपमा (भामह II. 30, वामन IV.2.1), विभावना (भामह I]. 77, वामन IV. 3.13). Among the authors and works that are expressly named are: कविराज (as a great poet, IV. 1. 10), कामन्दकीनीति (IV. 1.2.), कामशासत्र, छन्दोविचिति, नाममाला (a lexicon. I. 3.5), विशाखिल (a writer on कलाशास्त्र, I.3.7), शू द्रक (for works exhibiting श्लेषगुख, III. 2. 4), हरिप्रबोध for यमकs (IV. 1. 2). On III 2. 2 वामन says: 'साभिप्रायत्वं

142 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

यथा-सोयं संप्रति चन्द्रगुप्ततनयश्चन्द्रप्रकाशो युवा जातो भूपतिराश्रयः कृतधियां दि्ट्या कृतार्थश्रमः ॥ भाश्रयः कृतधियामित्यस्य (च सुबन्धु-v. 1.) वसुबन्धुसाचिव्योपच्चेपपरत्वाव साभिप्रायत्वम्'. Round this a great controversy has raged as to what king is referred to as a and whether the proper read- ing is वसुबन्धुसाचिव्यो० or whether it is च सुबन्धुसाचिव्यो०. Vide I.A. vol. 40 (1911) p. 170 ff. (Prof. Pathak), p. 264 (Dr. Hoernle) and I. A. vol. 41 (1912) p. 1 (Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar) in favour of वसुबन्धु and I.A. 1911 p. 312 (Prof. Narasimhachar), I. H. Q. vol. I. p. 261, I. A. 1912 p. 15 (M. M. Haraprasāda Sastri) in favour of the reading च सुबन्धु. It depends upon the reading one adopts what historical incident is referred to. If we read वसुबन्धुसानिव्यो० then the reference would be to चन्द्रगुप्त, समुद्रगुप्त and वसुबन्धु and if we read it च सुबन्धुसाचिष्यो० then the reference is to चन्द्रगुप्तमौर्य, his son बिन्दुसार and his minister gaay. Vide Dr. Prof. Dasharatha Sarma in J.H.Q. vol. X. pp. 761 ff., who sees a close resemblance between this stanza quoted by arHa and the third stanza of the Mehrauli Pillar Inscription (Gupta Inscriptions p. 139, at p. 141). Now that the अभिनवभारती informs us of a play called वासवदत्तानाव्यधारा composed by महाकवि सुबन्धु, it is not necessary to hold that the reference to gay in this verse quoted by Vämana or the refe- rence to वासवदत्ता by Bana must necessarily be to the author of the prose romance called वासवदत्ता. On p. 172 of the G.O.S. edition vol. III. of the अभिनवभारती we find : तत्रास्य बछुतरव्यापिनो बडुगमस्त्रप्रायिततुल्यस्य नाव्यायितस्योदाहररं महाकविसुबन्धुनिवद्धो वासवदत्तानाट्य- धाराख्यः समस्त एव प्रयोग:। तत्र हि बिन्दुसारः प्रयोज्यवस्तुत उदयनचरिते सामाजिकी- कृतोपि &c. Vide Prof. Pathak in J.B.B.R.A. S. vol. 23 pp.185- 187 where he says that the verse quoted by वामन refers to कुमारगुप्त, son of चन्द्रगुप्त II (413-455 A.D.) परमार्थ (499-569 A. D.) says that वसुबन्धु died at the age of 80 during बालादित्य's reign. So वसुबनधु flourished about 420-500 A.D. (J.R.A.S. for 1905 pp. 33- 53). वसुबन्धु's श्भिधर्मकोश is mentioned by बाख in हर्षचरित VIII. For more recent discussions, vide I.H.Q. vol. 18 pp. 373-375, vol. 19 pp. 69-72, vol. 20 pp. 85 and 366. In the भवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा, सुबन्धु is mentioned immediately after वाल्मीकि, व्यास and one more (probably पाशिनि or पतञ्जलि) and before the बृहत्कथा, शद्रक, भास, कालिदास, वाख. The poets are arranged more or less in a chronological order. Therefore, gaay in the भ. सु. कथा must be a very ancient author. The words (सुबन्धु: किल निष्क्रान्तो बिन्दुसारस्य बन्धनात् । तस्यैव हृदयं बद्ध्वा वत्सराजो ... ) in the intro.

KĀVYĀLANKĀRASŪTRA OF VĀMANA 143

verse of भ. सु. क. are not to be taken too literally. सुबन्धु did not literally escape from the prison of बिन्दुसार as some suppose; what is meant is that the story of बत्सराज captivated सुबन्धु's heart and that सुबन्धु did not become subservient to बिन्दुसार, but made the latter serve his own purpose and reduced बिन्दुसार to the position of a spectator. This, therefore, is probably a reference to वासवदत्तानाव्यधारा and the नाट्यायित therein mentioned by अभिनवगुप्त (p. 178 of G.O.S. ed. vol. III of भ. भा.). To me it appears that what Vamana wrote was most likely वसुबन्धुसाचिव्यो०. The reading च सुबनधु० does not convey the force of च. What does च connect? As time passed by, वसुबन्धु, a Buddhist writer, came to be for- gotten and as grry became more known the scribes either read वसुबन्धु as 'च सुबनधु' or purposely read so in order to make the passage refer to a well-known author. The mere fact (on which M.M. Haraprasad Shastri relies) that many mss. read च सुबन्धु is not enough. Most of these mss. are later by several centuries than Vamana. If there had been not a single ms. giving the reading बसुबन्धु, the matter would have been different. Among the works quoted from, though not actually named, are the अमरुशतक, उत्तरराम० (इयं गेहे लक्षमी: on IV. 3.6), 1कादम्बरी, किरातार्जुनीय, कुमारसम्भव, मालतीमाधन, मृच्छकटिक (धृतं दि नाम पुरुषस्यासिंहासनं राज्यं on IV. 3. 23), मेघदूत, रघुवंश, विक्रमोवशीय, वेणीसंहार, शाकुन्तल, शिशुपालवध, हर्षचरित. The verse यासां बलि: (on V.1.3) occurs in the मृच्छकटिक (I.9) as well as in the चारुदत्त ([. 2) ascribed to भास. The words 'यो भर्त- पिएडस्य कृते न युध्येत्' (cited as an ungrammatical प्रयोग on V. 2.13) occur in कौटिल्य's भर्थशाख and in the प्रतिज्ञायगन्धरायण (IV.3). The verse 'शरच्छशाङ्कगौरेय वाताविद्धन भामिनि। काशपुष्पलवेनेदं साश्रुपातं मुखं कृतम्।।' cited as an example of व्याजोकि ([V. 3. 25) occurs with slight variations in the स्वप्नवासवदत्ता (IV. 8) ascribed to भास. The words मातकं मानभहूरं on वामन V. 2. 38 seem to be a misreading taken from भामह 'मदो जनयति प्रीति सानऊं मानमकुरम्' II. 27. He refers to the view of other writers on अलक्कार : उत्प्रेक्षैवातिशयोक्तिरिति केचित (IV.3.10); अर्थान्तरन्यासस्य हेतुरूपत्वाद्धेतोश्चान्वयव्यतिरेकात्मकत्वान्न ततः पृथग् व्यतिरेक इति केचित IV. 3. 21; उपमानाधिक्यात्तदपोह इत्येके-IV. 2. 18; 'अनयोर्दोषयोविंपर्ययाख्यस्य दोषस्यान्तर्मावान्न पृथगुपादानम्। अत एवास्माकं मते षड् दोषा इति' on IV. 2.11 (this seems to refer to मेषाविन् or to भामह II.39). He often says शरोकाश्चात्र भवन्ति (which are probably quota-

1 On सूत्र V. 2. 44 वामन' वृत्ति is 'अनुकरोति भगवतो नारायणस्य इत्यत्रापि मन्ये स्मशब्द: कविना प्रयुक्तो लेखकैस्तु प्रमादान्न लिखित इति'.

144 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

tions); vide III. 1. 25 'eleven verses' and III 2. 15 (three verses). Vämana is the protagonist of the riti school. It was he who boldly asserted that riti was the soul of poetry (रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य। विशिष्टा पदरचना रीतिः । विशेषो गुणात्मा । I. 2.6-8). Some of the other doctrines peculiarly associated with his name are; I the distinction between गुus and अलक्कारS (काव्यशोभायाः कर्तारो धर्मा गुखाः । तदतिशयहेतवस्त्वलङ्गाराः। II. 2.1-2). This view is strongly criticized by the काव्यप्रकाश (VIII p. 471, Va); II three styles वैदर्भी, गौडी and पाळाली; III the inclusion of वक्रोक्ति as an अर्थालक्कार and its definition as 'सादृश्याल्गक्षणा' (IV 3.8 उन्मिमील कमलं सरसीनां कैरवं च निमिमील मुहूर्तात। श्त्र नेत्रधर्मावुन्मीलननिमीलने सादृश्याद्विकाससक्कोचौ लक्षयतः); IV the peculiar definition of विशेषोक्ति as एकगुणहानिकल्पनायां साम्यदाढर्य विशेषोकिः' (IV. 3. 23), which according to जगन्नाथ and others is रूपक (दृढारोप); V the two meanings given to the figure आक्षेप (उप- मानस्य आव्ेप: प्रतिषेध: तुल्यकार्यार्थस्य नैरर्थक्यविवक्षायामानेपः, उपमानस्याक्षेपतः प्रतिपत्तिरित्यपि सूत्रार्थः), which respectively correspond to the प्रतीप and समासोक्ति of मम्मट and others. The commentator सहदेव on the काव्यालक्वारसूत्र tells us that वामन'S work went out of vogue and भट्टमुकुल restored its tradition after obtaining a copy of it. 'वेदिता सर्वशास्त्रायं भट्टोभून्मुकुलाभिधः । लग्ध्बा कुतश्चिदादर्श भ्रष्टाम्नायं समुद्धतम् ॥ काव्यालक्कारशालरं यस्तेनैतवामनोदितम्।अरसूया तन्न कतव्या विशेषालोकिभि:क्वचित्।।' (notes p. 117 to the काव्यमीमांसा of राजशेखर). राजशेखर in his काव्यमीमांसा speaks of an alankarika called Mangala and quotes a passage of his, viz. "ते च द्विधा भरोचकिन: सतृाभ्यवहारिणश्च इति महलः । 'कवयोऽपि भवन्ति' इति वामनीयाः ॥" (p.14). वामन says 'अरोचकिनः सतृणाभ्यवहारिणश्च कवयः' (I.2.1) which वामनS वृत्ति explains as 'अरोचकिसतृणाम्यवहारिशब्दौ गौणार्थी कोडसावर्थ :- विवेकित्व- मविवेकित्वं चेति।'. अरोचकिन: means persons who suffer from absence of appetite i. e. metaphorically 'persons who have a fastidious taste' and सतृाम्यवहारिण: means (literally) 'persons, that eat everything including grass' i. e. metaphorically 'persons who accept any kind of literature without discrimination'. राजशेखर quotes the views of मङल on pp. 11, 16 and 20. The last is interesting. The question is about काव्यपाक. The view of मङल is that paka means परिणाम i.e. the grammatical purity of nouns and verbs. According to the followers of वामन, paka means 'the difficulty or impossibility of putting other words in place of those that the poet has employed.' राजशेखर quotes two verses with the words तदाङुः, both of which are quoted in वामन's वृत्ति on

KÂVYÂLANKĀRASÚTRA OF VĀMANA 145

I. 3.15 with the words भन्न छोकौ. The whole passage is quoted below from the काव्यमीमांसा. हेमचन्द्र in his काव्यानुशासन quotes बामन many times and in one place states (p. 195) that बामन and HWer held the same view. Dandin defined the guna ojas as consisting in abundance of compound wordsª and further stated that ojas was the life of prose, while even in the poems of the Gaudas compounds abounded. But Hemachandra says that Vamana and Mangala hold the view that ojas being common to all three ritis viz. Vaidarbhi, Gaudīyā and Pāñcāli (Vāmana I. 2.9 and 11), it is unreasonable to mention the Gaudīyā alone in connection with ojas and therefore Vāmana defines 'ojas as गाढबन्धत्वमोजः' (III. 1.5.) and 'भर्थस्य प्रौढिरोजः' III. 2.2. माशिक्यचन्द्र in his काव्यप्रकाशसक्केत (Mysore ed. p.292) refers to this difference of view between दयडी on the one hand and वामन and मङल on the other.3 सोमेश्वर in his commentary on the काव्य- प्रकाश also mentions the opposing views of भरत and मझल on भोजसू (folio 89b). It appears that दखडी seized upon one part of

1. कः पुनरयं पाकः इत्याचार्याः । परिखामः-इति मङलः। कः पुनरयं परिखामः- इत्याचार्याः । सुपां तिगा च श्रवः सैषा व्युत्पत्तिः-इति मझलः । सौशब्धमेतद्। पद निवेशनिष्कम्पता पाक :- इत्याचार्याः । तदाहुः। आवापोदरये तावबावद्दोलायते मनः । पदानां स्थापिते स्थैर्ये हन्त सिद्धा सरस्वती। आाग्रहपरिग्रहादपि पदस्थयपयंवसाय- स्तस्मात्पदानां परिवृत्तिवमुख्यं पाक :- इति वामनीया। तदाहुः। यत्पदानि त्यजन्स्येव परिवृत्तिसहिष्णुताम्। तं शब्दन्यायनिष्णाताः शब्दपाक प्रचक्षते। काव्यमी० p.20. The printed वामन reads भाषानोद्धरये, पदस्य and शब्दन्यास० (in वृत्ति on I.3.15). For सौशब्ध, compare भामइ I. 14-15. Vide भग्निपुराख 346.22-23 'उच्चैः परिशर्ति कापि पाक इत्यभिषायते। मृद्दीकानारिकेलाम्युपाकमेदा- 5चतुर्विधः । आादावन्ते च सौरस्यं मृद्धीकापाक एव सः ।.' 2. भोज: समासभूयस्त्वमेतद्गधस्य जीवितम्। पधेप्यदात्तिखात्यानामिदमेकं परा- परम्।। काव्यादर्श I. 80. 3. दणड् युक्तं समासदैरध्यमोज इत्यपि न। रीतित्रयेप्योजसः साधारयत्वाद गौडीया निर्देशो न युक्तिमानिति वामनमझली। काव्य. प्र. संकेत p.292. 4. भरत defined भोजस् 'समासवद्गिर्वद्मिर्विचिश्रैश्म पदैयुंतम्। सानुरागैरदा- रैश्च तदोज: परिकीत्यते ॥' नाट्यशा 16. 105 (G.O. S. edition). भमिनव- gs explains this verse (भ. भा. vol. II. pp. 340-41), quotes the quarter विल्लुलितमकरन्दा मजरीनतयन्ति cited by यामन under गाढबन्धत्वमोज: for illustrating the word सानुराग: in भरतs definion and mentions the word गाढलवं in connection with it. The definition of भोजस् in the Ch. ed. of the नाव्यशास (17.103) is totally different from the one in the G.O.S. edition. It may further be noted that two

146 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

मरत's definition of ओोजस् (viz. समासवद्धिबदुभिः) while वामन relied upon two others (viz. सानुराग: and उदारैः) in defining भोज: as शब्दगुय and अथगुय respectively. Therefore, as Vamana omits all reference to समासभूयस्त्व in defining ओजस् there is nothing 'irregular' (as Prof. Bhattacharya thinks in I. H. Q. vol. III p. 380 note 2) in Mānikyacandra's putting Vāmana and Mangala together. What relation exists between वामन and मङल it is difficult to say. राजशेखर speaks of वामनीयs (school of वामन) and माणिक्यचन्द्र says वामनमझली and not मझलवामनौ. From thes: two indications and from the fact that Mangala is very rarely mentioned while वामन is mentioned frequently by प्रतिहारेन्दुराज and भभिनवगुप्त, I infer that मझल came after Vamana and not before. The date of Vamana can be settled within very narrow limits. Vide my article in JBBRAS vol. 23 (1909 p. 91 ff.) राजशेखर in his काव्यमीमांसा quotes (pp.14 and 20) the वामनीय school. राजशेखर flourished in the first quarter of the tenth century. प्रती- हारेन्दुराज, as shown above, quotes वामन frequently and so does the लोचन (pp .. 9, 12, 224) and the अभिनवभारती vol. I p. 288 (where वामन I. 3.30-31 are quoted). Therefore वामन flourished before 900 A.D. On the verse अनुरागवती सन्ध्या दिवसस्तत्पुरःसरः । भरो दैवगतिः कीदृक्तथापि न समागमः ॥ cited in the ध्व० (p. 44) the लोचन remarks 'वामनाभिप्रायेखायमाक्षेपः, भामहाभिप्रायेश तु समासोक्तिरित्यमुमाशयं हुदये गृहीत्वा समासोक्त्याक्षेपयोरिदमेकमेवोदाहरएं व्यतरद् ग्रन्थकृत्.' So According to the लोचन, वामन preceded the ध्वo (which was composed in the latter half of 9th century) and must have flourished before 850 A.D. The ध्वनिकारिका (III. 52 अस्फुटस्फुरितं काव्यतत्त्वमेतधथोदितम्। भ्रश- कनुवद्धिर्व्याकर्तु रीतयः संप्रवर्तिता:) probably refers to वामन. वामन quotes the verse इयं गेहे लक्ष्मी: (उत्तरराम० I) under रूपक (IV. 3.6.) and the

out of the several examples of अर्थस्य प्रौढिरोज: in वामनसूत्रवृत्ति (viz अथ नयनसमुत्यं from रघुवंश 1I. 75 and ते हिमालयमामन्त्रय from कुमार सम्भव IV 93} are mentioned by अभिनवगुप्त in explaining the word उदारैः in भरत's definition of ओजस. सोमेश्वर says तत्रावगीतस्य हीनस्य वा वस्तुनः शब्दार्थसम्पादयदुदाशत्वं निषिश्चन्ति कवयस्तदोज इति भरतः । अनवगीतस्याहीनस्य वा वस्तुनः शब्दांरथयोरर्थसम्पदापदमुदात्तत्वं निषिश्वति कवयस्तहि तदनोजः स्यादिति मङलः। यथा ये सन्तोष० ... मेरुर्न मे रोचते ।। ... तस्मात्समासभूयस्त्वमोजस्तन्व गद्यविभूषयं प्रायेश वृर्तवत्मन्यपि गौडास्तदाद्रियन्ते। रीतित्रये ... निर्देशो न युक्तस्तस्माद्गाढत्वमोज इति बामन:। (folio 89a and b). From this it appears that सोमेश्वर read the definition of भोजस as in Ch. ed.

KĀVYĀLANKĀRASŪTRA OF VĀMANA 147

word 'पक्तमालीपिङ्गलिम्नः' (on V.2. 18) from the मालतीमाधव. भवभूति flourished at some time between 700 and 740 A.D. (vide Dr. Bhandarkar's preface to the मालतीमाधव pp. XIII-XVII ed. of 1905 and Smith in JRAS 1908 p. 793). Therefore, वामन is later than 750 A. D. The राजतर हिखी says that a वामन was a minister of king जयापीढ 'मनोरथः शङ्गदत्तश्चटकः सन्धिमांस्तथा। वभूवुः कवयस्तस्य वामनाधाश्च मन्त्रिय:।।' (IV. 497). Buhler (Kashmir report p. 65) is inclined to give credence to the tradition of the Kashmirian pandits that minister Vamana whom जयापीढ employed was the author of the काव्यालङ्का रसूत्र. If this were accepted it must lead to the result that Vamana flourished about 800 A. D. and was a contempcrary and probably a rival of 3z. It is remarkable that neither of them refers to the other. There is another way of arriving at the same date for वामन. Hequotes some verses from माघ viz. उमौ यदि (शिशु III. 8 on IV 3.10), सितं सितिम्ना (शिशु. I.25 on V. 2. 9) and refers to खलूक्त्वा खलु वाचिकम् (शिशु. II. 70) in the sutra 'न पादादौ खल्वादयः' (V. 1. 5). माघ refers to न्यास, वृत्ति and महाभाष्य in 'अनुत्सत्रपदन्यासा सद्वृत्तिः सन्निबन्धना' (शिशु० II. 112). It has been shown above (p. 118) that the न्यास cannot be earlier than 700 A.D. and that माघ is praised by नृपतुङ्न. So माघ flourished about 725-775. The author of काव्या० सूत्र cannot be identified with वामन, one of the authors of the काशिका, that was composed about 660 A.D. It is worthy of note that वामन holds the same views as the काशिका on certain grammatical points. For example, on the सूत्र 'ब्रह्मादिषु हन्तेर्नियमादरिहाद्यसिद्धिः' (काव्या० सूत्र V. 2.35) वामन says ब्रह्मादिष्वेव, हन्तेरेव, क्विबेव, भूतकाल एवेति चतुविधश्चात्र नियम :; the काशिका on ब्रह्म भ्रूणवृत्रेषु क्विप् (पा. III. 2.27) says the same thing, while the महाभाष्य holds that there is a two-fold नियम only. On 'सुदत्यादयः प्रतिविधेयाः' काव्या० सू० (V.2.68) वामन mentions two ways of explain- ing away words like सुदती, the second of which seems to be the opinion of the काशिका (on 'स्तियां संशायाम्' पा. V. 4. 143). The commentary of गोपेन्द्रतिप्पभूपाल has been published several times. He belongs to the 15th century or is even a little later. He quotes the काव्यप्रकाश, विधाधर, विधानाथ, विदग्धमुखमरडन and other later writers. He quotes a verse in praise of तिप्पभूपाल (on V.1.3). The com. is called कामधेनु. He quotes a भष्टगोपाल who seems to have been a commentator on the काव्यालक्कारसूत्र (on I. 3. 16). The other commentaries are those of महेश्वर (who wrote a commentary styled साहित्यसर्वस्व्र, I. O. cat. p. 321) and of सह्देव.

148 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

13 An Alphabetical list of alankaras (omitting freys) defiend or referred to by भटि, दएडी, भामह, उद्गट and वामन. भतिशयोक्ति found in all. अनन्वय defined by all except द्रएडी who calls it भसाधारणोपमा (II. 37). अनुप्रास found in all. अपह्नुति found in all. भप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा found in all except भट्ि. अर्थान्तरन्यास found in all. भाकेप found in all. But वामन's आक्षेप (IV.3.27) is either समासोकि or प्रतीप of later writers. आावृत्ति treated by दएडी alone (II. 116-119). भाशी: found in भट्ि, दएडी II. 357 and भामह (केषाञ्चिदलक्कारतया मतः in III. 55 and gives an illustration in III. 56). उत्प्रेक्षा treated by all. वामन says (वृत्ति on IV. 3.9.) that उत्प्रेक्षा is भतिशयोक्ति according to some. उत्प्रेक्षावयव found in भट्टि, भामह (III. 47) and वामन (who treats) it as a variety of संसृष्टि IV.3. 31-32). दरडी includes it (II. 359) under उत्प्रेक्षा. उदात् found in all except वामन. (भदि called it उदार according to जयमडला) . उपन्यास-m. by विष्युधर्मोत्तरपुराण alone; vide p. 71 above. उपमा found in all. उपमारूपक found in भट्टि, भामह (III. 35), वामन (who treats it as a variety of संसृष्टि IV. 3.31. दएडी includes it under रूपक (1I. 358). उपमेयोपमा found in all except दएडी (who calls it अन्योन्योपमा II. 18). ऊजस्वि found in all except वामन. काव्यलिक defined by उद्भट alone. क्रम m. by वामन alone (IV.3.17); दएडी says यथासंख्य was S0 called (II. 273). छेकानुप्रास defined by उद्रट alone.

1. Even a great philosopher like सुरेश्वर makes use of the illustration of अनन्वय in his arguments. Vide बृह. उ. भा. बा p. 1149 verses 459-461 (on II. 4. 11 यत्र दि द्वैतमिव भवति) 'नैष दोषो यतो दृष्ट एकस्मिन्नपि वस्तुनि। उ नेयोपमाभावो दिग्धीरिव विहायसि ॥ रामरावणयोयुद्धं राम- रावययोरिव। यथा प्रसिद्धो जगति तरथवेहापि गम्यताम् ॥. This example of भनन्वय is cited by वामन under अ्नन्वय (V. 3.14).

LIST OF EARLY ALANKĀRAS 149

जाति and स्वभावोक्तिare treated as synonyms by Dandin (काव्या- दर्श II. 8). बास also appears to have known it (vide कादम्बरी Introductory verse हरन्ति कं ... कथा:। निरन्तरश्लप- घना: सुजातयो महास्रज &c). तुल्ययोगिता found in all, but दरडी adds that it must be स्तुति- निन्दार्थ (II. 330). दीपक defined by all. वृष्टान्त defined by उद्ट alone. निदर्शन or निदशना found in all, उद्भट calling it विदर्शना. निपुस found in भदि X. 74 alone (may be included under उदार according to जय०, while the same verse is मेय: according to मल्लि०). परिवृत्ति found in all, but भामह (III. 41) and भट्टि (acc. to जयमझ़ला) require it to be अर्थान्तरन्यासवती. पर्यायोक्त found in all except वामन. प्रतिवस्तूपमा found in all except भहि; भामह (II. 34) and दएडी regard it as a variety of उपमा. प्रेय: found in all except वामन. भाविक , " " "' It is a प्रबन्धविषयगय acc. to भामह (III. 53-54) and दएडी (II. 364-366).1 यथासंख्य found in all, वामन calling it क्रम and दएडी saying that it is styled संख्यान and क्रम also (II. 273). यमक found in all except उद्ट. रसवत् found in all except वामन. रूपक found in all. लव-same as लेश. Some commentators of काव्यादर्श read लव for लेश (यामुन and श्रुतानुपालिनी do so). लाटानुप्रास defined by उद्ट alone and referred to by भामह (II.8). लेश defined by दएडी alone (II. 265-267). It is the व्याजोकि of मम्मट. दएडी also says that some defined it so as to make it the same as व्याजस्तुति. भामह (II. 86) denies that it is an अलं०. A later आलक्कारिक रुद्ूट defines and illustrates लेश (VII. 100-102). वक्रोक्ति defined as a figure by वामन alone (IV.3.8); referred to by भामह (II. 85) and दगडी (II. 220 and 363) as under- lying all figures.

1. Vide Dr. Raghavan in 'Some concepts' &c on the history of भाविक pp. 117-130.

150 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

वार्ता found in भहि alone (acc. to जयमझला on X. 46). भामह (II. 87) alludes to it and so does दएडी (I. 85-86). विष्युधर्मोत्तर III. 14. 11 has it, acc. to one ms; vide Dr. Raghavan in 'Some concepts' & c pp. 97-99 and सर. क. I. 142-143. विभावना found in all. विरोध found in all. विशेषोक्ति found in all but वामन's वि० isdefined differently (in IV. 3.23) and is equal to रूपक. व्यतिरेक found in all. व्याजस्तुति found in all. ग्याजोक्ति defined by वामन alone, which was called मायोकि by others, as he says (IV. 3. 25). शिष्ट found in all, वामन using the word श्लेष. संसृष्टि found in all; दएडी calls it सक्कीं and includes संसृष्टि and सकूर in it; वामन gives it a restricted scope recognising only two varieties उपमारूपक and उत्प्रेक्षावयव; उद्धट distingu- ishes it from सक्कर. सक्कर defined by उद्धट alone (with four varieties). संख्यान same as यथासंख्य acc. to दएडी (II. 273), and भामह II. 80 says it was called संख्यान by मेधावी. समासोक्ति found in all. समाहित found in all, but the समाहित of दएडी is different from उ्धट's and is the समाधि of later writers; वामन's समाहित is quite different from both. The verse in af that is समाहित according to जय० is स्त्रभावोक्ति according to मल्लि०. ससन्देह found in all except दएडी who includes is under उपमा calling it संशयोपमा; वामन uses the form सन्देह. सहोक्ति found in all. सूक्ष्म defined by दएडी alone (II. 260); भामह denies that it is an भलं०. 1स्वभावोक्ति defined by दएडी, उ्रट and भामह (II. 93) alone, the latter admitting it according to others and exemplify- ing it also (in II. 94) as भाक्रोशन्नाह्मयन्नन्यानाधावन्मएडलर्नुंदन्। गा वारयति दएडेन गोप: सस्यावतारिणी: ॥. It appears that भामह as a concession to his predecessors acceded to the view that

1. Vide Dr. Raghavan on 'the history of स्वभावोकि' in Indian Culture, vol. V. for 1938 pp.147-166 and in 'Some con- cepts &c.' pp. 92-116, (1942). In the latter he elaborates his former paper.

KĀVYĀLANKĀRA OF RUDRAȚA 151

स्वभावोकि is an अलक्कार and in II. 94 gave an appropriate example; दएडी calls it जाति also. भहटि's वार्ता included स्वभावोक्ति अग्निपुराय 343.3 calls it स्वरूप. हेतु found in भटि and दएडी (II. 235 ff); भामह denies (II. 86) it the position of अलं ०. उद्धट would bring it under काव्यलिश्. 14. The काव्यालयगर of सब्रट. This work has been edited in the KM series with the commentary of नमिसाधु (the third edition of 1928 has been used here). The काव्यालक्कार is an exten- sive work divided into 16 अध्यायs and reviews the whole field of Poetics. It is composed mostly in the Arya 1metre with a few exceptions here and there, particularly at the end of most chapters. All the examples are Rudrata's own. There are in all 734 verses, beside which 14 verses in the 12th अध्याय dealing with the eight kinds of नायिका and their sub-varieties are declared to be interpolations. The shortest chapter is the 13th contain- ing only 17 verses and the longest are the 7th and 8th contain- ing respectively 111 and 110 verses. The contents of the 16 chapters are ;- 1, obeisance to गणेश and गौरी, purposes and objects of काव्य, the essential requisites of a poet viz शक्ति, व्युत्पतति and अभ्यास, and definitions of these; 2, काव्यलक्षण, the five अलक्कारS of शब्द viz. वक्रोक्ि, अनुप्रास, यमक, श्लेष and चित्र are enumerated, the four रीतिs वैदर्भी, 2पाञ्चाली, लाटी and गौडी are briefly defined, six भाषाड (प्राकृत, संस्कृत, मागध, पैशाची, शूरसेनी and अपभ्रंश) in which काव्यs are composed are mentioned, then वक्रोकि and अनुप्रास are defined, divided and illustrated and five वृत्तिs (मधुरा, ललिता, प्रौढा, परुषा and भद्रा) of अनुप्रास are defined; 3, elaborate treatment of यमक in 58 verses; 4, श्लेष and its eight varieties (वर्स, पद, लिक्, भाषा, प्रकृति, प्रत्यय, विभक्ति and वचन and illustrations of भाषाश्लेष (same words in संस्कृत and प्राकृत, पैशाची, शौरसेनी etc); 5, treatment of चित्र, viz. such com- binations and tricks of words as चक्रबन्ध, मुरजबन्ध, भर्धभ्रम, सर्वतोभद्र, मात्राच्युतक, प्रहेलिका etc .; 6, the dosas of पद and वाक्य; 7, the four

1. गोपाल in his com. on the काव्यप्रकाश (Tri. ed. p.2) has a paronomastic verse on रुद्रट referring to his partiality for the भार्या metre 'अतिलोकमल क्वारमाबिभ्रदमृतस्त्नतम् (स्रुतम् !)। आर्याुरागी सर्वशः सत्यं रुद्र: स रुद्रटः ॥'. सर्वश is an appellation of शिव also and भार्या means पार्वती and आार्या metre. 2. 'वृत्तेः समासवत्यास्तत्र स्यू रीतयस्तिस्रः ॥ पाञ्चाली लाटीया गौडीया चेति नामतोऽभिहिता:। लघुमध्यायतविरचनसमासभेदादिमास्तत्र ॥ ... वृत्तरसमासाया बैदभी रीतिरेकैव।। काव्यालक्वार II. 3, 4, 6.

152 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS .

bases of the figures of भर्थ viz. वास्तव, शपम्य, भर्तिशय and श्लेष and definitions of 23 figures based upon वास्तव; 8, 21 figures based on भपम्य; 9, 12 figures based upon अतिशय; 10, ten varieties of शुद्ध- श्लेष and two kinds of सक्कर; 11, the nine dosas of भर्थ and four dosas of उपमा; 12, ten rasas, definition of शृम्गार and its two varieties सम्मोग and विप्रलम्भ, qualities of नायक and his companions and varieties of नायक and नायिका; 13, सम्भोगश्द्गार and characteristic actions of heroines at particular times and places; 14, characteristics of विप्रलम्भश्रृक्गार, the ten दशाs of विप्रलम्भ, the six उपायs for winning over an offended lady, viz. साम, दान, भेद, प्रणति, उपेचा, प्रसन्नभ्रंश; 15, characteristics of वीर and the other rasas; 16, various kinds of poetic compositions such as कथा, भाख्यायिका and their plots and other.characteristics. रुद्रट was the first to attempt a scientific classification of figures as based upon certain definite principles, such as वास्तव, भौपम्य, शतिशय and श्लेष. The result of rigorously following this classi- fication has been this that the same figure occurs as an अलक्कार based upon two or more from among the four bases of division. For example, the figures सहोक्ति and समुच्चय are spoken of as having two varieties based upon वास्तव and औपम्य (in VII. Il and VIII. 3) and the figure उत्प्रेक्षा (VIII. 2 and IX 2) as having two varieties based upon औपम्य and अतिशय. Some of the figures separately defined by writers like भामह and उद्र are not separately defined by रुद्रट, e.g. उपमेयोपमा and अनन्वय are regarded as mere varieties of उपमा (called उभयोपमा and अनन्वयोपमा, 7.9 and 11). A few figures defined by both earlier and later writers appear in Rudrata under other names. For example, the figure called ग्याजश्लेष (10. 11) is the same as the ब्याजस्तुति of भामह and मम्मट, अवसर (7. 102) is the same as the 2nd kind of the उदात of उद्ट and मम्मट, the जाति of रुद्रट (7.30) is the same as the स्वमावोकि of दएडी and मम्मट, the पूर्व of रुद्रट (9. 3) is the same as the 4th variety of अतिशयोक्ति (कार्यकारणयोर्यक्ष पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययः). Some of the figures defined by रुद्रट are not admitted as अलक्गारs by other writers. हेतु (defined as 'हेतुमता सह हेतोरमिधानममेदकुद्मवेद्यत्र' 7. 82) is said by मम्मंट to be no अलक्वार at all. रुद्रट defines an अलक्कार called भाव (with two well-known varieties, 7. 38 and 40) and gives two instances : आमतरुणं तरुएया नववञ्जुलमअरीसनाथकरम्। पश्यन्स्या भवति मुदुर्नितरां मलिना मुखच्छाया ॥; एकाकिनी यदवला तरणी तथाहमस्मिन्गृहे गृष्तपतिश्च गतो विदेशम्। कि याचसे तदिह वासमियं वराकी श्रश्मूर्ममान्धवधिरा ननु मूढ पान्य ।।'. The first is cited by मम्मट (I) and the second by the लोचन (p.53).

KĀVYĀLANKĀRA OF RUDRAȚA 153

In both there is arra sense which is subordinated to the any sense. Similarly, the figures मत (VIII. 69), साम्य (VIII.105), पिहित (IX. 50) are not defined by other early writers. About Rudrata we know very little. He seems to have been a Kashmirian as his name suggests1. At the beginning of his work he performs an obeisance to Ganesa and Gauri and at the end he praises भवानी, मुरारि and गजानन. While comment- ing upon V. 12-14 नमिसाधु says 'अत्र च च क्रे स्वनामाङ्कभूतोयं क्रोकः कविना- न्तर्भावितो यथा-शतानन्दापराख्येन भट्टवामुकसूनुना। साधितं रुद्रटेनेदं सामाजा धीमता हितम् ।'. This shows that रुद्रट was also called शतानन्द, that his father's name was वामुक and that he was a student of the सामवेद. Tz does not mention any author by name. But he seems to refer to भरत's नाव्यशास by the word आचार्ये: (in 12. 4), to मयूर (I.9 नुत्वा तथाहि दुर्गा केचित्तीर्णां दुरुत्तरां विपदम्। अपरे रोगविमुक्ति वरमन्ये लेमिरेऽभिमतम् ॥). He refers to the opinions of others, as in II. 2 (and नमिसाधु says thereon that the reference is to मेधाविरुद् and others who held that {z is of four kinds only and not five), VII. 17. One geographical reference (in VII. 105) to the river Siprā and Mālava ladies is interesting. रुदट must be regarded as a representative of the अलक्कार school. Although he knows the rasa theory propounded by Bharata and although he says that kavya must be endowed with रस (तस्माचत्कर्तव्यं यत्नेन महीयसा रसैयुक्तम् । chap. 12.2), still he looked upon alankāras as very important. It is a noticeable feature that he does not attach importance to the ritis, though he casually refers to them (II. 4-6, XIV. 37, XV. 20) and speaks of four ritis; and the gunas are not defined and illustrated by him. The साहित्यदर्पण (IX. 2) quotes from रुद्रट an Arya about वैदर्भी which is not found in the काव्यालङ्कार. Some of the special features of रुद्रट's काव्यालद्कार are: (1) He was the first to pro- pound some basis for the classification of Alankāras (viz. anaq, शपम्य, अतिशय, श्लेष); (2) to the nine well-known rasas he adds प्रेयस् (12.3 and 15.17) as the 10th रस, (3) he does not attach

1. There is no doubt that many Kashmirian names end in z. But there is no monopoly in names. In a grant of the Gurjara Pratīhāra king Bhojadeva of Kanoj dated in the Vikrama year 893 (i.c. 836-37 A.D.) an officer named az is found; 'रद्रटेन प्रयुक्तस्य आसनस्य स्थिरायतेः। दूतको बालादित्योत्र राज्यभट्टारिका- ga: 1.' Vide E. I. Vol. 19 p. 15 at p. 18.

154 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

much importance to afas; (4) he omits the treatment of guņas; (5) In his alankāra called a he makes a very near approach to the theory of saa sense being the main point in a poem. The अलं. स. p. 6 refers to this special point about रद्रट. The सङ्गीतरत्नाकर (p.82 of Anan. ed.) mentions a रुद्रट as सभ्जीताचार्य. But there is nothing to show that he was the same as the author of the काव्यालक्कार The date of Rudrata can be settled with a good deal of certainty. He defines more figures than भामह, दएडी and उङ्ट and his treatment is precise and scientific. He is, therefore, somewhat later than these writers. He is quoted by numerous writers from the tenth century downwards. राजशेखर in his काग्यमीमांसा (p.31) mentions him by nam: 'काकुतक्रोक्तिर्नाम शब्दा- लक्कारोयमिति रुद्रट: and quotes (onp. 57) the verse चक्र दहतारं चक्रन्द हतारं (रुद्रट III. 4). प्रतीहारेन्दुराज frequently quotes the verses of without actually naming him (vide pp. 11, 31, 34, 42, 43, 49, where ₹z 8. 40, 8.89, 8. 95, 7. 35, 7. 36 and 12. 4 are respectively quoted). In the दशरूपकटीका by धनिक (on IV. 35), रुद्रट (XII. 4) is quoted. The लोचन (p. 53) quotes रुद्रट's definition of भाव (VII. 38) and his example. मम्मट quotes him by name (IX p. 521 Va.) and criticizes his views about हेतु, समुच्चय and व्यतिरेक (क्षीय: क्षीखोपि शशी etc.). Therefore रुद्रट is not later than about 900 A. D. 3Te in his commentary on the first verse of the योगयात्रा of Varahamihira (of which there is a ms. in the Bhau Daji collection in the B. B. R. A. S.) names « and quotes his definition of अनन्वय and his example of it also (viz. काव्यालक्कार 8. 11 and 12). At the end of his commentary on the बृहज्जातक published in the Harikrishna Nibandha series (Benares 1934) there are a few verses one of which says that the commentary was composed in śaka 888 (i.e. in 966 A.D.). But great doubt is cast on the genuineness of these verses by two matters, viz those verses are absent from Utpala's commentary ir a ms. (D. C. No. 177 of A 1882-83) at the BORI, Poona. The 2nd matter is that in a paper by the great astronomer and expert in cunei- form texts in Babylon, Prof. Otto Neugebauer, published in the Bulletin of the Royal Academy of Belgium for 1957 (pp. 133- 140) about the Greek translation of Abu Ma'shar's version on dreșkāņas where it is said on p. 134 n. 3 that Abu Ma'shar died in 886 A.D., that his translation contains a passage about the 3rd Dreșkāņa of Aries that belongs to Utpala's commentary. This

KĀVYĀLANKĀRA OF RUDARȚA 155

would compel us to hold that Utpala must have flourished before 880 A.D. at the latest and that therefore Rudrata whom Utpala quotes must be placed before about 850 A.D.1 The above con- clusion is fortified by another consideration. It appears that Vallabhadeva who wrote a commentary on the Sisupālavadha eommented on रुद्रट. On Sisu. II. 44 वल्लभदेव says 'नात्र भिन्नलिक्रा- नामौपम्यं दोषायेति रुद्रट:' On शिशु० IV. 11 वल्लभदेव says 'एतदस्माभी रुद्र जटालक्वारे विवेचितम्'.2 On शिशु II. 88 वल्लभदेव says 'उक्तं च शब्दार्थौं काव्य- मिति'. This refers to रुद्रटकाव्यालक्कार II.1 (ननु शब्दार्थी काव्यं). वल्लमदेव's son's son कय्यट wrote a commentary on the Devisataka of भानन्द- वर्धन in गतकलि 4078 when भीमगुप्त was ruler of Kashmir (i.e.in 977 A. D.). Allowing 25 years for each generation वल्लभदेव must have been a grown-up man in 927 A. D. and was probably born about or before 900 A. D. Therefore, on whose work he commented must have flourished some time bcfore 850 A.D. रुद्रट is quite unaware of the ध्वनि theory and has great affinity with भामह and उद्गट. He was probably a contemporary of or a little older than the author of the ध्वनिकारिका and flourished about 825-850 A. D. The commentator नमिसाधु deserves more than a passing notice. He was a श्वेताम्बर जैन and pupil of शालिभद्र. He speaks of कुट्रट as सूत्रकार (8. 37, 6. 9). He composed his commentary in the year 1125 of the विक्रम era (i. e. 1068-69 A. D.). One old ms. gives the date as 1176 (i. e. 1119-20 A.D.). This latter date is wrong as नमिसाधु's com. called षडावश्यकटीका was composed in विक्रमसंवत् 1122 (1065-6 A.D.). Vide Peterson's Report III. p.13. नमिसाधु is an early writer. He followed older commentators as he himself says 'पूर्वमहामतिविरचितवृत्त्यनुसारे किमपि रचयामि' and refers to other explanations of z's words (en II. 1, V. 23, VIII. 28 and 31). His commentary, though generally concise and to the point, contains many quotations. Among the authors and works either named or quoted from are the following :- अजुनचरित (16. 4), उद्बट (6. 33), कादम्बरी, किरातार्जुनीय, जयदेव (1.18, as a writer on metrics), तिलकमअरी (16. 3) दएडी, नाममाला, पाताल-

1. Vide my paper on 'Varāhamihira and Utpala' in J. B.B.R. A. S., New Series, vol. 24-25 at pp. 22-23 and 26 for उत्पल and रुद्रट. 2. रुद्रजटालक्कारे (in the Kashi S. Series which has been relied upon here) is obviously a wrong reading for रुद्र टालक्गारे.

156 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

विजयमहाकाव्य of पखिनि (2.8.), पिङल, बृहत्कथा (2.12 peculiarities of पैशाची noted), भरत (12. 4 and 44), भ्तृ हरि, भामह (8. 84, 10.2), माघकाव्य (1.20, VIII. 64), मालतीमाधव (7. 33), मृच्छकटिक (8. 1), मेवाविरुद्र (I.2, II.2), मेघदूत, रत्नावली (7. 33), वामन1 (1. 20, 8. 10) विकटनितम्बा (6. 47), वेपीसंहार (7. 73), शिवभद्र (IV.4), शिशुपालवध, हरि (on 2.19, a writer in Prakrit on Poetics), हर्षचरित. There is a commentary on रुद्र's work composed by आशाधर. It has already been stated above that वल्लभदेव wrote a com. on रुद्रट; there is another commentary called रसतरदविणी by गोपालभट्ट, son

There is a work called शृङ्गारतिलक composed by रुद्रभट्ट. A keen controversy has raged for several years as to whether रुद्रभट्ट and रुदट are identical. Weber, Buhler (Kashmir Report p. 67), Aufrecht (Z. D. M. G. vol. 36 p. 376) and Pischel (in his Intro. to शृङ्गारतिलक p. 5 ff. and Z. D. M.G. 42,1888, p. 296-304) held the view that they were identical, while Pandit Durgaprasad, Dr. Jacobi (VOJ I888 vol. II. pp. 151- 156 and Z. D. M. G. 42 pp. 425-435), Dr. Harichand in his work on Kālidāsa (pp. 91-95) think that they are distinct persons. This question must be briefly discussed here. The शृक्गारतिलक has been published in the K. M. Series. It is divided into three परिच्छेदs. The first परि० deals with the nine rasas, the bhāvas, the various kinds of Nayaka and Nayika. The second speaks of विप्रलम्भश्ृ्गार, the ten stages of love in separation, the six upayas for winning over one's offended beloved. The third treats of the other rasas and the four vrttis कैशिकी, सास्वती,

1. On रुद्रट I. 20 नमिसाधु says 'तथा क्षपिमिलि अरथिवचिक्लिबप्रभृतयो धातवो धातुगरोषु पठिता अपि'. This I take is a reference to वामन'S काव्यालक्कारसूत्र V. 2.2. 2. Dr. Bhandarkar's Report on the search for mss. for 1883-84 (pp. 391-93) contains an excerpt from a प्रशस्ति of आशाधर in धर्मामृतयतिघर्मटीका, where he describes himself as a Jain, as the son of सल्लक्षण and father of छाइड. Verse 15 mentions that he wrote a commentary on रुद्रट (रुद्रटस्य व्यधात् काव्यालक्ारस्य निबन्धनम्). He was the author of several works such as a com. on. अमरकोश, on the भ्ष्टाङहृदय of वाग्भट, त्रिषष्टिस्मृतिशास्त्र, रत्नत्रयविधान- शाख and calls himself कलिकालिदास. He composed the प्रशस्ति in विक्रमसंवत् 1300 i. e. 1244 A. D. (verse 31). Vide E. I. vol. 9 at p. 107 for आशाधर.

RUDRAȚA 157

भारमटी and भारती. रुद्रभद्ट says that he treats of rasas in their rela- tion to kavya, while Bharata spoke of them with reference to नाव्य; 'प्रायो ना्यं प्रति प्रोक्ता भरताथ रसस्थितिः । यथामति मयाप्येषा काव्यं प्रति निगयते।' I. 5. The last verses are 'कान्या काव्यकथा कीदृग्वैदग्धी को रसागमः । कि गोष्ठीमएडनं हन्त शृक्गारतिलकं बिना॥ त्रिपुरवधादेव गतामुल्ला- समुमां समस्तदेवनताम्। शरृङ्ारतिलकविधिना पुनरपि रुद्रः प्रसादयति ॥'. The last verse is not found in some mss. That verse has been inter- preted as meaning that m composed another work called त्रिपुरवध. There is no doubt that there is a pun on the words त्रिपुरवध, शृङ्गारतिलक and रुद्र (god Siva and the author रुद्र). It may be suggested as an alternative explanation that in त्रिपुरवध the author is not referring to his own work, but to a play (f) called त्रिपुरदाह said to have been performed by भरत before Siva and his attendants (vide नाट्य० 4. 10) and धनिक's quotation on दशरूप IV. 57-60 'इदं त्रिपुरदाहे तु लक्षणं ब्रह्मयोदितम्। ततस्तिपुरदाहश्व डिमसंज्ञः प्रयोजितः ii' इति भरतमुनिना स्वयमेव &c. The mss. of the शृङ्गारतिलक sometimes give the name of the author as रुद्रट (vide I. O. cat. p.321 No.1131 and Madras Government mss. cat. 1918 p. 8697 No. 12955). The antho- logies also make confusion and quote the verses of the aran- लक्कार as रुद्रट's and also as रुद्र's or रुद्रभट्ृ's. For example, शार्ङ्० No. 3773 ('एकाकिनी यदबला' रुद्रट VII. 41)and No. 3778 ('मलयानिल०' रुद्रट II. 30) are ascribed respectively to रुद्र and भट्टरुद्र; Nos. 575 and 3473 correctly ascribe them to रुद्रट. शाङ० Nos. 3567-68, 3579, 3670, 3675, 3754 are correctly ascribed to रुद्र (the author of शृम्गारतिलक). The examples contained in the शमार- faora appear to be the author's own and may be used for chronological purposes. The earliest authors who quote them are हेमचन्द्र (who quotes, for example, the verses यत्पाखिन निवारितो० under शo I. 44 on p.304 and गाढालिङ्गन० on p. 305 from the शुक्गार० under I. 68) and विश्वनाथ. The very first verse (शुङारी गिरिजानने ... इत्थं सर्वरसाश्रयः पशुपतिभयात् सतां भूतये) of the श० is quoted and found fault with by हेमचन्द्र (p. 110). Therfore, the शक्गारतिलक must have been composed about or before 1100. A. D. After the evidence I led in the History of Alankāra Literature in 1923, it should not have been necessary to go into details to say that ae and a are n.ot identical. But as even after that there are writers like the editor of the भावप्रकाशन (Pp. 68-73 of Intro. GOS) who persist in treating the two as identical I have again to set out the whole evidence.

158 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

On an examination of all that may be urged for and against the identity of the two authors, it must be conceded that there are very weighty grounds for holding that the two are distinct authors. The reasons may be briefly stated. Chapters XII-XIV of Ez cover almost the same ground as the wrnfms and very often in the same words. It does not seem very likcly that the same author would write two works in this manner, the only important addition in the शुभ्गारतिलक being that of the illustrative verses. The warfers in a few cases gives more details, such as the treatment of the four urttis, the definition of the ten stages of love, the sub-divisions of Nāyikā and their definitions. But there are some points where z gives more information e. g. 5a2 14. 22-24. There are some doctrines on which the views of the काव्यालक्वार and of the शृङ्गारतिलक conflict. It is not likely that the same author will impart conflicting directions on vital points. The शह्गारतिलक (I. 10) says that there are nine rasas in काव्य; while रुद्रट says there are ten (12. 3). शङ्ाo speaks of four वृत्तिः (कैशिकी etc. which are transferred from the realm of the drama to that of kavya in general), while ₹az speaks of five वृत्तिs (called मधुरा, प्रौढा etc. II. 19) and is silent about the कैशिकी and other urttis. रुद्रट first classifies नायिका into स्वीया, परकीया and वेश्या and then says that all the three may be अभि- सारिका or खसिडता and sub-divides स्वीया into स्वाधीनपतिका and प्रोषितपतिका; while the शहार० speaks of eight kinds of नायिका in one place (I 72-73, KM ed.). ₹E (12. 39-40) has not one good word to say about .courtesans, but the शङ्गारतिलक, while admitting the justice of the strictures passed by some against them, puts in a defence on their behalf. Compare 5z 12. 39 (सर्वाङ्गना तुवेश्या सम्यगसौ लिप्सते धनं कामात्। निर्गषगुखिनोस्तस्या न द्वष्यो न प्रिय: कश्चित् ॥) with शक्ार० I. 62-63 (सामान्यवनिता वेश्या सा वित्तं परमिच्छति। निर्गुरोपि न विद्वेषो न रागोस्या गुखिन्यपि। तत्स्वरूपमिदं प्रोक्तं कंशिचिय् बूमो वर्य पुनः ।' The शक्ार० winds up by saying about courtesans 'सर्वस्त्रमेतास्तदहो स्मरस्य (I. 69).' The words कैश्चित् in the TFrTo is very suspicious. It seems almost certain that ITFITO refers to az's words. There is a slight difference between the words of रुद्रट 'साच्षाचित्रे स्वप्ने स्यादर्शनमेवमिन्द्रजालेवा। देशे काले भङग्या साधु तदाकर्षनं च स्यात् ॥' (12. 31) and those of the शकार० 'साक्षाच्चित्रे तथा स्वप्ने तस्य स्याद्दर्शनं त्रिधा। देशे काले च भङ्ग्या च श्रवरं चास्य तथथा H' (I.51). Barring such points of difference there is a remarka-

RUDRAȚA 159

ble coincidence of thought and phraseology between the two works, which cannot be explained away by the fact that the subject treated of is the same. There is also one very impo- rtant point to be noted. wz is the name by which the author of the काव्यालद्कार has been mentioned by writers from about 900 A.D. onwards and his काव्यालक्कार quoted by रावशेसर, प्रतीहारेन्दुराज, वल्लमदेव, धनिक, लोचन, नमिसायु (Intro. verse), मम्मट (on काव्यप्रकाश IX 'तथा एकं रुद्रटेन 'स्फुट मर्थालक्कारौ०' काव्यालक्कार IV. 32), भलं. स. p. 6 (रुद्रटेन तु भावालक्वारो द्विधवोक्तः). It is very rema- rkable that none of these writers names रुद्रभट्ट or शङ्गारतिलक. Even taa who is the earliest writer on Poetics to qucte from the शुङ्गारतिलक does not mention the name of the author. It is the anthologies that confuse the two names सद्रट and रुद्र. The सूकतिमुक्तावली of जल्हय (about 1258 A. D.) cites verses from the काव्यालक्कार (such as कि गौरि० II. 15, एकाकिनी यदबला० VII. 41) and from the शङ्गारतिलक only under रद् and does not even name a or cite a single verse under his name. On the other hand the सदुक्तिकर्यामृत of श्रीवरदास (composed in 1205 A. D.) cites almost all verses even from the शङ्गारतिलक under रुद्रट. As both these are among the earliest anthologies it follows that the confusion between the two names came to be made from about 1150 A.D. The editor of the भावप्रकाशन (Intro. p. 69) is wrong in thinking that the editor of the काव्यालक्वार of रुद्रट arbitrarily omitted fourteen verses as spurious after aper XII. 40. They are not com nented upon by नमिसाधु1 as seen from the mss. in the B. O. R. I. The mere fact that the भावप्रकाशन (p. 95) states that रुदट speaks of 384 varieties of नायिका and that the verses called spurious do refer to 384 varieties does not prove anything. That is begging the ques- tion. To those who hold that the two writers came to be confounded by about 1150 A. D. the words of the भावप्रकाशन do not at all matter. This merely shows that the भावप्रकाशन which was composed between 1175-1250 A. D. even acc. to the editor (Intro. p. 76) himself confounds the two authors

1. Vide Cat. of Govt. Mss. at the BORI, Poona, vol. XII. No. 133-135 pp. 147-151. One of the mss. was copied in aian 1471 (1415 A. D.). The editor was perfectly justified in rejecting fourteen verses as spurious when such an old ms. contained no commentary on them.

160 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

just as the anthologies do. The number (384) is given in the शाङ्ारतिलक of रुद्र also (इत्थ' शतत्रयं तासामशीतिश्रतुरत्तरा। I.88]. The भावप्रकाशन practically quotes the शकारतिलक I. 162, omits I. 63 and again quotes श. ति. I.64 and ascribes them to रुद्रट (साधारय- खी गगिका सा वित्तं ... गुशिन्यपि। शृक्गाराभास एव स्यान् शुक्ारः कदाचन। इति द्विषन्तमुदिश्य प्राह श्रीर्द्रट : कविः। भावप्र० p. 95). The भावप्रकाशन (p. 96) quotes सर्वस्व्रमेतास्तदहो स्मरस्य from श. ति. I. 69. The रसायवसुधाकर (pp.30, 87) falls into the same confusion and ascribes the verses ईर्ष्या कुलस्त्रीषु (शरृ. ति. I. 69) and शङ्गारहास्यकरुण- रसातिशयसिद्धये (शृः ति. III. 39) to रुद्रट. The editor of the भावप्रकाशन (p. 70 Intro.) makes light of the difference in the number of rasas mentioned by mz and ; but that will not appeal to those who know the acute and long-standing controversies about the number of rasas. To say that the वृत्तिs कैशिकी and others are अर्थवृत्तिs while the five वृत्तिs of रुद्रट are शब्दवृत्तिs does not deserve much weight on the question of identity. The शङ्गारतिलक also (III. 38 and 40) in defining कैशिकी and आरभटी does emphasize the importance of proper letters, words and compounds : माधुययुक्ताल्पसमासरम्या वाखी स्मृतासाविह कैशिकीति ॥. ओजस्विगुर्वक्षरबन्धगाढा कया युधः सारभटीति afa: Il. Besides, there is no apparent reason why when Rudrata spoke of ten rasas, referred to vyabhicāribhāvas like nirveda, set out Śrngara and heroes &c. (12-3-9 &c.) and prescribed (in 14. 37) the वृत्तिs मधुरा and ललिता and वैदर्भी and पाज्चाली for शुक्ार, he should not have spoken of कैशिकी and other वृत्तिs, which are described in the शङ्गारतिलक immediately after the enumera- tion of व्यभिचारभाव s in relation to each rasa. The only alternative is to suppose that one of the works is based on the other. Taking all the above circumstances together I think that is later than रुद्रट, elaborates the dicta of रुद्रट with illustrations, bases his शुकारतिलक on the काव्यालक्कार and flourished between 950-1100 A. D. धनिक in his comment on दशरूपक (IV. 60) says 'उत्स्वप्रायितो यथा रुद्रस्य-निर्ममन मयाम्भसि०; this is found in neither of the two works. The प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण cites two quotations from रुद्रभट्ट (p.11 and p. 335), which are found in neither of the two works. It cannot be ascertained whether the who is mentioned as author of the त्रैलोक्यसुन्दरीकथा in the तिलकमअरी of धनपाल (verse 35) is the same as the author of the शद्ार० (the verse is स मदान्धक- विध्वंसी रद्र: कैर्नाभिनन्धते। सुरिष्टललिता यस्य कथा त्रैलोक्यसुन्दरी ॥).

DHVANYĀLOKA 161

15 The ध्वन्यालोक. The work has been published in the KM series with the commentary, called लोचन, of अभिनवगुप्त, on the first three saalas. Dr. S. K. De edited the commentary of अभिनवगुप्त on the 4th उद्योत from some mss, in the Journal of the Dept. of Letters, Calcutta University, vol. IX. pp. 15-42. Kashi S. S. [also called Haridas Sanskrit Granthamālā] published the whole of the Dhvanyaloka with Locana on all the four Uddyotas and a modern commentary called Balapriya. This was published in 1940. The ea ana is an epoch- making work in the history of Alankara Literature. It occupies the same position in the Alankārasāstra as Pāņinī's sūtras in grammar and the Vedantasutras in Vedanta. The work shows great erudition and critical insight. It is written in a lucid and forcible style and bears the stamp of originality on every page. As the रसगङ्गाधर remarks (p. 425 ध्वनिकृतामालक्कारिकस- रषिव्यवस्थापकत्वात्), the ध्वन्यालोक settled the principles to be followed in Poetics. The ea ais is divided into three parts : first come the arfrars, which are 129 in the K. M. (first) edition, then comes the afa in prose explaining (often at great length) the kārikās, and the examples, most of which are taken from previous poets. The work is divided into four sgatas. The first verse is a शाद लविकीडित, the 13th is an Arya, the 4th and 6th Upajatis, and in the 3rd उद्द्योत there are four आर्याs, while all the other kārikas in the first three uddyotas are in the śloka metre; but in the 4th which contains only 17 arfrars, the last three verses are in the रसोद्ता, मालिनी and शिखरिंणी metres. All Sanskrit scholars owe a deep debt of gratitude to the Kāvyamālā series of the Nirnaya-sagar Press in Bombay for issuing hundreds of beautifully printed and cheap editions of Sanskrit works. The Dhvanyaloka with Locana was printed in that series for the first time over sixty years ago based on three mss. only. The text of the Dhvanyaloka and of the Locana as then printed was rather defective. And the same text has been reprinted by the Press in several editions [except omitting some verses as Karikas]. Now many new mss. have become available. At the Bhandarkar Institute alone I found five mss. in Devanagari characters and two in Sāradā script. An edition based on these and other mss. available in the whole of India is a great desideratum. The

162 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Calcutta Sanskrit Series brought out an edition of the sao alone with a modern commentary called wavr by Madhu- sudan Misra. This edition does not specify the mss. on which they are based. Such editions are of little value and appear to be copies of the K. M. edition. The eao was translated into German by Dr. Jacobi in Z. D. M. G. vol. 56 pp. 18-60, 311-343, 392-410, and vol. 57 pp. 586-615, 710-789. Dr. Jacobi made several suggestions about the correct readings and other matters, most of which have been accepted by later writers. One feels serious doubts about the genuineness of several verses printed as kārikās in the K. M. edition. Later on this will be discussed in connection with one or two kārikas. The kārikas in the 4th Uddyota appear to be later as pointed out by Prof. S. P. Bhittacharya in his paper (6th All India O. Conference pp. 613-622). There is apparently no reason why kārikās II. 18-20 should have been printed as kārikas, when they are introduced in the afa (p. 106) with the words 'a- वार्थस्य संग्रहश्रोकाः' and they practically repeat the words and ideas of kārikas II. 15-17 and the afa thereon. This mistake has been acknowledged in the corrigenda. In the afa itself some portions arouse great suspicions. On p. 178 the qfa as printed contains the आर्या 'इति काव्यार्थविवेको योयं चेतश्चमत्कृतिविधायी। सूरिभिरनुसृतसारैरसमदुरज्ञोन विस्मार्य: ॥'. The K. M. editors note that out of their three mss. two do not contain this verse. They should have omitted it from the text and put it in a footnote. I: find on consulting five Devanagari mss. and two Sāradā mss. (No. 256 and 257 of the collestion of 1875-76 at B. O. R. I.) that none, of them contains this verse. It is certainly spurious. Another noticeable feature is, that out of the 112 kārikas of the Nir. text in the first three Uddyotas only .all+excepft eight as noted above-are in the śloka metre. But in the 4th Uddyota out of 17 karikas the last three are in the ruraar, मालिनी, and शिखरिणी metres. Besides, the Prakrit Gatha (rather mutilated) which occurs on p. 297 (K. M. edition) is not commented upon by the anraa as printed by Dr. De in Journal, Department of Letters, Calcutta, vol. IX. nor in the saferrer- पजिका (ms. in the B.'O. R.I.). At the outset one is confronted by two questions viz. whether all the three parts of the work are by the same author and, if they are not, then who is the author of the arftars and

DHVANYĀLOKA 163

of the qfu: That the afu and the citation of the examples proceed from the same author admits of no doubt. The real difficulty is about the authorship of the कारिकाs and the वृत्ति. The evidence on the subject of the identity of the arfiarar and the afdarT is both internal and external and further it is voluminous, I cannot go into all such evidence in detail for want of space. But the issue has been so much obscured by several half-digested, superficial and rather partisan writings, that I am reluctantly compelled to devote considerable space to this question. The learned reviewer of my 'History of Sanskrit Poetics' (1951) in JAOS vol. 72 (1952) pp. 129-130 finds fault with me for contentious repetitions about the karikas and vrtti (though he himself agrees that they are by different authors); but as even in the latest work of Dr. K. Krishnimoorthy [p. XVII of Introduction to the translation of the Dhvanyaloka, Poona, 1955) strong belief in the identity of the authors of the kārikā and vrtti is affirmed, I have retained all the arguments advanced in the edition of 1951. The first Uddyota of the Dhvanyaloka with an English exposition by Prof. Bishnupada Bhattacharya has been published by the firma K. L. Mukhopadhyaya (Calcutta). It was I who first collected almost all important external evidence which was almost unanimous in holding the identity of the two. I should be glad if ultimately it be proved that the same person is the author of both arftars and afa. I have pursued this subject in as detached a manner as I could. There are three stages in the case of a hypothesis, it is either proved, or not proved, or is disproved. I still hold that the hypothesis of non-identity cannot in the language of the law be said to be disproved. It is very near to being proved. It should not be supposed that the rem irks of the antaa are the mainstay of those who question the identity. All that they claim is that the araa is not helpful to the other side and rather goes against identity. The लोचन which was composed about 150 years after the sarrete is very frequently at great pains to distinguish between the author of the arfiars and the author of the afa. The following quotations will make this clear. From the days of Bühler (in Kashmir Report p. 65) about seventy-five years ago up to the présent day the question whe- ther the author of the karikas and that of the vrtti in the

164 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

saale is one and the same person has been discussed at great length and it cannot be said that it has been settled beyond cavil. In the limited space at my disposal I cannot deal with all the material that has gathered round this question. Those who feel deeply interested in this problem may read Dr. De in Bulletin of the School of O. Studics, vol. I part 4 pp. 1-9, and his H. S. P. 107-116, Prof. S. P. Bhittachirya in the proceedings of the 6th O. Conference pp. 613-622, Mr. K. Goda Varma in New I. A. vol. V. pp. 265-272 for the view that the author of the karikas is different from that of the vrtti, while M. M. Prof. Kuppuswami (in his 4 p. 11), his pupil Dr. A. Sankaran in his 'The theories of Risa and Dhvani' pp. 50-60, Dr. Satkari Mookerjee in B. C. Law vol. I. pp. 179-194, Dr. K. C. P.ndey in his dissertation on 'Abhinavagupta' pp. 132-140, and Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy in I. H. Q. vol. 24. pp. 180-194 and pp. 300-311, Prof. Mankad in New Indian Antiquary vol.VI. p. 211 may be read for the theory of the identity of the two. I shall briefly reply to the important points raised by the latter group of scholars. Before procceding further I must make it clear that here and there some passages of the Locana and of the Abhinava- bharati do imply that Anandavardhana is the author of both the karikas and the vrtti. We know that eminent authors often follow the ancient or ordinarily accepted views. For example, compatre the अलं.स. and साहित्यद पण on समासोक्ति. But this does not dispose of the matter finally. There are other passages which clearly lead to the inference that the ataa felt that the authors were different. It would not do to gloss over such incoavenient passages not only in the लोचन, but in the वृत्ति, in the कारिकाs themselves and in writers like मुकुलभट्ट. So far as the Locana is concerned these passages that I quote below have not been satisfactorily explained by any of the scholars who are for the identity of the vrttikāra and kārikā- kara. All that Dr. Sank iran says after citing two passages from the अभिनवभारती and setting out a few passages which according to him indicate identity is as follows (in the 'Theories of Rasa and Dhvani' at p. 59): 'the only evidence which apparently favours the opposite view, viz. the distin- ction occasionally made by Abhinava betwcen kārikākāra and

DHVANYĀLOKA 165

vrttikāra loses its force and it has to be explained differently. Probably Abhinava desired, in order to facilitate his comments, to keep the Karikas distinct from the Vrtti and he achieved it by referring to their author in two capacities as Kārikākāra and Vrttikara'. Dr. Sankaran has either failed to grasp the significance and force of the seven or eight passages quoted by me, particularly 2, 6 and 7 or he has shut his eyes to their implications. Morever, he does not consider many other matters which will be set out below. The references here are to the 4th edition of K. M. of 1935 A. D. With reference to passage 8 quoted from the लोचन, one wonders why the लोचन, if it firmly believed in identity, does not straightforwardly say 'यद्यप्यर्थानन्त्यमात्रे हेतुः कारिकायां नोक्तस्तयापि मया वृत्तौ उक्त एत्रेति भावः'. The important passages of the लोचन are: (i) 'अ्रत एव मूलकारिका साक्षात्तन्निराकरयार्था न श्रयते। वृत्तिकृत निराकृतमपि प्रमेयसंख्यापूरणय कएठेन तत्पक्षमनूद निराकरोति येपीत्यादिना । ...... तेनात्र प्रथमोद्योते ध्वनेः सामान्यलक्षणमेव कारिकाकारेश कृतम्। द्वितीयोद्द्योते कारिकाकारोऽवान्तरविभागं विशेषलक्षणं च विदध- दनुवादमुखेन मूलविभागं द्विविधं सूचितवान्। तदाशयानुमारेण वृत्तिकृदत्रैवोद्द्योते मूल- विभागमवोचत् etc. (लोचन. pp. 71-72.); (2) 'न चैतन्मयोक्तम्, अपि तु कारिका- काराभिप्रायणत्याह तत्रेति। भवति मूलतो द्विभेदत्वं कारिकाकारस्यापि संमतमेवेति भाव:।' p. 73; (3) 'उक्तमेव ध्वनिस्वरूपं तदाभासविवेकहेतुतया कारिकाकारो- नुवदतीत्यभिप्रायेश वृत्तिकृदुपस्कारं ददाति p.149; (4) 'एतत्तावत्त्रिभेदत्वं न कारिकाकारेण कृतं वृत्तिकारेश तु दर्शितं न चेदानी वृत्तिकारो भेदप्रकटनं करोति। ततश्चेदं कृतमिदं क्रियते इति कर्तभेदे का सङ्गतिः। pp. 150-151; (5) कारिकाकारेश पूर्व व्यतिरेक उक्त। न च सवथा न कर्तव्योऽपि तु बीभत्सादौ कर्तव्य एवेति पश्चादन्वयः । वृत्तिकारेण तु अन्वयपूर्वको व्यतिरेक इति शैलीमनुसतुमन्वयः पूर्वमुपात्तः' (pp. 160); (6) on the words प्रतिपादितमेवैषामालम्बनम् in the ध्व. (p. 166) the लोचन says 'अस्मन्मलग्रन्थकृतेत्यर्यः'; (7) on the words in the ध्व. (pp. 169-170) 'एवमादौ च विषये यथौचित्यत्यागस्तथा दशितमेवाग्रे' लोचन remarks 'दर्शितमेव्रेति कारिकाकारेेति भूतप्रत्ययः'. The last remark means this: if the कारिका and व त्ति had been the work of the same author, he would have used the future tense in place of the past in the word affra, when referring to what was to be discussed later on; but as the कारिकाs were the work of a predecessor and were al- ready before the व त्तिकार when he wrote this passage, he employs the words दर्शितमेवाग्र (कारिकाकारेण); (8) With reference to the वृत्ति on ध्व. IV. 3 लोचन says 'यधप्यर्थानन्त्यमात्रे हेतुर्वृत्तिकारेणोक्तस्तथापि कारिका- कारेण नोक्त इति।' (Dr. De in Dept. of Letters, Calcutta Un.vol. IX at p.29). For other places where the word वृत्तिकार occurs in the लोचन, thought not expressly in such opposition to the कारिका-

166 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

कार as in the above passages, vide लोचन pp. 57, 86, 103, 127, 132, 140. It has further to be noted that the लोचन generally applies the epithet ग्रन्थकृत to theauthor of the वृत्ति and the exam- ples and the word मूलग्रन्थकृत or-कार to the author, of the कारिकाड (as in the passage quoted above from p. 166). On the words 'तथा चान्येन कृत एवात्र श्ोकः' ध्व. (p. 10) the लोचन says 'ग्रन्थकृत्समान- कालभाविना मनोरयनाम्ना'. If this मनोरथ be hcld to be identical with the मनोरथ mentioned above under Vamana as having flou- rished in the reign of Jayapida (राजत० IV. 497) then it is im- possible that he could have been a contemporary af आनन्दवर्धन. Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy supposes (I. H. Q. vol. 24 at p. 308) 'that the early age of आनन्द० and the old age of Manoratha synchronised'. Even this assumption has no foundation. Acc. to राजत० V. 34 the poet आनन्द० became famous as a poet in the reign of अवन्तिवर्म. The विषमवाणलीला, the भजुनचरित and the देवीशतक were, it appears, composed before the ध्वन्यालोक. That means that the ध्वन्यालोक was a work of a man of mature years and so भानन्दवर्धन as a critic (not as a poet) should be held to have be- come well-known probably about or after 875 A. D. If मनोरथ was to bea contemporary of आनन्द० and an adverse critic of आनन्दवर्धन's theory he must have lived right into the last quarter of the 9th century, while he began his life as a poet under जयापीड (779-813 A. D.) in the last quarter of the 8th century. So it would have to be supposed that he lived for more than 100 years and could at such an age ridicule आनन्दवर्धन. The ध्वन्यालोक names विषमबाणलीला and अजुनचरित; the देवीशतक also men- tions these two, but it is itself not named or quoted in the a-Tr- लोक. The देवीशतक is full of such tricks as यमकऽ, चित्रबन्ध. It was impossible for him to take pride in his देवीशतक when he deliver- ed the following dictum in धव. pp. 277-278 'इदानीन्तनानां तु न्याय्ये काव्यनयव्यवस्थापने क्रियमाे नास्त्येव ध्त्रनिव्यतिरिक्तः काव्यप्रकारः, यतः परिपाकवरतां कवीनां रसादितात्पर्यविरहे व्यापार एव न शोभते'. So स्व. must have been written many years after the देवीशतक, when आनन्दवर्धन had arriv- ed at far-reaching conclusions about the purpose of poetry on the basis of the ध्वनिकारिकाS. On the words सहृदयानामानन्द:' (ध्व. p. 13) the लोचन says 'भानन्द इति च ग्रन्थकृतो नाम तेन स एवानन्दवर्धनाचार्य एतच्छाखद्रारेय' etc.' p. 14; 'समासोक्त्याक्षेपयोरेकमेवोदाहरएं व्यतरद् ग्रन्थकृत्' (लोचन p. 44); 'एवमभिप्रायद्यमपि साधारोक्त्या ग्रन्थकृन्न्यरूपयत्' (p. 45); on the verse भाहूतोपि सहाय:, 'अत एव अन्थकारः सामान्येन' etc. (लोचन p. 70). The above quotations lead to the inference that the

DHVANYĀLOKA 167

लोचन really regarded आनन्दवर्धन as the author of the वृत्ति and that he was distinct from the author of the arfrars. We have to see how far this accords with the view of other early writers and whit the name of the author of the कारिकाs was, supposing he was not identical with आनन्दवर्धन. Of the above seven p .: ssages again 2, 6, 7 are most im- p rtant. The passage 2 means (on the word प्रकाशित: in धृत्ति): this it not what I, the vrttikara, have stated out of my own head, but I have stated it in accordance with the intention of the author of the kārikās and so the word 'tatra' is used in the vrtti ... (Dhvani) is first of two kinds (as stated in the first Uddyota) and this is also approved of by the kārikākara; this is the meaning, (p. 73 of K. M. ed.). If the कारिका and वृत्ति had been the work of the same author, where was the necessity of the vrttikāra saying that he follows the अभिप्राय of the कारिकाकार and that what he the वृत्तिकार did say is कारिकाकारसंमत ? He could have simply said 'what I meant by the कारिका is this'. In ordinary life if a man makes a statement in one place about a certain matter and makes a different statement about the same matter in another place, he does not speak of his own aifa to what he said before. He can simply say 'I am explaining what I said or what I meant to say or did not say'. No question of ufa arises when the same man makes two statements. Similarly, the passage on p. 166 of the Locana is utterly inexplicable on the theory of the identity of authorship. The passage relates to the relation between gunas and sanghatanā'. A question is asked by on objector in the vrtti: What do you suppose is the substratum of gunas? If sanghatanā is not the āśraya thereof, what is the asraya ? The vrtti gives the reply : 'the substratum of gunas has already been propounded' and quotes kārikā II. 7.On this (i.e. on the word प्रतिपादितमेव) the Locana observes 'अस्मन्मूलग्रन्थकृता' (by the author of the original work on which my vrtti is written). If the author of both कारिका and वृत्ति were the same person and लोचन firmly held that view, would not one expect अभिनवगुप्त to have explained प्रतिपादितं by the words मयैव द्वितीयोदयोते तमर्थ० इति कारिकायामित्यर्थ: ? Why does the लोचन explain as अस्मन्मूलग्रन्थकृता (and not simply मत्कृतकारिकायाम् or मया कारिकायाम्) ? The लोचन does explain certain verses quoted in thevrtti in this way. For example, on the two verses H- भावादिविषय० and रसादिषु विवन्ता तु० quoted on p. 277 with the words

168 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

तदिदमुक्तम्, the लोचन remarks मयैवेत्यर्थ: i. e. states explicitly that those verses are the composition of the vrttikara himself. On p. 293 at the end of the 3rd Uddyota the K. M. edition read the words अनाख्येयांश० as a कारिका, but that was corrected in the ed. of 1935. The वृत्ति quotes that verse after तदिदमुक्तं (as on p. 277) and the लोचन explains उक्तमिति संग्रहार्थ मयैवेत्यर्थ: About the expression अस्मन्मूलग्रन्थकृता which is very inconvenient for the theory of identity, Dr. Mookerjee says (B. C. Law vol. I. 191) 'my thesis has been that the distinction is a matter of form, lapse from which was very seriously regarded as an unpardonable offence'. Where does the learned Doctor get this rule which he expresses in such strong language ? Dr. Krishnamoorthy who through- out take his cue from Dr. Mookerjee, remarks (on अस्मन्मूल- ग्रन्थकृता) that those words 'need not trouble us since the diffe- rentiation is but formal in accord ince with the etiquette of exegesis'. I request the learned doctors to site at least one instance from their vast reading wh're the sūtras or kārikās and the vrtti thereon being admittedly composed by one man, a commentator of the vrtti explains some words of the afe resembling प्रतिपादितमेवषामालम्बनम् with the words अस्मन्मूलग्रन्थकृता. Otherwise, all their remarks about the etiquette of exegesis and 'rules of the game' are entirely in the air and utterly baseless. Dr. Mookerjee complains (B. C. Law, vol. I, p. 190) that too much capital has been made of the words 'अस्मन्मूलग्रन्थकृता'. I do not understand why it should not be made. This sentence is one of the most critical passages that determine the real attitude of the लोचन on the identity or non-identity of authorship. In this connection we have to find out the exact meaning of the word ग्रन्थकृत् or ग्रन्थकार used by the Locana in numerous places. On p. 44 we have a decisive passage of the Locna on the verse अनुरागवती सन्ध्या cited in the vrtti. The लोचन says 'वामनाभि- प्रायेशायमादेप :... एकमेवोदाइरएं व्यतरद्ग्रन्थकृत्। ...... इत्यत्राशयोत्र अन्थेऽस्मद्- गुरुभिर्निरूपितः ।'. Here it is absolutely clear that the word ग्रन्थकृत् applies only to the afuar, since the example occurs only in the वृत्ति. I hold that अन्थकृत is everywhere used by the लोचन for the afdarT. I request those who are for the theory of identity to point out some examples where the लोचन undoubtedly applies the word ग्रन्थकृत् to the कारिकाकार. Dr. Mookerjee protests (B.C. Law vol. I. p. 189) against equating वत्तिकार with अ्रन्थकृत् and against holding that both have the same meaning or applicat-

DHVANYĀLOKA 169

ion in the लोचन. But that is a mere protest without warrant. He has not cited a single passage where the word ग्रन्थकृत् has been undoubtedly applied to the author of the कारिकाs by the लोचन. Why does the लोचन introduce the मङ्गल verse स्वेच्छाकेसरियः with the word व त्तिकार: ? If both the कारिका and वृत्ति were the work of the same man in the opinion of the लोचन, why does it not introduce the मङ्गल verse with the word कारिकाकार: or even ग्रन्थकार: ? It is noteworthy that the first कारिका is introduced on p. 3 as merely आदिवाक्य and nothing more. Similarly, on p. 45 (एवमभिप्रायद्रयमपि साधारणोक्त्या ग्रन्थकृन्न्यरूपयत्); p. 70 (शत एव ग्रन्थकार ... ध्वनौ भक्तेरभावमभ्यधात्);1 onp. 109 (ततश्च ... अरयं ग्रन्थकृत आरशयः), onp.289 (where the Prakrit verse अरहिय अरपओरअरसिएसु is cited for illustrating ध्वने: संसृष्टालक्कारसंसृष्टत्व on which लोचन remarks ताभ्यां ध्वनेः सक्कर इति ग्रन्थकारस्याशयः) the word ग्रन्थकृत or ग्रन्थकार is applid to the वत्तिकार alone. Therefore, in the two places on p. 14 of the लोचन where the word ग्रन्थकृत् occurs (आनन्द इति च ग्रन्थकृतो नाम and सहृदय ... ग्रन्थकृदिति भाव:) the same meaning must be taken. The 7th passage दशितमेवाग्रे is satisfactorily explicable only on the theory that the author of the karikas is different from the vrttikāra. Dr. Krishnamoorthy's reference to other places where the future is employed in the vrtti will not explain away the use of the past tense in दर्शितमेवाग्रे. He merely echoes Dr. Mookerjee who refers to pp. 14, 23, 26, 34 of the old K. M. edition (pp. 18, 27, 31, 40 of ed. of 1935). These references are put forward merely because the वृत्ति contains a word in the future. But they are of no value. On p. 18 the वृत्ति says 'स त्द्यर्थों ... वस्तुमात्रमलक्वारा रसादयश्चेत्यनेकप्रभेदप्रभिन्नो दर्शयिष्यते.' This is not a reference to any कारिका but to the वृत्ति itself in the 2nd उद्योत. There is no single कारिका which expressly divides ध्वनि into वस्तु, अलक्कार and रसादि. On p. 27 the वृत्ति says 'द्वितीयोपि प्रभेदो वाच्याद्वि- भिन्नः सप्रपञ्चमश्रे दर्शयिष्यते'. This again does not refer to a कारिका, but to his own वृत्ति as the word सप्रपञ्चं makes clear and लोचन understands it to be a reference to वृत्ति only (अग्रे इति द्वितीयोदोते

same remarks apply to the passages on pp. 31, 40. They

I. तस्माद्भक्तिरलक्षणम् -these are the words in the वृत्ति (P. 67). कारिका I. 21 on which this वृत्ति० occurs does not employ the word भक्ि at all, but गुणवृत्ति. So लोचन must be held to refer to the वृत्ति.

170 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

contain only a reference to what would be discussed in the afu later on. As to दर्शयिष्यते on p. 26 of the वृत्ति the लोचन does not mention even a कारिका. Again on p. 40 (अग्रे दशयिष्यामः ) the reference is to the elaborate treatment in four printed pages explaining III. 42-43 in which several verses of the fer himself are quoted. The two Doctors have not been able to shake the natural inference drawn from दर्शितमेवाग्र in the वृत्ति and have merely deluded themselves into thinking that the afe refers to the erfraTs by a verb in the future. Dr. Mookerjee (B. C. Law vol. I. pp. 187-188) in explaining these very inconvenient words 'दर्शितमेवाग्रे' makes this strange observation for which there is absolutely no authority beyond his own asser- tion 'the use of the future tense with the implication of personal identity as made out by M. M. Kane would be un- justifiable since the vrttikāra is required to behave as a diffe- rent person as a matter of form'. Where dose the learned Doctor get this ? A afr may speak of himself in the 3rd person but what law or rule lays down that he must do so. The only explanation that Dr. Satkari Mookerjee (in Dr. B.C. Law presentation vol. I. at pp. (180-182) puts forward is the plea that distinction between the author of sūtras or kārikars and a vrtti thereon by himself is 'a formal one' (p. 180) even when the same person is known to have composed both. Then he puts forward another proposition 'the role of the commentary is to explain what is implicitly contained in the original and it is an offence against the rules of exegesis to introduce matters foreign to the original. The offence is technically called 'utsūtravyākhyana.' On p. 181 he concedes that 'authors of sutras and karikas when they happen to be the same person have not been sufficiently on their guard in their observance of this rule'. Admitting for the present the rule stated above, I fail to see from where Dr. Mukerjee got the proposition stated by him on p. 182 (in B. C. Law vol. I.) 'All internal evidence embodied either in the original text or in the gloss purporting or alluding to personal identity will be regarded as an offence against the rules of the game.' I totally deny that there is any such ancient rule of exegesis anywhere prohibiting a commentator from showing that the author of the sūtras or kārikās and of the vrtti thereon are identical or different or any rule laying down that the violation of this supposed

DHVANYĀLOKA 171

rule is condemned anywhere as an offence. The learned Doctor seems to have forgotten for the moment that about a hundred years before the Dhvanyāloka Vāmana expressly tells us that he wrote the sutras as well as the vrtti. Hemacandra does the same. We have at the end of the Kautiliya the well- known words 'svayam-eva Visņuguptaś-cakāra sūtram ca bhasyam ca'. So it is clear that there is no prohibition against an author saying that he himself composed the sūtra and the vrtti, even when he speaks of himself in the third person in the vrtti. Why should a stranger (like Abhinava) be prevented from saying that the author of the kārikas and vrtti thereon is different or the same as the cse may be ? The two learned Doctors make a fetish of the argument derived from what is said against 'utsūtra-vyākhyana' and on this very slight foundation have advanced strange propositions. It passes my understanding how Dr. Krishnamoorthy arrived at the following conclusion (I. H. Q. vol. 24 at p. 187) 'Nor can we look for any internal evidence embodied either in the original text or in the gloss purporting or alluding to personal identity since such a procedure woull definitely go against the rule of the game' (this is copied from Dr. Mookerjec quoted above). Hence the only reliable evidence which can prove the difference of the authors will be extra-textual testimony". I repudiate these propositions as entirely baseless and unwarranted. It is for scholars to say whether they will accept these 'rules of the game', which, in my opinion, are non-existent. 'Utsütravyākhyana' was condemned mostly in grammar, where the perfection of Panini's work made people resent attempts to add to Pāņini's sūtras by adhyāhāra and the like.1 But it will be quite clear to anyone who has read the bhāsyas, vrttis and vārtikas on many sūtra works that commentators, while paying lip service to the theory of the condemnation of utsūtra-vyākhyāna, have added enormously even to what can be regarded by the utmost stretch of the imagination as implications of sūtras. Works callad bhāsyas have no higher privileges than those called vrttis. Śankarācārya's famous bhasya on the Brhadāranyaka is called a vrtti.2 The Sāba-

1. Compare शिशुपालवध II. 112 'अनुत्सूत्रपदन्यासा'. 2. Compare सुरेश्वर who in his बृ. उ. भाष्यवार्तिक Intro. verse 2

172 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

rabhāșya (on Jaimini I. 3. 4, IV. 1. 2) and Kumārila's Tantr- avārtika (I. 3. 5-7, I. 3, 8-9) sometimes give as many as three interpretations of the same sūtra or adhikaraņa. It is impossible to hold that the sutras were intended by the author of the sutras to have three meanings. The पूर्वमीमांसासूत्र contains no sūtra on Raca and Sabara enters on that question in great detail. The पञ्चपादिका of पद्मपाद remarks on this विधिवृत्तमीमांसाभाष्य- कारोऽपि उत्सूत्रमेवात्मसिद्धौ पराकान्तवान् (p. 148 of the Madras Govt. mss. Library ed.). Similarly, Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy on p. 185 refers to the dictum of Kullūka that ācāryas do not speak about their views in the first person but in the third person. There is nothing in this. I showed long ago from Medhatithi's bhāsya on Manu I. 4 (H. of Dh. vo !. I. p.90) which Kullūka merely repeats that this is the practice of ācaryas. But this is not invariably so, as Yaj. I. 56 will show. Dr. Krishnamoorthy further relies on what Dr. K. C. Pandey says in his work on 'Abhinavagupta' pp. 134 ff., who puts forward the practice in Kashmir that the same person wrote sūtras or kārikās and a commentary. Hardly any one would dispute this (at least I do not). But all this is irrelevant. The question is not whether the same writer could have written a vrtti on his own kārikās, but whether in this particular case he actually did so and whether passages of the Locana accept the identity or whether they lead to the inference of non-identity. Dr. Krishnamoorthy (pp. 187 ff.) follows Dr. Mookerjee in the propositions about exegetical etiquette. We are not dealing here with the two works of the same author, but with the remarks of a commen- tator like Abhinava who had before him a work of kārikās and a vrtti thereon. There is nothing in exegetical rules of any kind to prevent the commentator from indicating that the kārikākāra and vrttikāra are identical or different. Kumārila- bhatta, a great commentator and author of the Tantra- vārtika, expressly tells us that several sūtras of Jaimini have no substance in them or are meaningless.1 He combats the positon says: 'यां काएवोपनिषच्छलेन सकलाम्रायार्थसंशोधिनीं सन्चकरर्गुरवोऽनुवृत्तगुरवो वृत्ति सरतां शान्तये।'. 1. अतः परं षट्सूत्रायि भाष्यकारे न लिखितानि। तत्र व्याख्यातारो विवदन्ते। केचिदाहुर्विस्मृतानि। ... फल्गुत्वादुपेक्ितानीत्यन्ये। अनार्षेयत्वादित्यपरे। वृत्त्यन्तरकारस्तु सर्वैर्व्याख्यातानि। सन्ति च जैमिनेरेवंप्रकाराएयनत्यन्तसारभूतानि सूत्रायि। तन्त्रवार्तिक atter जै. III. 4.9 p. 895 (Anan. ed.),

DHVANYĀLOKA 173

'sūtreşveva hi tatsarvam yadvrttau yacca vārtike' (on Jaimini II. 3 16). The following quotation explains in what cases it is the duty of the afdar to make additions and in what cases he should avoid saying that words have to be understood in the H.1 That quotation makes it clear that whatever is necessary for helping the pupil or reader to understand the subject may be done by the वृत्तिकार. All that was meant by the fact of 'utsūtravyakhyana' not being allowed was that, as long as possible, a commentator should not put forward words as being understood in a sūtra. But otherwise the commentator was free to say that the sutra is not clear and that it does not mention the subject of discussion (as Sabara does on Jaimini II. 3. 16 विशये प्रायदर्शनात्) or to say that the sutrakara held a certain view ignoring a certain Upanisad passage (as done by Śankara on Vedāntasūtra III. 4. 18). Even the merest tyro can see that every bhasya or vrtti adds vastly to what the plain meaning of the sutra is and introduces topics far beyond what the sutra expresses or implies. To take one glaring example, the sutra 'अंशो नानाव्यपदेशात्' (वेदान्तसूत्र II. 3.43) is explained by Śankarācārya as ₹ ; while several other commentators take the sutra as it is without adding any word and criticize Sankarācārya for the result of his taking such liberties in order to make the meaning of the sutra square with his philosophy of the Absolute. Dr. Pandey in his work on 'Abhinava' p. 1. सूत्रेष्वेव हि सत्सर्वं (तत्सर्वं ?) यद्वृत्तौ यच्च वार्तिके। सुत्रं योनिरिद्दार्थानां सर्वं सूत्रे प्रतिष्ठितम्।। इति ये वदन्ति तान्प्रत्युच्यते। न किंचित्साधनमप्रदर्शित- विषयं स्वार्थ साधयति। सूत्रकारेण चेह हेतुमात्रमुपात्तम्। न चार्थप्रकरणादिभि- रप्युदाहरणप्रतिशासंशयहेतूनामन्यतमसुपलभ्यते। तस्मादगमके सूत्रे सति अवश्यं दोष- प्रतिसमाधानार्थ वृत्तिकारादिभियतितव्यम्। सत्येव सम्भवेऽध्याहारादिवजनमुक्तम्। सर्वथा शिष्यप्रज्ञासंस्कारे सूत्रकारादीनां प्रवर्तमानानां येनेव तवनुगुणं यत्कृतं तदेव ग्रहोतव्यं नासवुग्रहः कर्तव्यः। इदं सूत्रकारेण नोपात्तमिदं वृत्तिकारेणैतत्प्रदर्श- नार्थमेतद्वर्णयन्ति ।. Dr. Mookerjee (B.C.Law vol. I at p. 180) merely refers to Nagesa quoting the first half of the kārikā cited above in this note. He should have gone to the Tantravartika where this is quoted not as Kumārila's own view but of others, which he rejects. The न्यायसुधा (p. 932 of Ch.S. Series) explains the words सवथा शिष्य ... नासद्ग्रहः कर्तव्यः as follows: भाष्यं व्याचष्टे सवथेति। युक्तिगम्येडर्थे पुरुषविशेषस्यानादरखीयत्वायुक्तियुक्तं यद्वृत्तिकाराविभि- रुकतं तत्सूत्रकारानुपात्तत्वान्न ग्राह्यमित्यसदाग्रहो न कार्य इत्याशयः।'

174 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

133 admits 'here we might add that though there is considerable expansion, revision and modification of the views of the kārikā in the vtti, yet all that is of the nature of an addition to clear the ideas of the former, for that is the one purpose that the commen- tary is intended to serve'. Dr. Krishnamoorthy also admits this (I. H. Q. vol. 24 p. 301). But if the vrtti is composed by the author of the kārikās himself, then the edge of the reproach of 'utsūtravyakhyana' is altogether blunted. He can very well say 'my sūtra is brief and I am expanding its meaning for the sake of clear grasp of the subject'. Or he may sry in the vrtti that what he stated in the sütra in due only to his following old writers and that his own real opinion is different. I may give one or two striking examples. The अलं. सं. (p. 109) defines अर्थान्तरन्यास as 'सामान्य- विशेषभावकार्यकारखभावाम्यां निर्दिष्टप्रकृतसमर्थनमर्थान्तरन्यासः' and काव्यलिङ as 'हेतोर्वाक्यपदार्थता काव्यलिङ्गम्'। (p. 143). But on p. 148 the सर्वस्व observes in the वत्ति 'ततश्च सामान्यविशेषभावोर्ऽर्थान्तरन्यासस्य विषयः, यत्पुनर- र्थान्तरन्यासस्य कार्यकारणगतत्वेन समर्थकत्वमुक्तं तदुक्तलक्षयकाव्यलिङ्गमनाश्रित्य। तद्विषयत्वेन लक्षणान्तरस्यौद्धटरनाश्रितत्वात्।' &c. The सर्वस्व practically admits in the वृत्ति that he defined अर्थान्तरन्यास without adver- ting to his own definitioa of काव्यलिङ्र (in the सूत्र.). That is here the afanrT gives up the position taken by himself in the sutra. मम्मट defines काव्य as तददोषौ० according to the older rhetoricians, though he is a stunch advocate of the ध्वनि theory. If a वृत्तिकार can himself give up what he stated in the sūtra without any breach of any supposed rule of etiquette, much more therefore does it follow that a stranger commentator explaining a sūtra and vrtti by the same author is not tramelled by any rule of exegesis about stating anything about the sūtra and vrtti and is not bound to keep the sūtrakāra and vrttikāra in watertight compartments. I request Dr. Pandey, Dr. Mookerjee and Dr. Krishnamoorthy to produce eight (or even a lesser number of instances of clear apparent opposition of the views of the vrttikāra and kārikākāra (where the author of both is the same and where he belongs to the 9th or 10th century) and the commentator is a different person altogether and brings out the opposition. They have said that in Kashmir it was a practice in the 9th century for the same man to write kārikās and expla- natory commentary thereon. So it should not be difficult for them to give such instances from the commentator of a work

DHVANYALOKA 175

containing both arfrars and afur by the same author. Dr. Pandey (in 'Abhinavagupta'p. 135) refers to the fact that the great Utpaladeva, the paramaguru of Abhinava, himself wrote a vrtti and a tika on his own ईश्वर प्रत्यभिशासूत्र (in the form of Karikas) and states that Abhinava in his com. called Vimarsini does not expressly mention (on p. 22 of the विमर्शिनी) that the वृत्तिकार and टीकाकार quoted by the विमशिनी are the same person and thereby might lead a person ignorant of the truth to hold that the two (त्ृत्तिकार and टीकाकार) are different persons. I believe that this is cited by Dr. Pandey as an argument by analogy for establishing the identity of the कारिकाकार and the वृत्तिकार (in the ध्वन्यालोक). Not only is this analogy worthless, but it will rather indicate that Abhin ivagupta did not hold the view that the कारिकाकार (of घ) was identical with the वृत्तिकार and it further demolishs all the strange arguments about the supposed exegeticil etiquette advanced by Dr. Mookerjee and Dr. Krishnamoorthy. In the Introductory verse 5 at p. 3 (of the विमर्शिनी) अभिनवगुप्त expressly states that on the Pratyabhina- sūtras (the kārikās) the author himself (Utpaladeva) wrote a vrtti in which he explained only the purport and a tīkā in which he discussed the doctrines of the karikas (वस्या तात्पर्य टोकया तद्विचार: सूत्रेष्वेतेषु ग्रन्थकारेण दृब्धम् ।). Nothing could be clearer than this. No exegetical etiquette stood in the way of Abhinava- gupta against telling his readers about the identity of the kārikakara and vrttikara. Applying this to the Dhvanyaloka, one may naturally ask : why did not the लोचन of अभिनवगुप्त expressly state in the beginning of his commentary (as he does in the fanfarat) that the kārikakara and vrttikara were identical and why does he keep silence about this identity and leave students to surmises and arguments based on his words sown broadcast in his Locana? Then there is another point. Having once expressly stated that the kārikas, vrtti and țīkā were all composed by Utpaladeva, why should he have every now and then trotted forth the fact of identity ? faa thought that those who cared to understand Kashmir Pratya- bhijua Philosophy would be a few but earnest and careful students and would always bear in mind what he had stated in the very beginning of his commentary. He could not and did not anticipate how writers of theses in the 20th century would handle his works and words. Dr. Krishnamoorthy

176 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

blindly picks up (in I.H.Q. vol. 24 atp.186) the example cited by Dr. Pandey and does not care to read in the original the work on which Dr. Pandey relies in order to see whether the latter's arguments are sound and whether they are of any value whatever on the question in hand. Out of the several striking passages mentioned by me Dr. Bhattacārya emphasizes the one p. 149 (old ed. p. 121) where the वृत्ति has the expression यतश्च on which the लोचन remarks 'उक्त्मेव ध्वनिस्वरूपं तदाभासविवेकहेतुतया कारिकारोनुवदतीत्यभिप्रायण वृत्तिकृदुप- स्कारं ददाति। यतश्चेति'. One cannot understand why on the theory of identity the miaa should have employed these words stating that the वृत्तिकार adds a supplement or embellishment (उपस्कार) to what the arfrarr (i. e. to himself, on the theory of identity) says. Some capital is sought to be made by M. M. Kuppuswami Sastri (p. li in उपलोचन) and by Dr. Pandey (in his'Abhinava- gupta' pp. 135-136) of the apparent absence of a mingala Śloka at the beginning of the karikas and of the presence of a mangila in the vrtti. Several replies can be offered as against this. In the first place, the practice about a mingala at the beginning of each work is net observed invariably by all early writers. So far as I know, there is no mangila at the beginn- ing of Sabira's bhasya on Jaimini or at the beginning of Śankaracarya's bhasya on the Vedantasutras, or in Vatsyayan a's bhasya on the Nyayasutra, or in उद्योतकर's न्यायवार्तिक or in मगडनमिश्र'S विधिविवेक (to take only eminent early writers). Where the same author composes the sutras or karikas and the vrtti, the practice varies. Vāmana has apparently no mangala in his sūtras but he has one at the beginning of his vrtti. Mimmata his mangala kārika at the beginning of the Kavyaprakasa, but none in the vrtti. Udbhata commences his work on Alankāra without any mangala. The Alankarasarvasva has no mangala in the sutras, but has one only in the vrtti. Hemacandra has a mangala both at the beginning of his sūtras and in his vrtti, Alankāra- cūdāmaņi. Further, no particular form is prescribed. Pāņini is supposed to have performed mangala by employing the word 'vrddhi' at the beginning of his first sūtra and the Mahābhāșya says that the word सिद्ध was employed in the वार्तिक 'सिद्धे शष्दार्थ- aa-' for the same purpose. In the same way, the words काव्यस्यात्मा at the beginning of the कारिकाs may well serve as a

DHVANYÂLOKA 177

mangala by invoking Dhvani as Sabda-Brahma or Sarasvati that has two functions viz. kavi and sahrdaya ( sarasvatyāstattvam kavisahrdayākhyam vijayatāt, as the Locana puts it). Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy (in Annals of B.O.R. I. vol. 28 at p. 194) quotes the three passages from Mukula and Pratīhāren- duraja that I set out in my last edition and then remarks 'these evidences are quite insufficient to prove the hypothesis that a circle of sahradayas first gave currency to the theory of Dhvani' and argues that 'sahradayaih' can be taken as standing for the author of Dhvanyaloka also. It must be remembered, however, that I never said that a circle of सहृदयs composed कारिकाऽ. But on p. 195 he seems to be mystified why Mukula and Pratīhāren- durāja should give such respect to an author who belongs to a rival school of thought and winds up 'Thus though incidentally आनन्दवर्धन may also be meant by the expression it is not exclu- sively applicable to him. It primarily refers to the whole class of critics that preceded भानन्द०.' The general practice seems to be that ancient authors were mentioned in the singular while those that were elderly contem- poraries or flourished just a little before the writer are mentioned in the plural. For example, Mammata mentions Bharata (an ancient muni), Rudrata (from whom he quotes probably more verses than from any other single author) and Dhvanikāra in the singular, while he refers to Abhinava a commentator of Bharata and of the Dhvanyāloka in the plural. Sankarācārya refers to Bhagavān Upavara and Ācārya Sabara in the singular. For this reason Mukula who as will be shown below was almost a younger contemporary of nanda spoke of the latter's teacher (if he was called Sahrdaya) in the plural. The Dhvanyāloka itself pays great honour to Udbhata and others from whom it entirely differed as to the soul of poetry (as in the vrtti on II. 27 'तत्रभव्विरुद्रटादिभिः'), since Udbhata was very near in time. I cannot accept the hypothesis of Dr. Krishnamoorthy that there was a circle of sahrdayas who first gave currency to the theory of dhvani. Such revolutionary theories are not embo- died in kārikās by a cirole of people, but only by a single gifted author. The words of Mukula ध्वन ..... नूतनतयोपर्वनतस्प should leave no doubt in an unbiassed mind that the reference is to a work recently produced. yareregrra, being a pupil of Mukula, followed his master in employing the plural na :.

178 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

The word काव्यजीवितभूत: employed by him pointedly refers to the first Karika 'काव्यस्यात्मा'. The three1 passages mentioned by Dr. Krishnamoorthy on pp. 182-183 can be explained in various ways. In the first place, the कारिकाs become part of the वृत्ति which explains them. The word व्याख्याय and निरूप्य refer to the वृत्तिकार as the agent of these actions and the word srT itself refers to him because the वृत्तिकार begins the discussion of असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यंग्य in the first case by citing and explaining the कारिका 'यस्तु' (III. 2). The same re- marks apply to the words of the लोचन on p. 275 'एवं व्यंग्यस्वरूपं' &c. In the second place, it is not an invariable rule that the agent of the lyabanta and of the principal verb in the sentence should be the same. Even great poets like Kālidasa and Bharavi do not .observe this rule, as in रघुवंश I. 77(भवजानासि मां यस्मादतस्ते न भविष्यति। मत्प्रसूतिमनाराध्य प्रजेति त्वां शशाप सा ।) 2 and in किरातारजुनीय III. 21. In the third place, the two passages do not vividly and forcibly emphasize the identity as the non-identity is brought out very forcibly by the eight passages quoted by me (on pp. 165-166). Lastly, it has to be remembered that the कारिकाकार and tfoar had come to be identified, as shown later on, even before भभिनवगुप्त. So अभिनव did not harp every now and then upon the difference between the two. That a commentator often takes over the words from the original work and incor- porates them among his own remarks (even by using the first person) may be illustrated from several commentaries. To take one instance from the Vedantasūtras, I extract the follo- wing from Sankara's bhasya on III.4. 47 (सहकार्यन्तरविधिः पक्षेष तृंतीयं तद्तो विध्यादिवत) 'तस्माद्जाह्मय इति प्रशंसावादस्तथैवाथ मुनिरित्यपि भवितु- महँति समाननिर्देशत्वादिति। एवं प्राप्ते ब्रमः-सहकार्यन्तरविषिरिति'. I may cite another example from the लोचन itself (p. 22) 'अथोच्यते दृष्टैव कठिति तात्पर्यप्रतिपत्तिः किमत्र कुर्म इति तदिदं वयमपि नाक्ीकुमः। यद्ृक्याम :- 'तंद्रत्सचेतसां सोर्थो वाच्यार्थविमुखात्मनाम्। बुद्धौ तत्त्वावभासिन्यां माटित्येवावभासते॥'. This is कारिका I. 12.

1. Two of the passages are: (a) एवं कारिका व्याख्याय तदसंगृहीतमलच्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्यं प्रपन्चयितुमाह यस्त्विति। लोचन p. 159. (b) एवं व्यंग्यस्वरूपं निरूप्य सर्वंथा यत्तच्छून्यं तत्र का वार्तेति निरूपयितुमाह प्रधानेत्यादिना कारिकादयेन। लोचन p. 275 (old ed. pp. 219-220). 2. आाराधनस्य राजा कर्ता भवनस्य प्रजेति।

DHVANYĀLOKA 179

As regards the quotations from the अभिनवभारती (quoted in the note below) which seem to regard आानन्दवर्धन as the author of the kārikas and the vrtti we have to remember several facts. Abhinava's teacher in the exposition of the Dhvanyaloka was Induraja (whose explanations he implicitly follows as stated in Locana pp. 44, 227) ; the अभिनवभारती was composed sometime after the लोचन (as the passages in the footnote expressly state).1 His teacher in the Nātyasāstra was a different one viz. Bhatta Tota who was the author of a work called Kavyakautuka on which Abhinava wrote a vivarana.2 For भट्टतोत and the great respect paid to him by अभिनव० and for following his views in preference to those of others, vide the 3rd introductory verse to अ.भा. ('सद्विप्रतोतवदनोदितनाव्यवेदतत्त्वार्थमर्थि- जनवान्छितसिद्धिह्ेतोः । माहेश्वराभिनवगुप्तपदप्रतिष्ठः संच्िप्तवृत्तिविधिना विशदी- करोति ॥I) and pp. 3, 292-93, 310 of vol. I., pp.67,216,395,423, 440-441 of vol. II. of the भ. भा. and pp. 78 (six verses of Bhatta

1. अभिनवगुप्त in his commentary on भरत (chap.7 vol. I.p. 344) refers to his commentary on ध्वन्यालोक as सहृदयालोकलोचन; 'स्वशब्दानाभिधेयत्वं हि रसादीनां ध्वनिकारादिभिदर्शितम्। तच्च मदीयादेव तद्विवरखात्सहृदयालोकलोचनादवधारणीयमिह तु यथावसरं वच््यत एव. Again on भरत 16. 5 vol. II. pp. 299-300 अभिनवगुप्त says "एतमेवार्थ सम्यगानन्दवर्धनाचार्योपि विविच्य न्यरूपयत् । 'ध्वन्यात्मभूते०' (ध्व. II. 21) इत्युक्त्वा क्रमेय 'विवता तत्परत्वेन०' (ध्व. II. 22) इत्यादिना ग्रन्थसन्दर्भेष सोदाहरेन। तच्चास्माभि: सहृदयालोकलोचने तद्विवरणे विस्तरतो व्याख्यातभिति". As shown below the work was called सहृदयहृदयालोक by राघवभट्ट and in the colophons of certain mss. That was probably its original name and it meant 'the light of or on the heart or meaning of sahrdaya'. This would be an additional argument for postulating सहृदय as the name of the author of the कारिकाs. In course of time aay came to be dropped and the work was called simply सहदयालोक as the quotations from the भ. भा. show. आलोक is used in the sense of 'light' by the कारिका I. 9 (आलोकाथी यथा दीपशिखायां यत्नवाअन:) and in the sense of 'proper knowledge or understanding' in कारिका II. 14 (बुद्धिरासादितालोका सवंत्रैव भवि- ष्यति), where the लोचन explains 'आसादितः भालोकः अरवगमः सम्यग्व्यु- त्पत्तिर्यया' (p. 84). 2. This was composed by भभिनव even before the लोचन; vide p. 221 'स चास्मदुपाध्यायभट्टतौतेन काव्यकौतुके, भस्मामिश्र तदिषरय बहुतरकृतनियय: &c.'

180 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Tota on rasa, abhinaya &c are quoted), 82 (द्विजवरतोतनिरूपितसन्ध्य- ध्यायार्थतत्त्वघटनेयम्। अभिनवगुप्तेन कृता शिवचरणाम्भोजमधुपेन॥) of vol. III. of अ. भा. The reference to उपाध्याया: (in अ. भा. vol. III. pp.3,10, 19, 47, 163) and to उपाध्यायपादा: on p. 71 (2 verses quoted) of vol. III. of अ. भा. are meant for भट्टतोत. Therefore, it is possible that Abhinava in the w. Tr. simply states the views of his teacher Tota about the authorship of the kārikās and vrtti. The fact that almost all writers who come long after the Dhvanyāloka (as shown by myself) identify the Kārikākāra and Vrttikara is not of great moment, if even a single writer contem- porary with or immediately coming after it states to the contrary and if there are other cogent reasons for holding the opposite view. Truth is not governed by mere majorities or is not necessarily in accord with what majorities believe. Dr. Mookerjee charges me with having failed to pay proper attention to the word Har in the passage quoted a few lines below and himself translates the words as 'by me, in the capacity of a vrttikāra'. If one has already made up one's mind that the authors of karika and vrtti are identical, then only this translation is proper. But it begs the whole question. There is no word for 'capacity,'. The literal translation is 'by me who am vrttikara'. But if one's mind is open and one reads the whole passage up to संमतमेव, a totally different conclu- sion has to be arrived at as shewn above and everything includ- ing 'sata' is quite explicable. The वृत्तिकार according to लोचन means to say : 'I being (सता) a वृत्तिकार expounded at length the two major divisions of eafa; I have not, in doing so, drawn purely on my own imagination (reading 36) but what I have said is implicit in the words of the कारिकाकार'. Let us examine how both Dr. Mookerjee (in B. C. Law vol. I. p. 184 n. 7) and Dr. Krishnamoorthy (I. H. Q. 24 pp. 188-189) lay great emphasis on the words of Locana in explaining the vrtti at the beginning of ध्व. II. 1 (एवमवि ... धवनिर्द्विप्रकारः प्रकाशितः). The लोचन as they quote it from the Banaras edition (p. 165) runs 'मया वृत्तिकारेख सतेति भावः। न चैतन्मयोत्सूत्रमुक्तमपि तु कारिकाकाराभिप्रायेगे- त्याह तत्रेति। ... भवति मूलतो दिभेदत्वं कारिकाकारस्यापि संमतमेवेति भाव: ।.' I do not know on what mss. the Banaras edition is based. Mss. or their sources or dates are nowhere mentioned in that edition. But in the first sentence the K. M. edition (p. 73 of 1935 ed.) omits the important word ar# and the editors who rely on three

DHVANYĀLOKA 181

mss. do not note that anyone of the mss. had the word srger. I have already dealt with the inferences to be drawn from the use of the word अभिप्रायेख and संमतमेव in the वृति (pp.165 and 167 above). Dr. Mookerjee relies upon a passage of the afa intro- ducing the third उद्द्योत (B. C. Law vol. I. pp. 185-186) and enters upon a discussion of the words of the Locana referring to Candrikakara. This has to be very carefully scrutinized. Later on I shall quote several passages from the Locana in which a previous commentator called चन्द्रिकाकार, who belonged to the same family as Abhinava's and who must have preceded him by at least a generation or two, is criticized or mentioned. On p. 150 the लोचन summarises laconically the views of the चन्द्रिकाकार about the construction of certain words of the वृत्ति. At the beginning of the third Uddyota the वृत्ति reads 'एवं व्यङ्य- मुखेनैव ध्वन: प्रदर्शिते सप्रभेदे स्वरूपे पुनव्यअ्जकमुखेन तत्प्रकाश्यते' and then follows the कारिका 'अविवन्ितवाच्यस्य.' The लोचन passage is (p.150) 'यस्तु व्याचप्टे व्यङ्गघानां वस्त्वलक्गाररसानां मुखेन इति स एवं प्रष्टव्यः । एतत्तावत् त्रिभेदत्वं न कारिकाकारेय कृतं वृत्तिकारेण तु दर्शितम्। न चेदानीं वृत्तिकारो भेद- प्रकटनं करोति। ततश्चेदं कृतमिदं क्रियते इति कर्तभेदे का सङ्गतिः। न चैतावता सकलप्राक्तनग्रन्थसङ्गतिः कृता भवति। अविवत्षितवाच्यादीनामपि प्रकाराणां दशित- त्वादित्यलं निजपूर्वजसगोत्र: साकं विवादेन.' It appears that the चन्द्रिका explained the words of the vrtti ( एवं व्यङ्यमुखेनैव) by saying that the vyangya was dilated upon under the three categories viz. वस्तु, अलक्कार and रस (and then it went on to show the सङ्गति of what preceded with what is to come in the kārikas of the third Uddyota). The Locana objects to this explanation of ara- मुखेन and asks a question: 'These three categories were pro- pounded by the वृत्तिकार and not by the कारिकाकार. Further, the vrttikāra does not propound this division into three now and here; when (as you hold) the authors of the कारिका and of the वृत्ति are different, what is the use of showing the सङ्गति by saying this has been done (by the वत्तिकार) and this is being done (by the कारिकाकार in 3rd उद्योत) ? There can be no सङ्ति when the वृत्तिकार says one thing about which the कारिकाकार is silent'. Then लोचन finds further faults in that explanation. To me it appears clear, on the strength of this passage, that the चन्द्रिकाकार held the view of non-identity and the लोचन asserts that no question of asfa arises on the explanation given by the चन्द्रिका of the words व्यंग्यमुखेन. Unless the चन्द्रिका is re- covered no one can be certain of the meaning. Whether the लोचन.

182 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

held the same view is not so clear. But the explanation of the लोचन is so framed that even if the authors of the कारिका and of the qfu were different, it would hold good. Dr. Mookerjee (B. C. Law vol. I. pp. 185-186) thinks that लोचन is petulant and not logically consistent nor correct; while Dr. Krishnamoorthy {I. H. Q. vol. 24 pp. 189-190) for once disagrees with Dr. Mookerjee about the interpretation of this passage. I leave the two Doctors to settle their differences. I have given my own interpretation. It is for scholars to decide what the correct interpretation of the attitude of the afaamar as reported by the लोचन is. Dr. Mookerjee has given up recently in 'Indian Culture' vol. 12 (pp.57-60) his own explanation of करनभेदे का सङ्कतिः and puts forward another explanation in which कतं means only grammatical agent of an action and not 'author of a book' as he once proposed. It is unnecessary to comment on this new explanation. He does not know his own mind. One of the most cogent arguments against the theory of identity is furnished by the large number of what are called 'in the vrtti 'Parikaraslokas' on pp. 40, 159 (three ślokas), 169, 182, 203 (four),1 'sangrahaślokas' on pp. 106 (4 verses), 280 (two verses) and sańksepaślokas pp. 53-54, 90, 305. Besides these, there is a verse quoted in the वृत्ति with the words तदयमत्र परमार्थ: on ध्व. III. 10-14 and five verses quoted by the वृत्ति with the words तदिदमुक्त (p. 277) and तदिदमुच्यते p.278 (the first two being expressly ascribed to the वृत्तिकार himself by लोचन and one out of the group of the three on p. 278 being ascribed to मानन्दवर्धन in the अभिनवभारती). Thus there are over twenty-five verses quoted in the vrtti itself, all of which are the composi- tion of भानन्दवर्धन. Some of these verses are striking and preg- nant with meaning and far better than several kārikas. A few of them are set out below.8 If the author of both was the same 1. For explanation of परिकरश्लोक, vide लोचन p. 40 quoted below. 2. Vide pp. 7-8 above about these verses. 3. विच्वित्तिशोमिनकेन भूषरोनेव कामिनी। पददोत्येन सुकवेर्ध्वनिना भाति भारती॥ a परिकरश्लोक on p. 159; अ्व्युत्पत्तिकृतो दोष: शक्त्या संहियते कवेः। यस्त्वशक्तिकृतिस्तस्य स भटित्यवभासते॥ परिकरश्लोक p. 169 (q. by राजशेखर in काव्यमी. p.16); भनौचित्यादृते नान्यद्रसभङ्गस्य कारणम्। प्रसिद्धौ- चित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषरपरा। (cited as परमार्थ on p. 180 and quoted

DHVANYĀLOKA 183

why did he relegate these verses to a subordinate position in the वृत्ति and not give them a place in the कारिकाs ? No satis- factory explanation for this is forthcoming from anyone of the three Doctors who are for the theory of identity. Does Mammata who traversed a much vaster field than the Dhvanya- loka in 142 कारिकाs anywhere give परिकरश्लोकs or संग्रइश्लोकs in the qfer? The only explanation vouchsafed by Dr. Krishna- moorthy (I. H. Q. vol. 24 at p. 301) is that it is possible that a- wrote the karikas first, taught them to his students and that after some intervening time composed the vrtti. This is a most lame explanation. Even supposing that the kārikās were written first and the vrtti many years later, what prevented the author of the karikas from including the ślokas (called परिकर and संग्रह) in the karikas when making the whole work available for the benefit of all ? The obvious reason is that the वृत्तिकार being different from the कारिकाकार, the former did not like to foist his own verses upon another. Reliance is placed on the following words in the Locana that introduce the words तथा च that precede the कारिका II. 26 (शब्दार्थशक्त्या वा०) 'प्रक्रान्तप्रकारद्वयोपसंहारं तृतीयप्रकारसूचनं चैकेनैव यत्नेन करोमीत्याशयेन साधारणमवतरणपदं प्रत्िपति वृत्तिकृत तथा चेति' (p. 126). This is of no use for proving identity. As stated above the कारिका becomes part of the वृत्ति. Here the Locana says that the कारिका II. 26 mentions only two varieties and the वृत्ति adds a third. This may be availed of by those who oppose identity for showing that the वृत्तिकार is different from the कारिकाकार. If there is identity why are not the three mentioned in the kārika itself and why does the वृत्ति become guilty of उत्सूत्रव्याख्यान about which Dr. Mookerjee and Dr. Krishnamoorthy have made such fuss ? Similar explanations can be given about the passages on pp. 82-83, 85, 105, 223 which pages are merely mentioned by Dr. Pandey without any discussion. Dr. Pandey (in 'Abhinavagupta' p. 137) asks a question whether the Locana is a commentary on the vrtti only or on the kārika and vrtti

by व्यक्तिविवेक I. p.31, काव्यप्र. VII. 82, p. 445 Va.); भपारे काव्य- संसारे कविरेव प्रजापतिः। यथास्म रोचते विश्वं तथेदं परिवर्तते॥ शङ्गारी चेत्कवि: काव्ये जातं रसमयं जगत्। स एव वीतरागश्चेन्नीरसं सर्वमेव तव्॥ quoted on p. 278 with the words तथा चेदसुच्यते, the 2nd being cited as भानन्द- वर्षन's by म. भा. vol. I. p. 295.

184 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

together. He thinks that this will be a sort of dilemma to those who oppose the theory of identity of authorship. In the first place, the proper answer depends on the question as to who is meant by the word auad or ayar occurring in the Locana. That question has been already dealt with above (pp. 168-169). In the second place, the 2nd Introductory verse of the Locana expressly states that what is explained by the Locana is 'Kavyaloka'. The Locana starts with the explanation of the mangala verse of the vrtti. It does not explain the first kāriki word by word, but states that the first sentence (ādivākya) is 'Kāvyasyātmā' &c. and at once begins to explain the first words of the vrtti 'budhaih kāvyatattva- vidbhiḥ &c.'. It follows that the Locana is concerned with the vrtti and the kārikas come in for explanation only as they are part of the vrtti by being explained at length in it. If anywhere the vrtti is very brief (as on I. 3 and 6) the Locana explains some of the words of the karika.1 The Locana also states that a certain kārika being of the nature.of a sangraha- śloka is not explained in the vrtti.2 The colophons are not parts of the work. They often differ in the several mss, some calling the work ध्वन्यालोक, others सहृदयालोक, and still others describing it (in the लोचन) as सहृदयालोकनाम्नि काव्यालक्कारे. The first verse out of the two at the end of the Locana on the first Uddyota and on the third makes it clear that Locana is required for Aloka, which properly applies to the vrtti, the karikas being merely called ध्वनिकारिका or ध्वनि. The penultimate verse at the end of the vrtti suggests that the vrtti was called Kāvyāloka3 and the last verse (tad-vyakarot &c. quoted below p. 191) expressly states that Ananda explained the essence of real poetry in that work. I do not dwell upon passages in 1. There are more than one hundred kārikas in the first three Uddyotas. Dr. Pandey will not be able to cite a dozen kārikās that are directly explained in the Locana. He only cites I. 3 and 6. 2. On IV. 4 the लोचन is यदि वा उच्यते संग्रहश्लोकोयमिति भावः। श्रत एवास्य श्लोकस्य वृतिग्रन्थे व्याख्यानं न कृतम् (vide Dr. De in Journal of Dept. of Letters, Calcutta Un. vol. IX.). 3. Mark the words काव्याएयेऽखिलसौख्यधाम्नि विदुषोद्याने ध्वनिर्व- शित: 1 विदुधा: means 'gods' and also 'काव्यतत्वविदः'.

DHVANYĀLOKA 185

the Locana which speak of vrttikara adding words by way of upaskāra and which are relied upon by some of those who are for non-identity. Nor is it necessary to dwell on the breaking up of kārikās into smaller portions. But one thing is remark- able. If the karikas and vrtti were from the same hand the breaking up of kārikas and interspersing portions of vrtti should have been uniform.1 But even so early as the Locana it was noted that there is no such uniformity in this respect, some mss. of the vrtti reading the kārikas in pieces and others reading them as wholes. Dr. Krishnamoorthy (I. H. Q.vol. 24 p. 300), while trying to explain away the splitting up of kārikās by the example of Mammata, has not said a word about the discrepancy in the mss. noted so early by the Locana as the 10th century A. D.2 I have replied to most of the important points put forward by those who are for identity. It is not possible for restrictions of space to refute cach and every point (however insignificant it may be) made by the opponents of the theory of non-identity. But one or two insignificant matters must be cleared .up. Dr. Krishnamoorthy ridicules3 as absurd my suggestions (I. H. Q. vol. 24 p. 184 n. 17) on p. LX. of the last edition 'The penultimate verse at the end of the 4th उद्योत (काव्याख्ये०) leads one to infer that काव्य formed part of the name of the original work (or was itself its name) on which आनन्दवर्धन commented (probobly it was called काव्यध्वनि or simply काव्य or ध्वनि)'. But Dr. K. himself concedes that the name काव्यध्वनि is possible. I hope he knows that the work is called काव्यालोक as in Dr. De's edition of 4th उद्दोत of

1. On कारिका II. 32-33 the लोचन notes about 'तासामेवालं- कृतीनाम्' (in the वृत्ति) and पुनः also 'तासामेवालङकृतीनामित्ययं पठिष्यमाण- कारिकोपस्कारः। पुनरिति कारिकामध्ये उपस्कार:।; again on IV. 9-10 लोचन says 'शक्तीनामित्यन्ततः कारिकयोमध्योपस्कारः'. 2. On संवादो ह्वन्य० (IV. 12) लोचन remarks : एषा खएडीकृत्य वृत्तौ पठिता; on आात्मनोन्यस्य सद्भावे (IV. 14) the लोचन says 'इति कारिका वृत्तौ खएडीकृत्य पठिता। केषुचित् पुस्तकेषु कारिका अखसिडता एव दृश्यन्ते।' (J. of Dept. of Letters, Cal. Un. vol. IX. at p. 39). Kārikā IV. 16 also was split up by some according to the लोचन. 3. The learned Doctor remarks 'It is nothing short of absurd to urge seriously that a work on literary criticism was itself designated as kāvya or dhvani'.

186 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

लोचन in J. of Dept. of Letters, Cal. Un.vol. IX. p. 42. That the work was called ध्वनि is clear from राजशेखर's verse (ध्वनिनाति- गभीरेख) quoted later on and from the fact that many writers speak of आानन्दवर्धन as ध्वनिकार Or-कृत (author of ध्व नि), and from certain colophons. So my statements about the possible names of the work are borne out or admitted. The work was called ध्वनि, also ध्वन्यालोक, काव्यालोक, सहृदयालोक and सहृदयहृदयालोक. Why were the two names ध्वन्यालोक and काव्यालोक given to the work ? काव्यालोक would mean only 'a peep into kavya or light or com- prehension of kavya'. Therefore, there is nothing absurd in suggesting that, just as eafa was the name of the work also called ध्वन्यालोक, so the word काव्य might have been a concise way of referring to काव्यालोक. Dr. Krishnamoorthy is fond of dubbing others' arguments as absurd (vide what he says about Mr. Goda Verma on p. 305 of I. H. Q. vol. 24). But he does not see what strange (not to say 'absurd' by way of imita- ting him) propositions he has advanced as discussed above on 'utsūtra-vyakhyana'. Besides, the learned writer adduces no evidence except the words 'kavyasyātmā dhvanir' for branding Dr. Verma's arguments as the 'height of absurdity'. Dr. Mookerjee (B. C. Law vol. 10 pp. 189-190) and following him Dr. Krishnamoorthy (I. H. Q. vol. 24 p. 193) place much reliance on the remarks of Locana about the penultimate verse in the vrtti : नित्याक्लिष्टरसाश्रथोचितगुशालक्कारशोभाभृतोर्यंस्माद्वस्तु समीडितं सुकृतिभि: सर्व समासादते। काव्याख्येडखिलसौख्यधाम्नि विवुधोधाने ध्वनिदशितः सोयं कल्पतरूपमानमहिमा भोग्योस्तु भव्यात्मनाम् ॥. In the first place, the verse is read as given above in all the three editions available to me and not as इत्यक्लिष्ट.1 In the 2nd place, even on the theory of non-identity the लोचन could very well explain the word rfa in the afar as meaning 'by the exposition given in the कारिका and वृत्ति'. One fails to understand how these words prove identity. Dr. Mookerjee thinks (B. C. Law vol. I. p. 190) that all lingering doubts about the identity of the authors of the कारिकाs and of the वृत्ति are completely dispelled by the last verse

1. The लोचन on this is 'इतीति कारिकातद्वृत्तिनिरूपयप्रकारेेत्यर्थः' in the Kasi S. Series edition p. 551. In the text printed by Dr. De (Journal, Dept. of Letters, Calcutta Un. vol. IX. at p. 40) the reading is इतीति कारिकातद्व्टत्तिनिरूपयोनेत्यर्थ: Most mss. at B.O.R. I. read नित्याक्लिष्ट०.

DHVANYĀLOKA 187

of the afa which is set out below.1 Dr. Krishnamoorthy (I. H. Q.24 pp. 193-194) borrows wholesale the translation of Dr. Mookerjee, which is not quite accurate. There are. no corres- ponding words in the original verse (of K. M.) which can be rendered as 'for all ages'. Even taking the reading of Dr. De the meaning would be 'dormant for long'. The reasoning of both the Doctors does not appeal to me. o does not claim anything more than having explained what the essence of real poetry is. The word 'vyakarot' is important. The mea- ning of that word is made clear by the kārika I. 3 'a r: प्रसिद्धो यः प्रकाररूपमादिभिः ।. बहुधा व्याकृतः सोन्यः काव्यलक्ष्मविधायिभिः ॥'. Vide also I1I. 47. a -. states he explained the essence of true poetry. How that sentence establishes that he was the author of the karikas also is not clear to me. The karika (III. 47) says that the essence of poetry declared in the kārikās was dimly perceived by its predecessors who being unable to ex- plain it clearly set forth the doctrine of the ritis.ª The last verse simply echoes the words of the arfar III. 47 just as the words मे मीति: in कारिका II. 5 are explained as मामकीन: पक्: in वृत्ति. The वृत्ति is like the भाष्य of शङ्कर on the Vedantasutra. The sūtrakāra is a great man and Sankara is equally great (or some would say even greater). So the kārikākāra briefly described the essence of poetry, which Ananda explained at great length. Dr. Krishnamoorthy has not put a correct interpretation on the -words मामकीन: पत्: in the वृत्ति on II. 5 p. 86 (I. H. Q. vol. 24 p. 300). Dr. Satkari Mookerjee (B. C. Law vol. I. p. 191) and Dr. Krishnamoorthy (I H. Q. vol. 24, p. 194) try to clinch their arguments by referring to certain passages of the वृत्ति and लोचन on pp. 79, 85, 102, 104 and 105, which corres- pond, it appears, to pp. 96, 103, 124, 127, 128 (of the edition

1. सत्काव्यतत्त्वविषयं स्फुरितप्रसुप्तकल्पं &c. Dr. De (in Journal of Dept. of Letters, vol.IX.p. 41) reads 'सत्काव्यतर्वनयवर्त्म चिरप्रसुप्त०. Dr. M. translates '-o, whose name is widely known, has explicitly brought out for the edification of men of taste the real essence of true poetry which lay dormant for all ages in the minds of even men of mature intellect.' 2. अस्फुटस्फुरितं काव्यतत्वमेतधथोदितम्। अशक्नुवन्ि्ष्याकर्त रीतयः संप्र- वतिताः॥ ध्व. III. 47. व्याकत is explained by the लोचन as प्रति- पादयितुम्·

188 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

1935 used in the present edition of the History of Poetics by me. They did not escape ine as those learned writers state. In fact in my Intro. to arfero I had myself referred to some of those passages. No detailed statement of my views thereon is necessary, as, in my opinion, those passages are either not against the theory of non-identity or are quite explicable on that theory. So also the words इयत्पुनरुच्यते एव in the वृति on p. 131 explained by लोचन as 'अस्माभिरिति वाक्यशेष:' are to be explained in the same way as done above on p. 169 (citing {TRTT[6T) and as shedding no clear light on the question of identity. When the araa says (on p. 14) 'आनन्दवर्धन इति च ग्रन्थकृतो नाम। तेन स एवानन्दवर्धनाचार्य एतच्छास्त्रद्वारेय सहृदयहृदयेषु प्रतिठां ... लभताम्', Dr. Mookerjee argues (B. C. Law vol. I p. 189) that such high praise is not deserved by a mere frTT, if he were not also kārikakara. In the first place, the Locana does not expressly designate आनन्द as शास्त्रकार. All that it says is (literally) 'through this sastra as the door Ananda may secure a firm place in the hearts of sahrdayas.' In the 2nd place, Sankaracārya wrote only a vrtti on the Br. Up. and a bhāsya on the Vedāntasūtra and Patañjali wrote only a com. on the Vartikas, but no one would grudge high praise being bestowed on both of them on account of the fact of their having expounded Advaita Vedanta and Sanskrit grammar respectively. So there is hardly anything in this argument. I may bring to the notice of Dr. Mookerjee that, though Panini is the author of a perfect sūtra, Pātañjali's authority is regarded as greater than even that of Panini by later Sanskrit grammarians. Vide what the Kaumudi says on the sutra 'na bahuvrīhau'1. If the author of the kārikas be different from that of the vrtti and one had to make a choice between the two as to who should be called Sāstrakāra par excellence there is hardly any doubt that most scholars would bestow the palm of superiority on the Vrttikāra. Dr. Mookerjee is not at all right in thinking that the Locana alludes to Kuntaka (B. C. Law vol. I. p. 183). There is no evidence worth the name to prove this or even to make

1. न बहुत्रीहौ। पा. I. 1. 29; सि. कौ. 'बहुव्रीहौ चिकीर्षिते सर्वनाम- संज्ञा न स्यात्। त्वकं पिता यस्य स त्वत्कपितृक इति। भाष्यकारस्तु त्वत्कपितृक मत्कपितृक इति रूपे इष्टापत्ति कृत्वैतत्सूत्रं प्रत्याचल्यौ। यथोत्तरं मुनीनां प्रामाण्यम् ।'.

DHVANYÂLOKA 189

the inference very probable. Nor is Dr. Mookerjee correct in what he says about Jayantabhatta (ibid. p. 192). The words of the न्यायमअरी are: 'यमन्यः पण्डितंमन्यः प्रपेदे कंचन ध्वनिम्। विधेनिषेधाव- गतिर्विधिबुद्धिर्निषेधतः॥ यथा-मम धम्मिशर वीसत्थो मा स्म पान्थ गृहं विश। मानान्तर- परिच्छेद्यवस्तुरूपोपदेशिनाम्। शब्दानामेव सामथ्यं तत्र तत्र तथा तथा। अथवा नेदृशी चर्चा कविभि: सह शोभते ॥' (Vizianagaram ed. p. 48). Thewords of Dr. Mookerjee 'the doctrine of Dhvani is refuted which has been propounded by a fellow who considered himself a real scholar' do not accurately render the first half. The half line and the following lines really mean "a wise-acre resorted to or adopted a certain (doctrine called) dhvani, (according to which) there may be a suggestion of prohibition from words that (apparently) allow a certain act to be done or there is the suggestion of some act being allowed to be done (from words) that express a prohibition, as in 'bhama dhammia' &c." This is a pointed reference to the words of the वृति (in ध्व०) 'स हि कदाचिद्वाच्ये विधिरूपे प्रतिषेधरूपः । यथा मम धम्मिअ0, क्वचिद्वाच्ये प्रतिषेधरूपे विधिरूपो यथा । अत्ता एत्थ0, (pp 19, 24). The word 'prapede' cannot mean 'propounded'. It can only mean 'resorted to, took refuge, or adopted.'1 This quotation would recoil on Dr. Mookerjee. The words of Jayanta would mean 'there was already a doctrine of safa, which was adopted by a man who posed as a scholar &c.' That would lead to this that tafa already existed (in a work or in kārikās) and the vrttikāra only adopted it. There is a further hit in Jayanta's words vix. 'what is the use of arguing with poets' ? The plural is satirical. The vrttikāra (of ध्वन्यालोक) was a poet and is spoken of as कविरानन्दवर्धन: in the राजत० (quoted below). Jayanta says 'the writer (ofafa) is a mere poet and not an acute logician or philosopher; there is no use in arguing with such a man'. जयन्तवत्तिकार was almost a contempo- rary of आनन्दवर्धन, since his son अभिनन्द in his कादम्बरीकथासार states that जयन्त was the great-grandson of शक्तिस्व्ामिन्, minister of king मुक्तापीड of कर्कोटवंश. Mr. Goda Verma in New I. A. vol. V. pp. 265-272 has brought forward certain matters of contradiction between the kārikas and the vrtti and Dr. Krishnamoorthy (I. H. Q. vol. 24,

1. Compare रघुवंश VI. 17 'नरेन्द्रमार्गाट् इव प्रपेदे विवर्णभावं स स भूमिपालः' or राजशेखर 'ततः प्रपेदे भुवि भर्तमेएठताम्' or श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद् VI. 18 'मुमुत्तुवे शरखमहं प्रपधे'.

190 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

300-311, at p. 305 tries to meet Mr. Verma's arguments. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go into these matters at length. Though I do not agree with everything that Mr. Verma says, some of the points that he has made are arresting and worthy of consideration. For example, (a) on the कारिका I. 4 (प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेव वस्त्वस्ति वाणीषु महाकवीनाम्। यत्तत्प्रसिद्धावयवाति- रिक्तं विभाति लावएयमिवाअनासु II) the वृत्ति gives two explanations of प्रसिद्ध 'यशत्सहृदयहृदयसुप्रसिद्धं प्रसिद्धेभ्योऽलङकृतेभ्यः प्रतीतेभ्यो वावयवेभ्यो व्यतिरि- क्तत्वेन प्रकाशते &.(the लोचन says प्रसिद्धशब्दस्य सर्वंप्रतीतत्वमलङकृतत्वं चार्थः). In the very preceding karika I. 3 (तन्र वाच्यः प्रसिद्धो य: &c.) the word प्रसिद्ध is employed in the sense of 'well-known to all people'. If the author of कारिका and वृत्ति were the s:me he should have in the qfa stuck to one meaning in succeeding verses; (b) कारिका II. 11 is 'समर्पकत्वं काव्यस्य यत्तु सर्वरसान्प्रति। स प्रसादो गुणो श्ञेयः सर्वसाधारणक्रिय: ॥'. The preceding karikas (II. 9-10) state that the guna madhurya is specially suited to विप्रलम्भशक्गार and करुण and the guna ojas sets off Raudra, Vira and Adbhuta. Kārikā II. 11 states that prasāda is a guņa common to all rasas. The word सर्वसाधारयक्रिय: is explained in the वृत्ति as 'सर्वरससाधारणो गुखः सर्वरचनासाधारणश्र'. The context and the expression सवरसान् प्रति in the karika itself clearly convey that सर्व in सर्वसाधारयक्रिय: must refer only to सवरस. Hence the second explanation (सर्वरचना- साधारख) is out of place and (to use the language of which Doctor Mookerjee has made a fetish) is उत्सूत्रव्याख्यान; (c) कारिका III. 19 (last half) is 'रसस्य स्याद्विरोधाय वृत्त्यनौचित्यमेव च ॥I.' The vrtti gives three meanings to the word वृत्ति viz. व्यवहार (तथा वृत्तेव्यवहारस्य यदनौचित्यं तदपि रसभङ्गहेतुरेव। यथा नायकं प्रति नायिकाया: कस्या- श्विदुचिताअभभ्भिमन्तरेण स्वयं सम्भोगाभिलाषकथने), कैशिक्यादिवृत्तिs (known from भरत) or उपनागरिकादिवृत्ि. Out of these at the most the last two may be accepted as meant in the कारिका, looking to कारिकाS III. 33 and 48. These are matters worthy of consideration. I pass over the other points of Mr. Verma. Before proceeding further a few remarks have to be made about the name of the work. In the colophons of the work, it is often called सहृदयालोक 1 or सहदयहृदयालोक or काव्यालोक or काष्या- 1. Vide Des. cat of Govt. mss library at BORI, Poona, vol. XII pp. 209, 214, 215 mss. No. 254 & 256 & 255 of 1875- 76 pp. 209-215) where the colophons are : इत्यानन्दवर्धनाचार्यविरचिते सहदयहृदयालोके. .. उद्योत :. राघवभट्ट in his com. on शाकुन्तल says 'यदुक्तं राजानकानन्दवर्धनैः सहृदयहृदयालोके ... निबन्धनम्।" pp. 133-134.

DHVANYÂLOKA 191

लक्कार and ध्वनि also. Vide Cat.of. Govt. mss. at B. O.R. I. vol. XII p. 215, 216 for these names. The third introductory verse of the लोचन (यत्किश्विदप्यनुरयन् स्फुटयामि काव्यालोकं सुलोचननियोजनया जनस्य) seems to suggest that the author of the लोचन called the work काव्यालोक also. The second verse at the end of लोचन printed in Journal of Department of Letters, Calcutta vol. IX p. 42 is आानन्दवर्धनविवेक विकासिकाव्यालोकार्थतत्त्वघटनादनुमेयसारम् ।. This suggests that the work of आनन्दवर्धन was called काव्यालोक. अभिनव himself calls it सहृदयालोक in the अभिनवभारती quoted above p. 179. The penultimate verse at the end of the 4th उद्दोत (काव्याख्येऽखिलधाम्नि वियुधोद्याने ध्वनिदर्शित:) leads one to infer that काष्य formed part of the name of the original work (or was itself the name) on which आनन्दवर्धन commented (probably it was called काव्यध्वनि or simply काव्य or ध्वनि). ध्वनिकारिका III. 53 (वृत्तयोपि प्रकाशन्ते ज्ञाते- डस्मिन् काव्यलक्षे) speaks of the कारिकाड as काव्यलक्षण. It is therefore proper that the वृत्ति is called काव्यालोक or ध्वन्यालोक. But it is not so easy to say why the work should have been styled सहृदयालोक. Prof. Sovani (JRAS 1910 pp. 164-167) made the plausible conjecture that सहृदय was the name of the author of the कारिकाड. He relied upon the name सहृदयालोक and on the words of the लोचन in the 2nd introductory stanza (सरस्वत्यास्तत्वं कविसहृदयाख्यं विजय- ara). It may ultimately turn out that Prof. Sovani is right, but the reasons assigned by him are quite meagre and more substantial evidence ought to be adduced for the purpose. If भलोक is the name of a work (as in the case of प्रदीप, प्रकाश) it seems natural to argue that Haay is the name of a work and not of an author. So it is difficult to make सहृदयालोक yield by itself सहृदय as the name of the author of the कारिकाs. The words 'सरस्व .... विजयतात' may, for ought we know, contain a veiled allusion to सहृदय as the name of the author of the कारिकाs. But the words clearly mean that the real essence of सरस्वती is poets (कवि) and men of taste (सहृदय, literary critics). The last verse of the ध्वन्यालोक would seem to suggest that आनन्दवर्धन claimed for himself the position of the expounder of the real essence of poetry which lay almost dormant though alive (lit. throbbing) in mature minds (सत्काव्यतत्त्वविषयं स्फुरितप्रसुप्तकल्पं मनःसु परिपक्वधियां यदा- सीद। तद्ठ्याकरोत्सहृदयोदयलाभहेतोरानन्दवर्धन इति प्रथिताभिधानः ॥). The evidence so far advanced for holding that सहृदय was the author of the karikas is quite inadequate. But there is more evidence, which as far as my knowledge goes, had not been

192 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

relied upon by scholars before I wrote in 1923. The अभिधावृत्ति- मातृका, which was composed about a hundred years earlier than the लोचन, distinctly says that ध्वनि, which had been propounded as a new doctrine by the respected सहृदय, does fall within the sphere of लक्षया 'लक्षणामार्गावगाहित्वं तु पन: सहृवयर्नूतनतयोपर्वणतस्य विद्यत इति दिशमुन्मीलयितुमिदमत्रोक्तम्' p.21. So also on p. 19 मुकुल says 'तथाहि तत्र विवच्ितान्यपरता सहृदर्यः काव्यवत्मनि निरूपिता' This clearly shows that when मुकुल wrote (about 900-925 A.D.) ध्वनि was a new doctrine and that सहृदय propounded it. Similarly, प्रती- हारेन्दुराज, the pupil of मुकुल, says 'ननु यत्र काव्ये सहृदयहृदय ह!दिनः प्रधानभूतस्य स्वशब्दव्यापारास्पृष्टत्वेन प्रतीयमानेकरूपस्यार्थस्य सद्भावस्तत्र तथाविधार्था- भिव्यक्तिहेतुः काव्यजीवितभूतः केश्चित्सहृदयंर्ध्वनिर्नाम व्यअ्ञकत्वभेदात्मा काव्यधर्मो- डभिहित: (p. 79). These passages, particularly the first two, make it very probable that सहृदय was the name of the author who propounded the theory of ध्वनि or (more probably) was the title given to him by his admirers. As to the identity of the author of the karikas with आनन्द- वर्धन, a perplexing difficulty arises. राजशेखर in his काव्यमी0 (p. 16) says 'प्रतिभाव्युत्पत्त्योः प्रतिभा श्रयसी इत्यानन्दः । सा हि कवेरव्युत्पत्तिकृतं दोष- मशेषमाच्छादयति। तत्राह-अ्व्युत्पत्तिकृतो दोषः शकत्या संव्रियते कवेः। यस्त्व- शक्तिकृतस्तस्य भगित्येवावभासते।' (p. 16). The verse quoted as आनुन्द's is a परिकरश्रोक in ध्वo. (p. 179); so by about 900 to 925 A. D.) it was well-known that आनन्दवर्धन was the author of the वृ चति in the ्वo. But this has no bearing on identity. A verse ascribed to राजशेखर in जहष's सूक्तिमुक्तावली (p.46 of G. O. S. ed.) speaks of आनन्दवर्धन as one who established the true essence of poetry by means of (the work) ध्वनि 'ध्वनिनातिगभीरेख काव्यतत्त्वनिवे- शिना। आनन्दवर्धनः कस्य नासीदानन्दवर्धनः॥'. प्रतीहारेन्दुराज, after the passage quoted above about सहृदय, gives it as his opinion that ध्वनि is included among the alankaras and proceeds to examine the threefold division of व्वनि into वस्तु, अलक्कार and रस and tries to show that the examples of these given in the tao are merely examples of अलङ्गार (pp. 79-85). In these pages occur passages which show that he attributed the वृत्ति also to सहृदय; for exa- mple, ('तथाहि प्रतीयमानैकरूपस्य वस्तुत्रैविष्यं तैरुक्तं (तः=सहृदयैः) वस्तुमात्रा- लक्गाररसादिभेदेन तत्र वस्तुमात्रं तावत्प्रतीयते यथा चक्राभिघातप्रसभाशयैव'; vide, ध्व. p. 109 for this illustration; (2) "वाच्यशत्तयाश्रयं (व्यअ्ञकत्वं) तु रसादि- वस्तुमात्रालक्गाराभिव्यक्ति हेतुत्वात्त्रिविधम्। तत्र यत्तावद्वाचकशक्त्याश्रयं व्यङ्यभूताल- क्वरे कनियतं शब्दशक्तिमूलानुरएनरूपव्यअ्ञयतया सह द पेर्व्यञजकत्वमुक्तं 'सर्वेकशरण- मक्षयम्' इत्यादो, तत्र शब्दशक्त्या ये प्रतीयन्ते विरोधादयोलक्वारास्तत्संस्कृतस्वभाव

DHVANYĀLOKA 193

वाच्यमवगम्यते। अतस्तत्र वाच्यस्य विवनैव" (p.83); on this passage it is to be noted that the verse सवेक० is cited as his own by भानन्दवर्धन (p. 123) which is attributed to सहृदय by प्रतीहारेन्दुराज;(3) अ्रत एव च सहव्ययत्र वाच्यस्य विवतितत्वं तत्रैव वस्त्वलक्कारयोः प्रतीयमानयोर्वाच्येन सह क्रम- व्यवहार: प्रवर्तितोऽर्थंशक्तिमूलानुरनरूपव्यक्वयो ध्वनिरित्युक्तं न तु वाच्यविवत्तायामपि (१ वाच्या०) । यत्र व वाच्यस्याविवक्षा पूर्वमुक्ता रामोस्मीति सुवर्णपुष्पामिति

मन्यामहे' (p. 84). Both the verses रामोस्मि and सुवर्णपुष्पा are cited as examples of अविवच्षितवाच्यध्वनि (p.75 and p.58 respectively of the ध्वo). The words of प्रतीहारेन्दुराज lead to the conclusion that he attributed both कारिका and वृत्ति to सहृदय. The words यत्र वाच्यस्य ... ध्वनिरित्युक्तं in passage 3 refer to p. 119 of ध्व०. The वक्रोक्तिजीवित cites (II. example 25) ताला जाश्रन्ति गुखा ... कमलाइँ (ध्व0 p.76) as an example of रूढिशब्दवक्रता (it is आनन्द's own verse) and remarks 'ध्वनिकारेण व्यङ्रयव्यञ्जकभावोऽत्र सुतरां समर्थितः कि पौनरुक्त्येन.' So the वक्रोक्तिजीवित speaks of आनन्द० as ध्वनिकार. Coming to महिमभट्, a writer who was almost a contem- porary of the author of the लोचन, wefind that he makes no dis- tinction between the author of the कारिकाs and the वृत्ति. On p. 1 he quotes the कारिका 'यत्रार्थः शब्दो वा' etc. (ध्व. p. 38) as ध्वनिकार's, while on p. I1 he quotes several passages from the वृत्ति as व्वनि- कार's (viz, the passage "तथा चाह ध्वनिकारः "साररूपो हर्थः" is from p. 239 of च्व .; the passage पुनः स एवाह न हिव्यंग्ये प्रतीयमाने वाच्यबुद्धिदरीभवति, occurs on p. 236 of the ध्वo; again 'न हि विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिय एव' etc. occurs on p. 227 of घo). On p. 16 of the व्यक्तिविवेक we read 'अथार्थशब्देनोभयमपि सङ्हीतं तस्योभयार्थविषयत्वेनेष्टत्वात्। यदाह-अरथः सहृदय- क्राध्यः ... स्मृतौ (ध्वनिकारिका I. 2) इति। सत्यम्। किन्तु त्मर्थमिति तच्छम्देना- नन्तर्यात् श्रतीयमानस्यार्थस्य परामर्शे सति पारिशेष्यादर्थो वाच्यविशेष इति स्वयं विवृतत्वाच्चार्थशब्दो वाच्यविषय एव विशञायते'. It will be noticed that the व्यक्तिविवेक clearly states that the वृत्ति 'यत्रार्थो वाच्यविशेष:' etc., on the karika यत्रार्थ: शब्दो वा etc. (ध्व. p. 38) belongs to the author of कारिकाs. So also pp. 29 and 34 of the व्यक्तिविवेक will show that he designated the author of the ध्वनिकारिकाs and of the वृत्ति also as ध्वनिकार. The शचित्यवचारचर्चा of चेमेन्द्र (on कारिका 18) quotes the कारिका (घ्व०, III. 24) 'विरोधी वाविरोधी वा रसोङविनि रसान्तरे। ... विरो- घिता।।' as आानन्दवर्धन's. हेमचन्द्र (विवेक p. 26) ascribes the कारिका 'प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेव' &C., (न्व. I. 4) to भानन्दवर्धन, while on pp. 113 and 235 (of काब्यानुशासन) he ascribes the कारिकाs III. 30 and 39 to अनिकार. The साहित्यदपण quotes the first कारिका and II. 12 as from ध्वनिकार or ध्वनिकृत and also ascribes the वृत्ति (viz. the words

194 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

नहि कमेरितिवृत्तमात्रनिवहिय &c. on p. 148 of ध्द0) to ध्वनिकार. No use- ful perpose will be served by referring to later writers, when comparatively early writers who were not separated from the ध्वन्यालोक by more than a century or two hold conflicting opinions as to the identity of the कारिकाकार and the वृत्तिकार It is difficult to give a decisive opinion in the midst of the conflict of views between certain passages of the लोचन itself read with मुकुल on the one hand and महिमभट्ट and वेमेन्द्र on the other. The चन्द्रिका (which as we shall see later on was a com- mentary on the ध्वन्यालोक written before the लोचन) and the हृदयदर्पण of भट्टनायक (which strongly criticized ध्व.) would in all probability throw some light on this question; but unfortuna- tely these works have not yet been discovered. The passage of the लोचन (pp. 150-51) however quoted above if rightly interpreted, seems to show that the चन्द्रिका also regarded the कारिकाकार and वृत्तिकार as distinct. At present I feel inclined to hold (though with hesitation) that मुकुल and some passages of लोचन are right and that कुन्तक, महिमभट्ट, केमेन्द्र and a host of other writers had not the correct tradition before them. It seems that सहृदय was either the name or the title of the कारिकाकार and that भानन्दवर्धन was his pupil and was very closely associat- ed with him. This would serve to explain the confusion of authorship that arose within a short time. Faint indications of this relationship may be traced in the धवन्यालोक itself. The word सहृदयमनःप्रीतये in the first कारिका is explained in the वृत्ति as 'रामायंयमहाभारतप्रभृतिनि लक्ष्ये सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धव्यवहारं लक्षयतां सहदयानामा- नन्दो मनसि लभतां प्रतिष्ठामिति प्रकाश्यते.' It will be noticed that the word sitfa is purposely rendered by the double-meaning word भानन्द (pleasure and the author भानन्द०). The whole sentence may have two meanings 'may pleasure find room in the hearts of the men of taste & c.' and 'may आनन्द (the author) secure regard in the heart of the (respected) सहृदय who defined (the nature of ध्वनि) to be found in the रामायण &c.' Similarly, the words सहदयोदयलामहेतो: in the last verse of the वृत्ति may be explained as 'for the sake of the benefit viz, the appearance of men of correct literary taste' or 'for the sake of securiug the rise (of the fame) of सहृदय' (the author). The word सहृदय (as well as its synonym सचेतस) - occurs scores of times in the कारिकाS, वृत्ि and लोचन. For example, vide कारिकाs I. 1 and 2, II. 14, III. 40; स. pp. 3, 8, 9, 12, 17, 40, 71, 97, 102, 197, 198 etc; लोचन pp.

DHVANYĀLOKA 195

3, 7, 13, 14, 26, 28, 68, 254. The ध्वन्यालोक (p.198) holds a discussion about the meaning of सहदयत्व and the लोचन defines सहृदय as 'येषां काव्यानुशीलनाभ्यासवशादिशदीभूते मनोमुकुरे वर्नीयतन्मयीभवन- योग्यता ते हृदयसंवादभाज: सहृदयाः' (p.13) and again (at p. 68) 'हृदयसंवादापरपर्यायसहृदयत्वपर वशीकृततया etc.' हेमचन्द्र in his विवेक (p. 3) merely copies the words of the लोचन. It is to be noted that the लोचन speaks of भानन्दवर्धन aS 'सहृदयचरवती खल्वयं ग्रन्थकृदिति भांवः' (p. 14). One may hazard the conjecture that it was due to the profuse use of the word सहृदय in the ध्वन्यालोक and to making the aery the final court of appeal in all matters of literary appreciation that the founder of the safa theory earned the epithet सहृदय (par excellence). Apart from the use of the word सहृदय or सचेतस in the रामाय (भयोध्या 13.22) and कालिदास (सचेतसः कस्य मनो न दूयते in कुमारसम्भव V. 48) in a general sense (viz. one who has a feeling or sympathetic heart), the word Hry in the technical sense occurs more than a hundred years before आनन्दवर्धन in वामन's काव्यालक्कारसूत्रवृत्ति (I. 2. 21 where the following is one of two verses quoted with the caption "तथाचाङगु: -'वचसि यमधिगम्य स्यन्दते वाचकश्रीर्वितथमपि तथात्वं यत्र वस्तु प्रयाति। उदयति हि स तादृकू कापि वैदर्भरीतौ सहदयहृदयानां रब्जकः कोपि पाकः ॥". Therefore, the emergence of the word HEry in a technical sense must be placed long before ara. There is nothing unusual in a person being called by a word that has a general sense (such as Hers) as we have authors in the अलक्वारशास itself named मेवाविन्, दखिडन्, धनिक and so on. Dr. Krishnamoorthy (in Annals B. O. R. I. vol. 28 at p. 190 n. 1) tries to explain away the occurrence of the word Her in Vamana's work by saying that he was a contemporary of the new critics (whom he postulates without any sound reason). Further, he does not prove when and where those critics flou- rished. I do not understand what Dr. Krishnamoorthy means when he says 'But Vamana was a Kashmirian who was perhaps a contemporary of the new critics ; hence Vamana's usage does not alter the position.' Vamana merely quotes a prede- cessor, who may have flourished for aught we know several hundred years before Vamana., Hence the position about the use of the word sahrdaya in a technical sense will be very much altered, Anandavardhana's work cannot be placed earlier than about 875 to 900 A. D. Vamana flourished be- tween 775-810 A. D. And the author of that verse flourished

196 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

before araa. How much earlier one cannot say. So it is not possible that the unnamed predecessor of araa borrowed the ideology of भानन्दवर्धन or his master (if he had one for teaching him the canons of literary appreciation). On the theory of identity both the kārikas and vrtti belong to the same period (875-900) and as -ao does not expressly acknowledge a master who guided his steps, there is nothing to show that a circle of literary critics of the type of . existed before him. The question about the name of the author of the kārikas is entirely separate from the question of the identity of the author of the karikas and of the vrtti. A scholar accepting non-identity of authorship may yet argue that the name of the karikakara is not known. The late Prof. Sovani suggested that Sahrdaya was the name of the Kārikākara and I adduced more evidence in support of that view than Prof. Sovani had put forward. I do not profess that I have completely proved my hypothesis. The remarks of Mukula cited by me above indicate that Sahradaya was in the opinion of Mukula the author of the karikas or of the whole work and accord- ing to Pratiharenduraja, of the whole work. Now I have drawn attention to the fact that the work was called सहदयहृदया- लोक by राघवभट्ट and in some colophons. We have further to notice that in his comment on the very first verse of the Nāțyaśāstra, Abhinavagupta mentions Bhatța-Nāyaka and his work called सहृदयदर्पण. This raises the important question whether Bhattanayaka's work was called सहृदयदपण or हृदयदर्पय. In the लोचन the worka is quoted as हृदयदपय (pp.32,76). When the व्यक्तिविवेक says in Intro. verse 4 (सहसा यशोभिसत समुधता- दृष्टदपंणा मम घी:) the commentator explains 'दर्पयो हृदयदर्पणाख्यो ध्वनि- ध्वंसगन्थोपि'. Most of the Mss. of the लोचन at the B.O.R. I. read हृदयदपणे. It looks to me more likely that the work was called सहदयदप which makes far better sense than हृदयदर्पण and which might convey two meanings also, viz. 'mirror of the 1. भट्टनायकस्तु ब्रह्मणा परमात्मना यदुदाहृतं ... इति व्याख्यानं सहृदयदर्परे न्यंगृहीद। भ. भा. vol. I. pp. 4-5. 2. एतदेवोक्तं हृदयदपणे यावत्पूर्णों न चैतेन तावन्नैवैवम्। तेन यदाह भट्ट- नायकः 'शब्दप्राधान्यमाश्रित्य०'। P.32; तेनैतननिरवकाशं यदुक्तं हृदयदर्पणे सर्बंत्र तर्हि काव्यव्यवहारः स्यादिवि। p. 32; य्तु हृदयदपरो उकतं 'रह्दा हेति संरम्भार्थोयं चमस्कारः' इति। p. 76.

DHVANYĀLOKA 197

ideas of men of literary appreciation' or 'mirror that will show Sahrdaya (in his true light)'. The भभिनत्रभारती (vol. I. p. 173) states: अत एव सहृदया: स्मरन्ति 'वध (स) म चूडामशिभा.' The text of the verse is corrupt, but there is hardly any doubt that HEar: here stands for an author. The कौमुदी of उदयोत्ता gives several expla- nations of the last pada of the मङल to the लोचन 'सरस्वत्यास्तत्वं कवि- सहृदयाख्यं विजयते', one of which is as follows: 'यदि वा कविशग्देन सर्वेंपि कवयः सहृदया गृहीता: सहृदयशबदेनानन्दवर्षनाचार्य: ततश्च देवतात्मत्वे गुरुनम- स्कारोपि अनुसंहितो भवति।. This shows that to the कौमुदी the idea of holding that Sahrdaya was a proper name did not appear far-fetched. There is one more reference which is interesting and would have some bearing on the question of the author of the कारिकाs and वृत्ति. The व्यक्तिविवेक at the beginning of the 2nd विमर्श (Tri. ed. p.37) remarks: इह खलु द्विविधमनौचित्यमुक्तमर्थविषयं शब्दविषयं च। तत्र विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिणामयथायथं रसेषु यो विनियोगस्तन्मात्र- लक्षणमेकमङ्गमाधरेवोक्त्तमिति नेह प्रतन्यते।'. On this the com. (of रुय्यक) remarks "उक्तमिति सहृदयः । अन्तरभ्गमिति साक्षाद्रसविषयत्वाद्। भाधैरिति ध्वनिकारप्रभृतिभिरिति । तदुक्तं 'अनौचित्या ... परा' ॥ इत्यादिना।". It may be noted that ध्वनिकारिका III. 10 is विभावभावानुभवसव्वार्योचित्यचारुयः । विधि: कथाशरीरस्य वृत्तस्योत्प्रेत्षितस्य वा ॥।'. So the words उक्तमिति सहृदयः refer to this कारिका. The verse अनौचित्यादृते occurs in the वृत्ति on p. 180 explaining the ध्वनिकारिका III. 10. So here at least the commentator ascribes the कारिका to सहदय and the वृत्ति to ध्वनिकार Dr. Mookerjee has again come forward to the attack in 'Indian Culture' vol. 12 pp. 57-60. But he has advanced hardly any new arguments which would require any fresh reply. He has, however, indulged in two remarks which I cannot allow to pass unchallenged. On p. 60 he is pleased to observe 'I am categorically definite that all right thinking men will be convinc- ed that the theory of dual authorship of the Dhvanyaloka is a canard and a figment of misconception due to lack of careful appraisal of the rules of exegesis. I am definite that the pro- blem is set at rest finally and once for all' (Italics are mine here and below). I ask all scholars to mark the abusive epithets in the first sentence. Abuse of one's opponents or of their arguments is held by all discerning judges to be a sure sign of the weakness of the case put up by one who indulges in abuse and vituperation. I may assure Dr. Mookerjee that several persons can use far more abusive language than he has indulged in, but that is not the way of a true scholar who is in

198 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

pursuit of the truth. The second sentence shows a lamentable mentality. Dr. Mokerjee desires to silence all opponents by his ipse dixit and has been so bold as to assume the role of an advocate and also of a judge in his own cause. Whether a question in issue has finally been decided and set at rest is not for Dr. Mookerjee but for independent scholars to decide. Similarly, Dr. Krishnamoorthy shows how far he has balanced judgment in the following remark: 'there is not a single piece of evidence to support firmly the theory of dual authorship (I. H. Q. vol. 24 p. 307). He has proved to his own satisfaction that he is right. I leave him to enjoy that satisfaction. It is for discerning Sanskrit scholars to judge him finally and properly. Additional arguments for asserting that the theory of ध्वनि in poetry had been propounded before भानन्दवर्धन may be set out. आानन्द० quotes (on p. 10) a verse which the लोचन ascribes to मनोरथ, a contemporary of भानन्द०, in which the theory of ध्वनि is ridiculed 'काव्यं तद्ध्वनिना समन्वितमिति प्रीत्या प्रशंस- क्जडो नो विभोभिदधाति कि सुमतिना पृष्टः स्वरूपं ध्वनेः ॥'. Vide राजतर० (IV. 497) for मनोरथ and others and IV. 671 मानी मनोरथो मन्त्री परं परिजहार तम्. This refers to मनोरयs avoiding the voluptury ललितापीड who succeeded king जयापीड. The सुभा० (No. 51, 58, 440) quotes verses of a मनोरथ. If this मनोरथ is identical with the मनोरथ who flourished in the reign of जयापोड and ललितापीड the ध्वनिकारिकाs were composed between 800-825. Parhaps the लोचन is slightly wrong in making आनन्द० a contemporary of मनोरथ. The लोचन while commenting on the words 'परम्परया समान्नातः' in the ध्वन्यालोक says that before the ध्वन्यालोक there ex- isted no work dealing with the theory of ध्वनि 'विनापि विशिष्टपुस्तकेषु विवेचनादित्यभिप्रायः' (p. 4). The ध्वन्यालोक makes it clear that the theory of ध्वनि and its nomenclature were suggested by the स्फोट theory of the grammarians 'प्रथमे हि विद्ांसो वैयाकरणः। व्याकरणमूल- त्वात्सवविद्यानाम्। ते च श्रूयमायेषु वर्शेषु धनिरिति व्यवहरन्ति। तथबान्यस्तन्म- तानुसारिभि: सूरिभि: काव्यतरवार्यवर्शिभिर्वाच्यवाचकसंमिश्रः शब्दात्मा काव्यमिति व्यपवश्यो व्यञ्जकत्वसाम्याद् ध्बनिरित्युक:।' (घ्व० pp. 55-56) and again on p. 249 'परिनिश्चितनिरपभ्रंशशम्दमक्षयां विपश्चिता मतमाश्रित्येव प्रवृत्तोयं ध्वनिव्यवहार इति तैः सह कि विरोधाविरोधौ चिन्त्येते।'. The स्फोट theory is probably older than पाणिनि who mentions a predecessor स्फोटायन in 'अवळ स्फोटायनस्य' पा. VI. 1.123. The वाक्यपदीय at great length

DHVANYĀLOKA 199

propounds the doctrine of स्फोट (I. 44 ff). The ध्वन्यालोक says that the object of writing the book is not merely to establish by polemics that safa exists, but it is to show that the true fun- ction and purpose of poetry is arra which may take the form of T etc. and to show that if the poet regards mere narration of events as his principal function, he is liable to commit serious breaches of good taste 'अत एव चेतिवृत्तमात्रवर्नप्राधान्येडमाजि- भावरहितभावनिबन्धेन च कवीनामेवंविधानि स्खलितानि भवन्तीति रसादिरूपव्य- अयतात्पर्यमेवैषां युक्तमिति यत्नोऽस्माभिरारग्धो न ध्वनिप्रतिपादनमात्रामिनिवेशेन' (p. 201-202). On going over all the arguments for and against the , identity or non-identity of authorship I cannot help suspecting that, soon after Anandavardhana, those who believed in identity tried to tamper with the text of the ध्वन्यालोक in various ways such as introducing the spurious verse इति काव्यार्थ ... विस्मार्य: (after III. 9 on p. 178), reading इत्यक्लिष्ट for निस्याक्लिष्ट०, the splitting up of kārikas and so on. It is impossible to convey an adequate idea of the con- tents of the ध्वन्यालोक in a few lines. The following is a bare outline. In the first उद्द्योत, the author refers to the different views about afa, some holding that it does not exist, some saying that it is included under लव्या, others holding that ध्वनि cannot be defined and is beyond the province of words but can at the most be relished by the man of taste; there are two senses in poetry, expressed (वाच्य) and implied (प्रतीयमान); the arT sense in the form of figures of speech is well-known; the प्रतीयमान is like personal charm in the case of beautiful ladies (which is distinct from the body and the limbs); प्रतीयमान is of three kinds, वस्तु, अलक्कार and रस and there are many sub- divisons of these three; this प्रतीयमान sense is not understood by those who merely know grammar and lexicons, but only by those who know the essence of poetry; the प्रतीयमान sense is the principal thing in poetry; when the ajr4 sense is the most prominent, it is ध्वनिकाव्य; in figures like समासोक्ति, भाचेप, पर्यायोक and others, though there is a प्रतीयमान sense, the वाच्य sense is the most prominent and hence they are not ध्वनि; ध्वनि is of two kinds अविवत्षितवाच्य (in which the expressed sense is not intended to be conveyed or taken literally and विवच्ितान्यपरवाच्य (where the a sense is intended to be conveyed and also suggests another sense). ध्वनि is not identical with भक्ि (लच्षया); nor is ध्वनि

200 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

incapable of being defined and illustrated. In the 2nd उद्धोत he subdivides भविवचितवाच्य into भर्थान्तरसंक्रमित and अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्य and cites instances of each; the instances of the two respec- tively are 'तदा जायन्ते गुखा यदा ते सहृदयगृ धन्ते। रविकिरयानुगृद्दीतानि भवन्ति कमलानि कमलानि ।।' (here the 2nd कमलानि is अर्थान्तरसंo) and रविसंक्रान्तसौभाग्यस्तुषारावृतमएडलः । निःश्वासान्य इवादर्शश्न्द्रमा 'न प्रकाशते ॥' (here the word अन्ध is अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्य); he divides विवत्ितान्य- परवाच्य into भसंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यक्रय and संलक्षयक्रमव्यंग्य; भसंलo is constituted by रस, भाव, रसाभास, भावाभास and भावप्रशम, when these occupy the principal position; where रस, भाव and others are subordi- nate and the principal purport of the passage is different, there occur the figures रसवद् &c; difference between gunas and alankaras; remarks on the three gunas माधुर्य, ओोजस् and प्रसाद; अनुप्रास and यमक are not very desirable in शृद्गार; illustrations of such figures as रूपक, पर्यायोक्त as subsidiary and favourable to the evolution of शृम्गाररस; subdivision of संलक्ष्यक्म into शब्दशक्तिमूल and अर्थशक्तिमूल, the former occurs where by the power of words an अलक्कार is suggested (and not expressed), while in श्लेष two meanings are directly conveyed by the words themselves; examples of श्लेष and शब्दशक्तिमूलघ्वनि; definition and elucidation of अर्थशक्तिमूल (an example is 'एवं वादिनि देवर्षौं पार्श्वें पितुरधोमुखी। लीलाकमलपत्राषि गणयामास पावती ।' where the व्यभिचारिभाव लज्जा is suggested); difference between अर्थशंक्तिमूल and असंलच््यक्रमव्यंग्य (the latter occurs where T# is relished by ,the express mention of विभावS, अनुभावs and व्यमिचारभाव); subdivision of अर्थशक्तिमूल into वस्तु and अलक्कार, the former being प्रौढोक्तिनिष्पन्र1 and स्वतःसम्भवी; examples of अलक्कारध्वनि. III. In the second उद्द्योत the sub-divisions of ध्वनि were based upon व्यंग्य, in the third उद्धोत sub-divisions are made from the point of view of the व्यन्जक; अविवतितवाच्य (in its two varieties) is पदप्रकाश्य (an example is कः सन्नद्धे विरहविधुरा त्वय्युपेक्षेत जाया) or वाक्यप्रकाश्य (as in या निशा सवभूतानां तस्यां जागर्ति संयमी) ; the same two varieties occur in the संलच्ष्यक्रमव्यंग्य divi- sion of विवत्तितान्यपरवाच्य; असंलच्ष्यक्रम is helped by वर्ष, पद, वाच्य, सङटना and प्रबन्ध; three kinds of सङ्गटना (असमासा, मध्यमसमासा and दीघसमासा); the relation of सङटना2 to गुख; सहूटना depends upon 1. Vide Mr. A. K. Subramania Aiyer's article on 'Praudhokti in Alankāra-śāstra' in J. O. R., Madras, vol. 16 pp. 20-31.

pp. 76-78. 2. Vide a brief article on सङ्दना in New I. A. vol. VII.

DHVANYĀLOKA 201

its appropriateness to speaker, the sense, the subject, the rasa; how rasa is manifested, how it is to be sustained, the figures favourable to the various rasas; the plot and its relation to rasa; illustration of the fact that असंलच्यक्रम is conveyed even by parti- cular declensions, conjugations, कृत् and तद्धित affixes, compounds etc .; what things are opposed (विरोधिन:) to the proper evolu- tion of rasa; one T# should be the principal one in a composi- tion and others should be ancillary to it; discussion of the difference between वाच्य and गम्य sense; difference between गुपवृत्ति and व्यंग्य; व्यंग्यव्यअञक्भाव is not the same as अनुमान; a second variety of काव्य called गुीभूतव्यंग्य (where, though there is a व्यंग्य sense, the expressed sense is charming); examples of गुणीभूतव्यंग्य ; the third varicty of काव्य is चित्र, which is of two kinds, शब्दचित्र (such as यमक) and वाच्यचित्र (such as the figures उत्प्रेक्षा etc.); the third variety of aroy occurs when the poet has no intention to convey a suggested sense or to evolve rasa etc; by the combina- tion of these three varieties of arar numerous sub-varieties arise; the ritis and urttis (कैशिकी ete. and उपनागरिका etc.). IV The प्रतिभा of poets presents ever fresh aspects in the domain of ध्वनि and गुणीभूतव्यङयकाव्य; the same thought, when made to glow by the poet's imagination, appears new; the poet should concen- trate upon one rasa as the main purport of his work; in the रामायख, करुण is the main rasa and in the महाभारत, which is both शास्त्र and काव्य, शान्त rasa is the principal one intended by the poet; the province of poetry is unlimited in spite of the fact that hundreds of poets have composed works for centuries; the thoughts of inspired poets may bear a certain correspoudence; the resemblance between the works of two poets may be like that of बिम्ब and प्रतिबिम्ब, or between a thing and its picture, or between two human beings; the first two kinds of resemblance should be avoided, but the third is charming. Besides the रामायण and the महाभारत (the अनुकमखी, गीता, गृध्र- गोमायुसंवाद ofwhich are quoted) the following are among the authors and works mentioned by name :- अजनचरित (a महाकाव्य by श्रानन्द० pp. 183, 218), अमरुक, उङ्धट (116, 131), कादम्बरी, कालिदास, तापसवत्सराज (a drama), धमकीर्ति, नागानन्द, भट्टवा, भरत, भामह (46,259), मधुमथनविजय, रत्नावली, रामाभ्युदय, विषमनायलीला (a work by आानन्द० in Prakrit), वेखीसंहार, सर्वसेन (author of हरिविजय in Prakrit), सातवाहन (as having gone to नागलोक, 179), सेतुकाव्य, हरिविजय, हरि- वंश (as composed by कृष्यद्वपायन and placed at the end of the

202 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

महाभारत, 300), हर्षचरित; quotations are taken from the गाथासप्तशतो, मनोरथ, the शाकुन्तल and other works of कालिदास, शिशुपालवध, सूर्य- शतक; he frequently quotes his own verses (in Sanskrit and Prakrit) as illustrations (123 two verses, 134, 136, 284, 303, 306); he gives here and there a few verses called परिकरश्लोक (vide above p. 182); this expression is explained by लोचन (P. 40) 'परिकरार्थ कारिकार्थस्याधिकावापं कर्तु श्लोक: परिकरश्लोक:' i.e. a verse that explained and expanded the sense of a कारिका (discussed in the वृत्ति). For the meaning of परिकर compare 'व्याकरणस्य शरीरं परिनिष्ठितशास्त्रकार्यमेतावत्। शिष्टः परिकरबन्धः क्रियनेस्य ग्रन्थकारेय ।' (Peterson on ms. of काशिका JBBRAS vol. 16 extra No. p. 29). On p. 277 he introduces two verses with the words 'तदिदमुक्त' on which the लोचन remarks 'मर्यवेत्यर्थः' On p. 292 he quotes a verse with the words तदिदमुक्त on which the लोचन says 'उक्तमिति संग्रहार्थ मयैवेत्यर्थः'. On p. 278 we have two well-known verses 'अपारे काव्यसंसारे' etc. and 'शृङ्गारी चेत्कविः' introduced by the words तथा चेदमुच्यते (discussed above pp.7-8). On p.280 he gives two verses that summarise the preceding discussion with the words तदयमत्र संग्रह: The date of आनन्दवर्धन cIn be settled with great precision. The राज० says 'मुक्ताकयः शिवस्वामी कविरानन्दवर्धनः। प्रथां रत्नाकरश्चागा- त्साम्राज्येवन्तिवर्मयः ॥' (V. 34). This shows that आनन्दवर्घन attained fame as a poet in the reign of अवन्तिवर्मन् of Kashmir (855-883 A. D.). This date agrees well with what we know from other sources. He quotes 3az and so is later than 800 A. D .; while he is quoted by राजशेखर (about 900-925 A. D.). Therefore, the period of this literary activity would lie between 860-890 A.D. रत्नाकर is the author of the महाकाव्य हरविजय, which was composed by him, as he says, in the reign of बालवृहस्पति. Num- erous verses are quoted by the सुभाo from a poet called शिवस्वामी. We are told by the लोचन that मनोरथ was one of the contempo- raries of आनन्द० (vide above p. 198). Besides the अजनचरित, the ध्वन्यालोक and the विषमनाणलीला, आनन्द० wrote after the ध्वन्या- लोक a work on the धर्मोत्तमा, a commentary on the (प्रमाख) विनिश्चय (of धर्मकीर्ति). 'यत्त्वनिर्देश्यत्वं सवलक्षणविषये बौद्धानां प्रसिद्धं तत्तन्मतपरीक्षाय। ग्रन्थान्तरे निरूपयिष्यामः' (p. 292), on which the लोचन remarks 'विनिश्चयटीकायां धर्मोचमायां या विवृतिरमुना ग्रन्थकता कृता तत्रैव तद्व्याख्यातम्'. In 'History of Indian Logic' (pp. 329-331) Dr. Vidyabhushan assigns 847 A. D.as the date of the धर्मोत्तमा of धर्मोत्तर on प्रमाय- विनिश्षय. The original (of धर्मोसमा) is lost, but there is a Tibetan

DHVANYĀLOKA 203

translation. भानन्द० also composed the देवीशतक which is full of यमक, भाषाश्लेष, गोमूत्रिका andother चित्रबन्ध. From verse 101 of देवी- शतक it appears that he was the son of नोष and wrote the work after the विषमबाखलीला and the भर्जुनचरित 'येनानन्दकथायां त्रिदशानन्देच लालिता वाखी। तेन सुदुष्करमेतत्स्तोत्रं देव्या: कृतं भक्त्या ।'. हेमचन्द्र also in his काव्यानुशासनविवेक (p.225) states that आनन्दवर्धन was Son of नोख. The देवीशतक was commented upon by कय्यट, son of चन्द्रादित्य and grandson of वल्लभदेव, in 4078 गतकलि (i.e. 977 A.D.) in the reign of king भीमगुप्त.1 The commentary of अभिनवगुप्त is variously designated in the mss. as सहृदयालोकलोचन or ध्वन्यालोकलोचन or काव्यालोकलोचन; the name of the commentary is लोचन and not आलोचन as some suppose. At the end of the first and the third उद्दयोत we have the verse 'कि लोचनं विनालोको भाति चन्द्रिकयापि हि। तेनाभिनवगुप्तोत्र लोचनोन्मीलनं व्यधात् ।।'; later writers like विश्वनाथ cite him as लोचन- कार. The commentary of अभिनवगुप्त occupies in the Alankara literature a position analogous to that of पतअ्लि's महाभाष्य in grammar or Sankaracarya's bhasya on the Vedantasutras. अभि- नवगुप्त was a profound philosopher, an acute critic and a great poet. His commentary is sometimes more erudite and difficult than the text. Here and there he discusses various reading in the कारिकाs and the वृत्ति (vide p. 180, कारिका III. 46 on p. 290). Among the authors and the works quoted by him (besides those in the ध्वन्यालोक) in the लोचन are :- इन्दुराज (frequently quoted), उत्पल (p. 35 as his परमगुरु), कादम्बरीकथासार of भट्टजयन्तक2 (p.176),

1. Vide Journal (No. IX) of the Department of Letters, Calcutta University, which contains the comment of अभिनंवगुप्त on the 4th उद्दोत edited by Dr. Sushil Kumar De from two mss. at Madras. From this it appears that आनन्द० wrote a work called तत्वालोक in which he discussed the relation of शास्रनय and काव्यनय and that the verse उदिह० cited on p. 297 (of व्व0) as his was composed in the सन्धवभाषा. On the words in the वृत्ति (p. 300) 'मोनलक्षण एवैकः परः पुरुषार्थः शासनये काव्यनये च तृष्णाक्षय- सुखपरिपोषलक्षयः शान्तो रसो महाभारतस्याद्वित्वेन विवक्षित इति सुप्रतिपादितम्' the लोचन states 'शाख्तनय इति। तत्रास्वादयोगाभावे घुरुषार्थ इत्ययमेव व्यपदेशः सोदरः, चमत्कारयोगे तु रसव्यपदेश इति भावः। एतच्च ग्रन्थकारेय तर्त्रालोके

2. In the कादम्बरीकथासार (K.M. Series) the author is said to be अभिनन्द, son of जयन्तवृत्तिकार. In the Intro, verses to

204 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POTICES

काव्यकौतुक (231) of भट्टतौत, कुमारिलभट्ट (234), चन्द्रिकाकार (221), तन्त्रालोक (23), तापसवत्सराज (an analysis of its six Acts, on pp. 186- 187), भट्टतौत (34), दण्डी (175), प्रभाकरदर्शन (234), भतहरि (author of वाक्यपदीय, p. 55), भागुरि, मनोरथ, विवरणकृत, यशोवर्म (author of रामाभ्युदय), वत्सराजनरित, वामन, स्वप्नवासवदत्ता (a drama), हृदयदर्पख (32 twice, 76). He frequently quoted his own verses (43, 48, 51, 91, 11₺, 143, 223). 'Some of these verses are said to be from his own स्तोत्र (pp. 91, 223). He tells us that he wrote a commen- tary (विवरण) on the काव्यकौतुक of his teacher तौत (p. 221). He wrote the लोचन after the तन्त्रालोक (p. 23). अभिनवगप्त was a very prolific writer. For an account of his parents, teachers and works, vide below section 21. In the introduction to the लोचन he refers to भट्टन्दुराज as his teacher and quotes very frequently the verses of भट्टेन्दुराज as illustrations (29,51, 142, 197. 259, 279). On pp. 29, 51, 142 he is cited simply as भट्टेन्दुराज and on pp. 51 and 142 as अस्मदुपाध्याय-भटटेन्दु- राज. The quotations show that भट्टेन्दुराज eomposed poems in both Sanskrit and Prakrit. The last is a Prakrit गाथा. That भट्टेन्दुराज was not only a poet but also a critic follows from the words of the लोचन (p. 197) 'यथा वास्मदुपाध्यायस्य विद्वत्कविसहृदयचक्रवर्तिनो भट्टेन्दु- राजस्य' where he highly eulogises इन्दुराज as supreme amongst learned men, poets and men of taste. In his commentary on the भगवद्गीता (Buhler's K. report) p.80 and p. CXLVIII) he tells us that his guru भट्टन्दुराज belonged to the कात्यायनगोत्र, that the latter's grandfather was सौचुक and father भूतिराज. In several places the लोचन quotes the views of his guru or उपाध्याय on the words of the व्व यालोकor examples cited therein. On the intro- ductory verse स्वेच्छाकेसरिय: of the ध्वन्यालोक, the लोचन (p. 3

कादम्बरीकथासार wehave a pedigree. शक्तिस्वामिन who was a counci- llor of king मुक्तापीड of कर्कोट dynasty-his son कल्याएस्वामिन्-his son चन्द्र-son जयन्त-son अभिनन्द. From राजत. IV. 43 it appears that ललितादित्य was another name of मुक्तापीड, who ruled Kashmir from 700 to 736 A.D. अभिनन्द was 5th in descent from शक्तिस्वामिन् and so allowing about 120 years for four generations अभिनन्द should have flourished about 820-850 A. D. Why भभिनव mentions जयन्तक as the author and not भभिनन्द is not clear. Probably it is a slip or जयन्तक means 'son of जयन्त' or जयन्तक was written by scribes for जयन्तपुत्रक. The तिलकमअरी of धनपाल (about 1000 A. D.) praises श्भिनन्द in Intro. verse 33.

DHVANYĀLOKA 205

says 'एवं वस्त्वलक्गाररसमेदेन त्रिया ध्वनिरत्र श्रोकेऽस्मद् गुरुमिर्व्याख्यातः'; 'सर्वथाल- कारादिषु व्यक्षयं वाच्ये गुखीभवतीति नः साध्यमित्यत्राशयोत्र अ्रन्थेऽस्मद्गुरुमिर्निरूपितः' (p.44); 'अस्मदगुर व्रस्त्वाङु :- अत्रोच्यते इत्यनेनेदमुच्यते etc.' (p. 227; 'अस्मदु- पाध्यायास्तु हदतमानि पुष्पायि अमुके गृहारा गृहारेत्युच्चैस्तारस्वरेादरातिशयार्थ प्रयच्छता' (p. 267, on the verse 'प्रयच्छतोच्चैः कुसुमानि मानिनी', where the explanation of लोचन is different). These quotations show that his teacher had explained the धवन्यालोक either orally to अभिनवगुप्त or in some commentary. The question arises whether भट्टन्दुराज is identical with प्रतीहारेन्दुराज, commentator of उद्ट. We do not know the parent- age of the latter. But we know this that the latter did not approve of the theory of ध्वनि and included ध्वनिकाव्य under alankāras; while "-Tr seems to have approved of it and ex- plained the ध्वन्यालोक to अभिनवगुप्त. This circumstance by itself is not enough to hold that the two were different. There is nothing to prevent a teacher from expounding the views of a work from which he himself differs. There are other circum- stances such as the non-employment of the title प्रतीहार to उपाध्याय इन्दुराज by अभिनव anywhere, that would have to be care- fully considered in arriving at a decision. प्रतीहारेन्दुराज was a कौक्ण and had come to काश्मीर for study. The word प्रतिहार or प्रतीहार indicates a high office. बृहस्पति quoted by विश्वरूप on या. I. 307 says 'कुलाढ्य उदुक्को मृदुरुदाश्तः समरचित्तः शरोऽनुरक्तोडभेद: पत्तिविशेषज्ञ इद्विता- कारकुशल: प्रतीहार: स्यास्'. शान्तिपर्व 85. 28-29, विष्युधर्मोत्तर II. 24. 12 and शुक्रनीति II. 121-122 also give definitions. In the Valabhi grant of Dhruvasena I. dated in the Valabhi year 206 (525-26 A. D.) the dutaka of the grant is Pratihāra Mammaka (E. I. vol. XI. pp.105-9). For the form प्रतीहार, vide Vasantagadh inscription of Varmalāta (E. I. vol. IX. p. 187-192), the Candravati plate of Candradeva of Kanoj in संवत् 1148 (E. I. IX. at p. 305) and राजत० V. 151. So प्रतीहारेन्दुराज was a high officer in Kashmir and probably prefixed that word to his name to distinguish himself from other Indurājas. Besides, he might possibly have been proud of the distinctions he secured in a country like Kashmir, very distant from Konkana from which he originally came. Though भट्टेन्दुराज and प्रतीहारेन्दुरान were both of them well versed in Alankarasastra and flourished nearly at the same time, they must be regarded as distinct. It is possible that प्रतीहारेन्दुराज flourished a little earlier than इन्दुराज or was at least an elder contemporary of -ST74. We shall see

206 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIĆS

later on that the भभिधावृत्तिमातुका of मुकुल, son of कलट, has to be assigned to the period 900-925 A. D. प्रतीहारेन्दुराज was a pupil of geer and in the verse at the end of his commentary on Udbhata's work bestows the highest praise on a, from the tenor of which it appears very likely that gar was alive when the commentary on उद्द's work was written. So प्रतीहारेन्दुराज's commentary should be assigned to the period 920-950 A. D. We shall see later on thit Abhinavagupta's literary activity lies between 980-1020 A. D. Therefore his guru Induraja would have to be placed somewhere between 960-990 A.D. Abhinava- gupta nowhere speaks of प्रतीहारेन्दुराज nor of मुकुल. If प्रतीहारेन्दु० was identical with TI, we should expect to find some refe- rences to his teacher's teacher मुकुल, as in the case of उत्पलदेव who was Abhinava's teacher's teacher. Besides, we do not find प्रतीहारेन्दुराज quoting any verse of his own in his commentary which is of considerable extent. He seems to have been only a literary critic and not a poet, while Induraja was not only a great literarycritic but is spoken of as a great poet in the same breath with Vālmīki, Vyāsa, and Kālidāsa in the w. Tr. vol. II. p. 293 'न हि सर्वो वाल्मीकिर्ष्यास: कालिदासो भट्टेन्दुराजो वा' and vol. I. p.287 'अनुभावप्राधान्यं यथा-शुद्धसारस्वतप्रवाहपवित्रसकलवाङमयमहावपूर्यभाव- सम्पादनाद्द्विजराजस्येन्दुराजस्य'. Dr. K.C. Pandey in his work on 'Abhinavagupta' (pp. 74 and 142) holds the two to be identi- cal, but that view is based on very slender grounds. No scholar has yet explained why इन्दुराज the teacher of अभिनव in Poetics is nowhere mentioned by him as प्रतीहारेन्दुराज, which is the way in which the commentator of Udbhata refers to himself, nor has anyone adverted to the meaning of qater given by me above. For the present I must say that the evidence for the identity of the two इन्दुराजs is almost nil (except the name itself). इन्दुराज1 the teacher of अभिनव, was the son of श्रीभूतिराज and grandson of सौचुक of the कात्यायनगोत्र, while we know nothing about the ancestors of प्रतीहारेन्दुराज. So Induraja was a teacher of Abhi- navagupta not only in Poetics, but also in the doctrines of the Gita. It is, however, noteworthy that समुद्रबन्ध on the अलक्कार- सर्वस्व (p.130 Trivendrum ed.) seems to identify the two by 1. At the beginning of his commentary on the भगवद्गीता (Nirn.edition with eight com.) भभिनव S3ys: भटेन्दुराजादास्नायं विविच्य च चिर विया। कृतोऽभिनवगप्तेन सोयं गीतार्थसंग्र: ॥ verse 6.

DHVANYĀLOKA 207

calling प्रतीहारेन्दुराज by the name भट्टन्दुराज 'भट्टेन्दराजेन प्रीखितप्रणयीत्यादि भप्रस्तुतप्रशंसोदाहरये ... मटटोन्भटग्रन्थे ... व्याख्यातम्'; vide p. 34 of the भलक्कार- सारसंग्रहलघुवृत्ति for the verse प्रीसितप्रशयि० which is भामह III. 30. भट्टतीत or भट्टतोत was another teacher of अभिनवगुप्त (लोचन pp. 34, 221) who wrote the work called काव्यकौतुक on which अ्रभिनवगुप्त wrote a commentary (विवरख). At the end of chap. 19 of the नाव्यशास्त्र (GOS) भ. भा. (vol. III) says द्विजवरतोतनिरूपित-सन्ध्यध्यायार्थ- तत्त्वघटनेयम्। अभिनवगुप्तेन कृता शिवचरणाम्भोजमधुपेन ॥. The लोचन refers to उत्पल as the परमगरु of अरमिनवगुप्त (p.35), who wrote on the

Before the लोचन, there existed a commentary on the ध्वन्यालोक called चन्द्रिका, which was composed by some one who belonged to the same family to which भभिनवगुप्त belonged. The लोचन cites it in many places and strongly condemns it: 'चन्द्रिका- कारस्तु पठितमनुपठतीति न्यायेन गजनिमीलिकया व्याचचचे तस्य तस्य शब्दस्य फलं तदा फलं वाच्यव्यअयप्रतीत्यात्मकं तस्य घटना निष्पादना यतोऽनन्यसाध्या शब्दव्यापा- रैकजन्येति। न चात्रार्थसतत्त्वं व्याख्यानेन किश्चिदुत्पश्याम इत्यलं पूर्ववंश््यः सह विवा- देन बहुना' (लोचन p.231); 'आधिकारिकत्वेन तु शान्तो रसो निबद्धव्य इति चन्द्रि- काकार:। तच्चेहास्माभिन पर्यालोचितम्। प्रसङ्गान्तराद्' (लो० p.221). This view is quoted by the काव्यप्रकाशसङ्केत of मािक्य० (p.101 Mysore ed.) and by सोमेश्वर. The verse कि लोचनं विनालोको भाति चन्द्रिकयापि हि' (at the end of the 1st and 3rd उद्द्योतs) contains a pun on the three words आलोक, चन्द्रिका (moonlight and the com. on the ध्वन्या- लोक) and लोचन. The लोचन in several other places quotes the explanation of the ्वन्यालोक by a previous commentator and adds words to the effect 'इत्यलं पूर्ववंश्यः सह विवादेन.' For example, p. 150-51 'यस्तु व्याचष्टे ... त्यलं निजपूर्वजसगोत्रः साकं विवादेन,' p. 216-17 'अन्यस्तु व्याचष्टे-एतच्चापेक्िकमित्यादिग्रन्थो ... इत्यलं पूर्ववंश्यैः सह बडुना संलापेन, p. 269 यत्तु (यस्तु ?) त्रिष्वपि श्रोकेषु प्रतीयमानस्यव रसाऊत्वं व्याचष्टे स्म स देवं विक्रीय तबात्रोत्सवमकाषीद्। ... इत्यलं पूर्ववंश्यैः सह विवादेन. The चन्द्रिका is referred to in the व्यक्तिविवेक also (5th intro. verse) 'ध्वनिवत्मन्यति- गहने स्खलितं वाएया: पदे पदे सुलभम्। रभसेन यत्प्रवृत्ता प्रकाशकं चन्द्रिका धदृष्टू व ।।'. Therefore the चन्द्रिका must have been composed bet- ween 900-950 A. D. On the first उद्योत of the लोचन a commentary called Kaumudi by उदयोष (from केरल) has been published at Madras (1944) edited with some verses of his own called उपलोचन by the late Mahāmahopādhyāya Prof. Kuppuswami and two of his pupils. This is a late but a learned commentary. I under- stand that the commentary (Kaumudi) on the remaining

208 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Uddyotas has not yet been found. The author of the Kaumudi also wrote ममूरसन्देश which was published by Dr. Kunhan Raja who is himself a descendant of the author. Vide Prof. K. R. Pisharoti in Journal of Ganganath Jha Institute, vol. I. p. 445-452. Prof.Pisharoti shows that उदयोत्तक was alive about 1480 A. D. and came of a princely family. The author of the कौमुदी quotes his own verses on pp. 227, 234, 261 & c. The ध्वनिगाथापजिका of रत्नाकर (see Govt. collection of mss. at B. O. R. I., cat. vol. XII. No. 182) explains the Prākrit verses occurring in the घवo. The रत्नाकर is probably later than लोचन as the former's explanations agree almost word for word with those given by the Locana. In the colophon he is styled काश्मीरकाचार्य. It would be almost impossible to hold that लोचन borrows from him. The verse on p. 133 चन्दमऊ ... करइ गरूई is quoted but not explained in sa. TT. 4. (folio 4a) and the corrupt verse on p. 297 (afar.) is not cited nor explained. In some cases व्व. गा. गा. प, (folio 7a) helps in restoring the प्राकृत text and its chya as on p. 192 (the प्राकृत verses अएयत्त वच्च बालअ्र०). There are 46 Prakrit verses quoted in the Dhvanyaloka out of which 20 have not been yet traced. In several other places the लोचन refers (in the words अन्यः, कश्षित् &c)to the explanations and comments of the passages of 'the धवन्यालोक or the illustrations cited therein, but dose not name the author nor does it add the words इत्यलं पूर्ववंश्यैः सह विवादेन. The views quoted are likely to be those of चन्द्रिका in some cases and of भट्टनायक in others, vide Pp.8, 23 (यस्तु ध्वनिव्याख्यानोद्यतस्तात्पर्यशक्तिमेव ... स नास्माकं हृदयमावजयति), 42 (यस्तु व्याचष्टे ... स प्रकृतार्थमेव अ्रन्थार्थमत्यजत्), 151, 180, 217, which are cases where probably the afzr is referred to, while p. 69 (यत्तु वाक्यमेद: स्यादिति केनचिदुक्ं तदनभिश्वतया), 248, 259 seem to refer to the views of independent writers like भट्टनायक, मीमांसकS and others. 16 The काव्यमीमांसा of राजशेसर. Thiswork has been publi- shed in the Gaikwal Oriental Series (3rd edition of 1934 with a learned Introduction by C. D. Dalal, Pandit R. A. Sastry and K. S. Ramswami Sastry and there is another edition with a Hindi translation by Pandit Kedarasarma published by the बिहारराष्ट्रमाषापरिषद in 1954, which does not clearly state on what mss. material it is based and in the Chowkhamba S. series with a modern commentary. This is a unique work, but it does not directly concern itself with the exposition of rasas,

RAVY AMiMANSA 209

gunas or alankāras, and it is rather in the nature of a practical handbook for poets. It is divided into 18 chapters. The following is a brief analysis of the contents. I, शाखसंगरह, narra- tes how instruction in काव्यमीमांसा was imparted by Siva to Brahma and others (64 in all) and how from Brahma through a succession of teachers and pupils the 18 sections of the rag- मीमांसा were dealt with by 18 different writers (vide p. i above), how राजशेखर of the यायावरीय family summarized the views of sages. II शाखतरनिर्देश-वाङ्मय is of two kinds शास and काव्य; शाख is अपौरुषेय and पौरुषेय; the four Vedas, 4 उपवेदs (vide above p. 18 note), six angas (and their subjects); यायावरीय thinks that भलक्वार is the seventh anga; पौरुषशास is constituted by the पुरायड, भान्वी- च्षिकी, the two मीमांसाs, 18 स्मृतिs, the number of विधास्थानs, 14 or 18 is the number of विचाs according to various authorities, याया- वरीय calls काव्य the 15th विधास्थान; meaning of such words as सूत्र, भाष्य, वृत्ति, पद्धति, टीका, समीक्षा, पजिका, कारिका etc .; different views about the number of विधाs and राज० thinks that साहित्य is the 5th विद्या. III. काव्यपुरुषोत्पत्ि; a mythical account of the birth of काव्यपुरुष from सरस्वती; काव्यपुरुष is described as 'शब्दाथी ते शरीरं, संस्कृतं मुखं, प्राकृतं बाहुः, जघनमपभ्रंशः, पैशाचं पादौ, उरो मिश्रम्। सम: प्रसभनो मधुर उदार भोजस्वी चासि। उक्तिचयं च ते बचो, रस भात्मा, रोमाखि च्छन्दासि, प्रश्नोत्तर प्रवह्विकादिकं च वाक्केलि:, भनुप्रासोपमादयक् त्वामलवकुर्वन्ति।' (p. 6), marriage of काव्यपुरुष with साहित्यविद्यावधू at the city of वत्सगुल्म (probably modern Basim in Berar); the definitions of प्रवृत्ति, वृत्ति and रीति; IV पदवाक्यविबेक ;- what are the essential requisites to become a poet? यायावरीय said राफि was the only काव्यहेतु and gave rise to प्रतिभा and व्युस्पति; while others said that the aid of समाधि (concentration) and भभ्यास was required; various classifications of poets; V काव्यपाककल्प-meaning of म्युत्पचि, शाखकवि, काव्यकवि and उभयकवि and their sub-divisions; the ten stages (भवस्था) of a poet, the various meanings of the term पाक; VI पदवाक्यविवेक-the five gfिs of शब्द, सुप, समास, तद्धित, कुत and तिक्; definition of वाक्य; its threefold expressive power वैभक, शक्त, शचि- विभकिमय; ten kinds of वाक्य; definition of काव्य as 'गुलवदलककृतं च वाक्यमेव काव्यम्'; VII पाठप्रतिष्ठा-the appropriate languge and style for gods, Apsarases, पिशाच &c; the three रीति: बैदभी, गौडीया and पाब्चाली; काकु of two kinds and their sub-divisions with illustra- tions, the intonation of various peoples in India and the diffc- rent languages they employ;1 VIII काय्यांरथयोनय :- the sources 1. For example, he speaks about लाट, काशमीर and पाशाल -

210 HISTORY OF SANSKRİT POETICS

of the subject matter of काव्य are 12, अति, स्मृति, इतिहास, पुराष, प्रमाणाविधा (मीमांसा and तर्कशाख), समयविद्या, राजसिद्धान्तत्रयी (भर्थशाखत्र, नाय्यशाख, कामशाल), लोक, विरचना (कविमनीषानिर्मितं कथातन्त्रमथमान्नं वा बिरचना), and प्रकीणंक; यायावरीय adds four more; IX भर्थव्याप्ति-the subject of description may be दिव्य, दिव्यमानुष, मानुष, पातालीय, मर्त्यं- पातालीय, दिव्यपातालीय and दिव्यमर्त्यपातालीय; whatever the location may be the subject must be रसवत् (p.45 रसवत एव निबन्धो युक्तो न नीरसस्येति भापराजिति :... भमिति यायावरीय:), the subject of description may be in an isolated verse or in a qa=4, cach of which is of five kinds; X कविचर्या and राजचर्या-काव्यविद्याS (नामधातुपारायय, अभिषान- कोश, छन्दोविचिति and अंलक्ार), 64 कलाs are the उपविद्ाS, काव्यमातरः (देशवार्ता, विदग्धवाद, लोकयात्रा, विद्द्गोष्ठी etc.), purity of body, speech and thought necessary for a poet; the house of a poet, his attendants and writing materials, how a poet should divide the whole day into eight parts and the duties appropriate to each of the eight parts, women also may write poetry, assembly hall to be erected by kings for examining poets, in large towns assemblies to be formed for testing those learned in the ₹ITeS and rar; XI-XIII-how far a poet can appropriate a prede- cessor's words and thoughts; XIV-XVI about कविसमय (con- ventions) with reference to countries, trees, plants, flowers, etc. about intangible things (as a smile which is said to be white); XVII देशविभाग- the various countries, rivers, mountains in the four quarters of India and the products peculiar to each; the colour of the complexion rious peoples; XVIII काल- fr-the seasons, the winds, flowers, birds and actions appro- priate to variuos seasons. It will be seen that this work is a mine of information on numerous matters. It appears that the printed काव्यमीमांसा is only a fragment of what the author contemplated (e. g. on p. 11 it says-तमौपनिषदिके वच््याम:). The अलक्वारशेखर at the end of the 11th मरीचि quotes two verses from राजशेखर which are not found in the काव्यमी०, one of which is 'अलक्कारशिरोरत्नं सर्वस्वं काव्य- सम्पदाम्। उपमा कविवंशस्य मातैवेति मतिर्मम ॥'. The work is written somewhat after the अर्थशाखर of कौटिल्य and the style is vigorous,

poets as follows: पठन्ति लटमं लाटा: प्राकृतं संस्कृतद्विषः। जिहया ललितो- स्वापलव्वसौन्दर्यमुद्रया॥ शारदाया: प्रसादेन काश्मीरः सुकविजनः। कर्रों गुडूचीग- ष्डूपस्तेषां पाठक्रम: किमु ॥ ... पाब्चालमएडलभुर्वा सुभगः कवीनां श्रोत्रे मधु च्षरति किंचन काव्यपाठः ॥ काव्यमी० VII. p.34.

KAVYAMIMANSA 211

though sometimes ponderous. He quotes numerous verses from ancient authors. Among the works drawn upon are those of कालिदास, भमरुशतक, किराताजनीय, कादम्बरी, मालतीमाधव, वेगीसंहार, शिशुपाल- वष, सूर्यशतक, हयग्रीववध, his own works. He quotes the opinions of numerous writers on Alankāra, some of whom are known from his work alone, viz. अवन्तिसुन्दरी, भानन्द, भापराजिति, उच्िगर्म, उन्भट, कालिदास, द्रौहिधि, पाल्यकीर्ति, भरत, मझ्गल, रुट्रट, वाक्पतिराज, वामन, श्यामदेव, सुरानन्द. He cites (about 18 times) certain views as those of the ācāryas (pp. 3, 9, 13, 16, 20, 23, 30, &c.). It is not possible to say who are meant but he generally dissents from the आाचार्यs, as does कौटिल्य. Hequotes his own views as those of यायावरीय :. The काव्यमीमांसा has not been frequently quoted in later works on साहित्य. हेमचन्द्र (काव्यानुशासन pp. 126-130 and 130- 135) and aprHz borrowed from him very largely, particularly chapters 17-18. The काव्यप्रकाशसक्ेत of माणिक्य० (p.308 Mysore ed.) quotes the words 'अभिप्रायवान्पाठधर्मः काकु: स नालक्ारी स्यादिति यायावरीयः' (which occur in the काव्यमी० p. 31). हेमचन्द्र (p. 235 काव्यानु०) and सोमेश्वर also quote these words. He gives some striking historical and literary information. He tells us that मेघाविरुद्र and कुमारदास were poets that were blind from birth (p.12), that certain kings such as शिशुनाग in मगध, कुविन्द in शुरसेन, सातवाहन in कुन्तल and साहसाक in उज्जयिनी respectively made rules that in their palaces eight letters that were difficult to utter were not to be employed, that harsh conjunct con- sonants were to be avoided, that only Prakrit was to be em- ployed or only Sanskrit (p. 50); that वासुदेव, सातवाहन, शूद्रक and साइसा were great patrons of learning and that in उज्जयिनी the poets कालिदास, मेएठ, अमर, रूपसूर (१), भारवि, हरिचन्द्र, चन्द्रगुप्त, were examined and in पाटलिपुत्र, उपवर्ष, वर्ष, पाणिनि, पिड्ल, व्याटि, वरचि, and पतञ्जलि were tested (p. 55). He is very fond of the Pra- krits (pp. 34, 51) and speaks of the languages in different countries (p.51, where पैशाची is said to prevail in भवन्ती, पारियान and दशपुर). About his personal history राजशोखर gives far more infor- mation than most Sanskrit poets do. His ancestors appear to have hailed from महाराष्ट्र. In the बालरामायया and the विदशाल- भब्जिका it is stated that he was the 4th in descent from भकालजलद1

1. तदामुष्यायणस्य महाराष्ट्रभू डामणेरकालजलदस्य चतुर्थो दौटुकि: शील- वतीसू नुरुपाध्यायभीराजशेखर इत्यपर्माप्तं बद्ुमानेन। वालरामायय I. 13;in

212 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the crest-jewel of Maharastra, that he was the son of शीलवती and of दुढ़क (or दरिक). In the बालरामायण I. 13 we are told that in his family (which was called यायावरकुल) were born great men such as भकालजलद, सुरानन्द, तरल, कविराज and several others. In the बालरामायण (I. 16) and बालभारत (I. 12) the same verse occurs, in which he claims to have been वाल्मीकि, मेएठ and भवभूति in his former lives.1 He is spoken of as the son of a great minister in the Prastāvana of the Bālabharata drama, otherwise called Pracandapandava, (उककं हि तेनव महासुमन्त्रिपुत्रेष 'यशः प्रसूते विपदो रुणद्धि यशांसि दुग्धे मलिनं प्रमार्टि। I.9). His wife was अरवन्तिसुन्दरी who came from the Cahuana (modern Cavan) family. She was an accomplished lady and her views are quoted by her husband in the काव्यमीमांसा (on pp.20, 46, 57). It was at her desire that the Prakrit drama (described as Sattaka) कप रमन्जरी was repre- sented on the stage. In the बालरामायय (I. 12) reference is made to his six works.3 Therefore, it is clear that the बालरामायण was composed by him when he was somewhat mature in years. In the कपरमब्जरी it is stated that अपराजित, author of मृगाक्कलेखा, spoke of him as बालकवि, कविराज and the teacher of king निर्भर and that in this way he attained eminent4 positions one after another. At the end of the first chapter (p. 2) he describes himself as यायावरीय राजशोखर and states that he summarized the views of sages and expounded the काव्यमीमांसा for the benefit of poets. Hence, there can be no doubt that the काव्यमीमांसा was composed by the same man that composed the four dra-

the विद० (I. प्रस्तावना) we have 'यायावरेश दौहिकिना कविराजरेखरेण विरचिताया विद्शालभब्जिकानामनाटिकाया:' and 'किमात्थ तदकालजलदस्य प्रणप्त: &c.' 1. वभूव वल्मीकभवः कविः पुरा ततः प्रपदे भुवि भर्तमेएठताम्। स्थितः पुनर्यों भवभूतिरेखया स वर्तते संप्रति राजशेखरः॥ बालरा. I.16; बालभारत I. 12. 2. चाहुभणकुलमउलिमालि राजसेहरकइन्द्रगेहियी। भत्तयो किदिमवन्ति- सन्दरी सा पउंजइदमेदमिच्छदि॥ कपरमन्जरी I. 10 (of Dr.Ghosh's edition). 3. यबस्ति स्वस्ति तुम्यं भव पठनरुचिविद्धि नः षट प्रबन्धान्। 3rd pada in बालरा. I. 12 (K.M. ed.). 4. वशयादो ज्जेव तक्कालकईरं मज्फम्मि मभक्लेहाकहाकारेय भवराइपण। जधा-बालकई कहराभो खिम्मरराभस्स तह उवल्फाओ। इह जस्स पपहि परम्पराय माहप्पमारूढं ।। कपर० I. 8. According to his own statements in the काव्यमी. p. 19 कबिराज is higher in status than even a महाकवि.

KĀVYAMĪMĀNSĀ 213

mas. It is also clear from the कपरमब्जरी I. 5 and the reply in the next line that he was the guru of king Mahendrapāla1 and the very first sentence of the बालरामायण and a line before बालभारत I. 6 show that those dramas werestaged before an asse- mbly of learned men in the court of Mahendrapala at महोदय.' The Bālabhārata (I. 7) speaks of king Mahipāla and the following prose passage states that the king was the son of निर्भयनरेन्द्र and that he was sovereign of Aryavarta (India north of Narmada or Vindhya) and that Mahendrapala was a pupil of राजशेखर (बालभारत I.11). Hence it is clear that राजशेखर's family left महाराष्ट्र and that राजशेखर came to महोदय (i. e. modern Kanoj) and was the guru or Upadhyaya of the kings निर्मय (or महेन्द्रपाल) and his son महीपाल. राजशेखर knew many languages and was very fond of Prakrits. In the कपरमन्जरी he is spoken of as सर्वभाषाचतुर (one line before I. 7) and a verse of his is quoted by the attendant of the stage manager to the effect that any language may do for a kavya which consists in being a striking mode of speech, the meaning being the same and the (Prakrit) words being merely modifications (of Sanskrit). He is fond of repeating the same verse in two dramas : e. g. बालरामायल I. 18 (आपन्नार्तिहर:०) is the same as बालभारत I. 11 and बालरामायण I. 20 (प्रथयति०) is the same as बालभारत I. 14. The काव्यमीमांसा (p.94 तत्रापि महोदयं मूलमवधीकृत्येति यायावरीयः) lays down that directions of countries are to be measured from महोदय. In two verses his ancestor अकालजलद was praised, which are quoted in the सूक्तिमुक्तावलि.3 The verse said to have been written by शङ्करवर्मन्

लयः स यस्यशिष्यः ।'. 1. विद्धशाल० I. 6 also says 'रघुकुलतिलको महेन्द्रपालः सक्लकलानि-

2. महोदय is generally held to be कान्यकुब्ज (Kanoj). Vide E.I. vol. VII pp. 23, 30 and 43 where राष्ट्रकूट king इन्द्र III is said to have devastated महोदय or Kanoj; but in the Barah Copper-plate of भोजदेव (Gurjara Pratihara king) dated sarvat 893 (836 A.D.) महोदय seems to be spoken of as a स्कन्धावार (camp) and कान्यकुब्ज is separately mentioned in the same record (E. I. vol. 19 at p. 17). Vide J. R. A. S. for 1908 pp. 765- 793 for the history of Kanoj by Vincent Smith and Bilhari stone Inscription of Cedi rulers (E. I. vol. I. pp. 251-270). 3. अकालजलदेन्दोः सा हषा वदनचन्द्रिका। नित्यं कविचकोरैरयां पीयते न च हीयते।। त्रकालजलदक्रोकैश्षित्रमात्मकृतैरिव। जातः कादम्बरीरामो नाटके प्रवरः कविः ॥ सक्तिमु. p. 46, verses 83-84. In the 2nd verse it is

214 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

about राजशेखर is quoted by the earliest anthologies. It appears that arax who is mentioned as a member of his family by राजरोखर had migrated to the kingdom of Cedi (त्रिपुरी or modern Tewar, six miles from Jubbulpore).ª Hence it is probable that from Maharaștra went to Central India and that Rajasekhara pushed further north. This laudatory verse about सुरानन्द anid another about तरल are ascribed, along with about thirty others, to Rajasekhara in the anthologies.8 Most probably they are the composition of the author of the काव्यमीमांसा. Being at the court of Kanoj राजशेखर shows great partiality for महोदय, for पाष्चाल poets and for the dress of the ladies of Maho- daya (vide काव्यमी. p.8 वेषं नमस्यत महोदयसुन्दरीयाम्; बालरामाय X. 86 'पब्चालास्तव पश्चिमेन त इमे वामा गिरां भाजना :... यमुर्ना त्रिस्रोतसं चान्तरा ।।') He seems to have also been familiar with Lātadesa (country round about Surat), its language, the speech of its people and the charm of the ladies. It is interesting to note that the काव्यमी. (p. 93) includes under दव्षिणापथ (which is stated to be beyond Mahismati) the countries of महाराष्ट्र, माहिषक, अश्मक, विदर्भ, कुन्तल, क्रथकैशिक, सूर्पारक, वानवासक, नाशिक्य, कौक्कण &c. कुन्तल is the country from modern Belgaum to Bellary (E. I. 14 p. 265, E. I. 15 p. 32, I. A. vol. 8 at p. 17 'the country between the Krsna and Verna'). Asmaka (North Khandesh), विदर्भ (Berar) कौङस being separately mentioned, महाराष्ट्र must be held according to Rajasckhara to be roughly the present HERTIg from Nasik to Belgaum excluding Konkana. Vide Prof. V. V. Mirashi in I.

said that कादम्बरीराम plagiarised the verses of अकालजलद and took them in his drama. 1. पातु कर्णरसायनं रचयितुं वाच:सतां संमतां व्युत्पर्ति परमामवाप्तुमवर्धि लब्धुं रसस्रोतस:। भोकुं स्वादुफलं च जीविततरोयधस्ति ते कौतुकं तद्आ्रातः शृणु राजरोखर कवे: सूक्तो: सुवास्यन्दिनीः ॥ विद्धशाल० I. 7 and वालरामायण I. 17, quoted in सदुक्तिकर्णामृत V. 27. 3 p.296 and सूक्तिमु. p. 48. 2. नदीनां मेकलसुता नृपाां रणविग्रहः। कवीनां च सुरानन्वश्चेदिमण्डल- मण्डनम् । यायाबरकुलश्रेणेमुक्तायष्टेश्च मएडनम्। सुवरबन्धरुचिर स्तरलस्तरलो यथा॥ सुकिमु. p. 47 verses 88-89. The view of सुरानन्द is quoted on p. 75 of काव्यमो. and also a verse. 3. They were probably placed at the beginning of the हरविलासकाव्य. In any case anthologies from the 12th century onward quote them as Rajasekhara's. Vide Introduction to कवीन्द्रवचनसमुचय ed. by Dr. F.W. Thomas pp.80-92 for the verses in praise of poets named therein.

KĀVYAMĪMĀNSĀ 215 H. Q. vol. 22 pp. 309-315 for भश्मक and कुन्तल .. It is clear that the four plays कप रमम्जरी, बालभारत (only two Acts are edited in the K.M. series), बालरामायण, विद्धशालभब्जिका are the works of राजशोखर, the काव्यमीमांसा being another work. He wrote also a महाकाव्य called हरविलास mentioned by हेमचन्द्र (काव्यानुशासन pp.334- 335) who quotes a verse therefrom and states 'स्वनामाक्किता यथा राजशेखरस्य हरविलासे'. No work of his wife अवन्तिसुन्दरी has come down. हेमचन्द्र in his देशीनाममाला quotes three Prakrit verses of अवन्तिसुन्दरी (one on I. 81 and two on I. 157). On p. 46 the काव्यमी० quotes an opinion of भवन्तिसुन्दरी and a Sanskrit verse (वस्तुस्वभावोडत्र.). One important question is whether राजरोखर was a ब्राह्मय or a क्षत्रिय. The name राजशेखर (राजा चन्द्रः शेखरे यस्य) means शिव (चन्द्ररोखर being given by Amara as a synonym of शिव). He was said to be उपाध्याय or गुरु of two kings of Kanoj. There is no total prohibition against a ksatriya's being a teacher. Yet it is very unlikely that in the 9th or 10th century two kings made a ksatriya their उपाध्याय. The word यायावर, which occurs 34 times in काव्यमी०, also is important. For its meaning, vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 641-642 and footnotes. यायावर means a brahmana who leads a very plain life, does not accept gifts, does not accumulate wealth &c. Vide the Mitaksara on Yaj. I. 128. A क्षत्रिय family could hardly have ever been called यायावर. Similarly, an उपाध्याय is, acc. to मनु. II. 141, विष्णुधर्मसूत्र (29.2), शङ्गस्मृति (3.2) one who teaches the Veda or Vedangas for his livelihood. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 322-324, 361. The only circumstance which raises a doubt (particularly in minds of writers in modern times) is the fact that his wife appears to have come from a kşatriya family. But anuloma marriages were allowed in ancient and medieval India. Medhatithi, who belonged probably to the same period as Rājaśekhara, allowed a brāhmana to adopt a kşıtriya boy (H. of Dh. vol. III. p. 675). Vide History of Dharmaśāstra vol. II. pp. 50-58, 448-450 for anuloma marriages. Hence it should be held that राजरोखर was a brahmana. Dr. Hultzsch in I. A. vol. 34 pp. 177-180 holds that राजशेखर was only a teacher of fine arts. But that does not seem to be quite accurate if we look to the primary meaning of the words उपाध्याय and यायावर.1 1. Dr. M. Ghosh (Intro. to कपरमअरी p. 69, ed.of 1948)

216 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

The date of राज शेखर does not present much difficulty. He quotes स्द्रट's काव्यालक्कार (on काव्यमी.p.31), आानन्दवर्षन's वृत्ति (on p. 16) and the school of Udbhata (pp. 22, 44) and the school of Vamana (pp. 14, 20); hence he is certainly later then 875 A. D. The Yaśastilaka, composed in 959-960 A. D., mentions in the 4th SINRH (K.M. ed. part II. p. 113) numerous poets of whom राजशेखर is one. The तिलकमजरी of धनपाल composed about 1000 A. D. praises the poetic passages of यायावर (समाषिगुरशा- लिन्यः प्रसन्नपरिपक्त्रिमाः। यायावरकवेर्वाचो मुनीनामिव वृत्तयः॥ verse 33). Soddhala, author of उदयसुन्दरीकथा (8th उच्छूवास p.558), praises राज० ('यायावरः प्राश्वरो गुणनैराशंसितः सूरिसमाजव्यैंः'). Soddhala composed his work between 1026-1050 A.D. (vide Intro.). So राजशे० flourished before 950 A. D. Here Inscriptions come to our help. The Siyadoni stone inscription (E. I. vol. I. pp. 162-179) refers to संवद् 960 (903-4 A. D.) and a king ०पालदेव (p. 173) of महोदय (p. 178, line 40) and I. A. vol. 16 pp. 175-178 the Asni Inscrip- tion of महीपाल (dated विक्रमसंवद् 974, 917 A. D.) speaks of a king महीपाल who succeedcd महिषपालदेव. They are taken by Dr. Fleet to refer to महीपाल and his predecessor निर्मयनरेन्द्र. The result is that राजशेखर flourished towards the end of the 9th century A.D. and the first quarter of the 10th. This is further corroborated by the fact that अभिनवगुप्त expressly mentions the कपरमन्जरी of राज- शेखर 'तथाहि श्रकाररसे सातिशयोपगिनी प्राकृतभाषेति सट्ृकः कपरमजर्याख्यो राज- शेखरेण तन्मय एव निबद्:' (on chap. 19 verse 130 p.72 of vol. III.of GOS ed. of नाट्यशाख). The बालरामायण is mentioned by name on भरत 16. 39 (vol. II. p. 320 G.O.S. ed.) by अरभिनवगप्त. Vide p. 50 above where it is shown that a verse attributed to लोलट by हेमचन्द्र is quoted by the काव्यमी. (p. 45) as आपराजिति's. The Bilhari stone Inscription of युवराजदेव II, the ruler of Gedi (E. I. vol. I. p. 251) contains a verse at the end in praise of Rajasekhara 'सुश्िष्टबन्ध वटनाविस्मितकविराजशेसरस्तुत्या। भास्तामियमा- कल्पं कृतिश् कीर्तिश्व पूर्वा च ।I' (at p. 262). The dateis effaced, but the editor of the Inscription conjectures from the script and the contents that it belongs to the 10th century. This Inscri- ption has been re-edited by Prof. V. V. Mirashi in C. I. I. vol. IV pp. 204-224, the verse occurring on p. 215.

is not prepared to hold that राजशेखर was a ब्राह्मण. He does not pay sufficient attention to the ancient smrti meaning of rar and to the word यायाबरकुल.

KĀVYAMĪMĀNSĀ 217

On p. 98 of काव्यमी. राजशे० states that those who desire further information about countries' may refer to his भुवनकोश. It is not necessary to suppose that भुवनकोश was a distinct work of राजशेखर. On p. 2 he sets out the subjects of his first भषिकरण, the last of which is भुवनकोश. But in the present text of the काव्यमी. (Ist अधिकरण) the treatment of मुवनकोश is wanting. Hence on p. 98 he probably refers to the last part of the lst NTy and not to a distinct work as the editor (p. XV Intro. of the edition of 1924) holds though Dr. De. (H. S. P. vol. I p. 123) holds that the reference is to another work of his. It is not possible to say how many works राजशेखर wrote. The GRTT. (as stated above) refers to six works having been already composed (probably including itself). As the काव्यमी. (p. 38) quotes the verse शमव्यायामाभ्यां (which occurs in बालरा. I. 24), the verse मूलं बालकवीरु्ा which occurs in विद्धशालभ्जिका (IV 5), the verse ये सीमन्तित० (p.71 found in बालभारत (I. 2), it may be presumed that the काव्यमीमांसा was composed atter these plays. Vide Prof. Mirashi's views in his paper 'The chronolo. gical order of Rājaśekhara's works' in Prof. Pathak Commemo- ration vol. (1934) pp. 359-366, which Dr. Manomohan Ghosh follows (71-72 of Intro. to कपरमन्जरी ed. of 1948). Though I do not agree with all the conclusions of Prof. Mirashi, yet as this subject is not relevant here, I do not enter into any discussion. The following important authors and works are quoted in the काव्यमीमांसा : अवन्तिसुन्दरी, आनन्द, आपराजिति, शद्भटाः, कालिदास, कुमारदास, कौटिल्य (p.4.), पाल्यकीर्ति (p. 46), भरत, मङगल, मेगठ, मेधाविरुद्ध (p.12), रुद्रट, वररुचि, वाक्पतिराज (p.62), वामनीयाः, श्यामदेव (pp. 11, 13, 17). Several authors and works such as rH€ (I.7. on P.90), काव्याद्श (I. 70 on काव्यमी. p. 82, II. 99 on काव्यमी. p. 24) are quoted though not named. For further information on राजशेखर and his works, the following may be consulted. Prof. V. S. Apte's book on 'Rājaśekhara, his life and writings' (1886 A. D.), Dr. Sten Konow's 'Karpūramañjarī' part III. and Dr. Manomohan Ghosh's Introduction to his edition of the Karpūramañjarī, Sir C. V. Kumarswami Sastriar's article on

1. इत्थं देशविभागो मुद्रामात्रेय सत्रितः सुषियाम्। यस्तु जिगीषत्यधिकं पश्यतु मट्भुवनकोशमसौ।। 2. This is the author of the Prakrit poem Gaudavaho.

218 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Rājaśekhara in J. O. R., Madras, vol. 7 pp. 25-32 (on date), Festgabe Jacobi pp. 169-179 (by Nobel), J. I. H. for 1930 vol. IX.pp. 119-131 (paper by Prof. Dasaratha Sharma on 'gleanings from Rajasekhara's works' emphasizing laxity of morals and the influence of the Kaula system in the times of Rajasekhara. 17 The अभिषावतिमातका of मुफुलभट्ट (Nir. Press, 1916). This work deserves a passing notice. This is a work contain- ing 15 karikas with qfu thereon by the author himself. It deals with the two senses of words viz. मुख्य and लाक्षषिक and gives a detailed treatment of लक्षणा (its sub-divisions and examples). Later works like the aoryar₹T base there treatment of लक्षया on this work. He quotes or refers to उद्ट (definition of उत्प्रेक्षा), कुमारिलभट्ट, ध्वन्यालोक, भर्तमित्र (a मीमांसा writer), महाभाष्य, विज्जिका (the verse दृष्टिं हे प्रतिवेशिनि०), वाक्यपदीय, शबरस्वामी. He was the son of भट्टकल्लट and the teacher of प्रतीहारेन्दुराज. भट्टकल्लट flouri- shed in the reign of अवन्तिवर्मन् (855-883 A.D.) 'अनुग्रह्ाय लोकानां भट्टाः श्रीकल्लटादयः । अ्रवन्तिवर्मयः काले सिद्धा भुवमवातरन् ॥' राजतर० V. 66.1 He is frequently quoted in the काव्यप्रकाशसक्केत of माखिक्यचन्द्र. It follows that the अभिधावृत्तिमातृका should be assigned to the period 900-925 A. D. 18 The काव्यकौतुक of भट्टतौत (or तोत). We know that भट्टतीत was the guru of अभिनवगुप्त (लोचन p. 34) and that he wrote a work called काव्यकौतुक on which अमिनवगप्त wrote a विवरय (लोचन p. 221). In the introductory 4th verse of his commentary on the Natyasastra अभिनवगुप्त states that Tota expounded to

हेतोः । माहेश्वराभिनवगुप्तपदप्रतिष्ठः संचिप्तवृत्तिविधिना विशदीकरोति ॥). Again

1. The word 'siddha' indicates that Kallata must have been a man of mature years before he could have attaind mystic experience and yogic powers in the times of Avanti- varman. He is connected with the Spanda branch of Kashmir Saivism. It may be assumed that Kallata was on old man about 890 A. D. Therefore his son Mukula may be held to have flourished in the last qnarter of the 9th century and the first two decades of the 10th. Vide p. 192 above on प्रतीहारेन्दुराज, the pupil of मुकुल. माशिक्यचन्द्र who wrote his comme- ntary called सक्केत on the काव्यप्रकाश in 1159-60 A. D. mentions Mukula and his भमिषा (वृत्ति) मातृका by name (pp. 32, 38 of Mysore ed.).

KĀVYAKAUTUKA 219

at the end of the 19th chap. of Natyasastra he states that the principles of the chapter on the sandhis were explained to him by Tota, the best of dvijas. Vide above p. 20 for the verse). One of his doctrines was that maH was at the head of all rasas as it led on to मोक. 'मोक्फल त्वेन चायं (शान्तो रसः) परमपुरुषार्थनिष्ठत्वात्सव- रसेम्यः प्रधानतमः । स चायमस्मदपाध्यायभट्टतौतेन काव्यकौतुके अस्मामिश्व तदि- वरखे बहुतरकृतनिर्णयः पूर्वपक्षसिद्धान्त इत्यलं बहुना' (लोचन p. 221 on कारिका III. 26). There is another doctrine which the लोचन (on p. 184) ascribes to Abhinava's Upadhyaya (i. e. तोत) 'प्रीत्यात्मा च रसस्तदेव नाट्यं नाट्य एव च वेद इत्यस्मदुपाध्यायः'. A few notices of the काव्यकौतुक of तोत may be stated here from the अभिनवभारती. On the words of भरत (नाव्य० VI.36.G. O.S.) 'तस्मान्नाट्यरसा: स्मृताः' अ्रभिनवगुप्त remarks: 'रससमुदायो हि नाट्यम्। न नाव्य एव च रसा काव्येपि नाट्यायमान एव रसः, काव्यार्थविषये हि प्रत्यक्षकल्पसंवेदनोदये रसोदय इत्युपा- ध्यायाः । तदाहुः काव्यकौतुके-प्रयोगत्वमनापन्ने काव्ये नास्वादसम्भवः । इति । वर्णनो- त्कलिकाभोगप्रोढोकत्या सम्यगर्पिताः। उद्यानकान्ताचन्द्राद्या भावा: प्रत्यक्षवत्स्फुटाः॥ rfa i' vol, I. pp. 291-92. This means that when the poet by his wonderful power of delineation makes the reader feel that the objects described are as if present before his eyes, then only rasa is realized by the reader of a poem. On p. 223 of vol. I (of ना्य०) reference is made to the verse in the काव्यकौतुक enume- rating rasas (यत्तपाध्यायः काव्यकौतुके रसोह शपरे शरोके निरूपितं etc.). On vol. I p. 187 reference is made to Tota's explanation of ara IV. 281 (G.O.S.ed.). On the verse of भरत (in VI. 51 p. 310 G. O. S.) a half verse in quoted to the effect that when karuņa is not subordinate to vipralambha (the love of separated lovers), then it is possible to find it in all beings (तदुक्तमस्मदुपा- ध्यायभट्टतोतेन-स्वातन्त्र्येण प्रवृत्तौ तु सर्वप्राषिषु सम्भवः ।). On नाट्यधर्मी (भरत 13. 14, G. O. S.) a verse of his teacher is quoted: 'यथोक्तमुपा- ध्यायै :- यदत्रास्ति न तत्रास्य कवेवर्णनमहृति। यन्नासम्भवि तत्र स्यात्सम्भव्यत्र तु ra: I' vol. II. p. 216. This verse and one more verse are quoted by अभिनव on the 19th chap. (p.71 of the GOS vol. III). On भरत chap. 15 last verse, भभिनव quotes a verse which requires even great poets not to forget the due order of the steps to be taken for making the play effective (स एव क्रम इत्युपाध्यायाः। यदाङु:। महाकवीनां पदवीमुपास्तामारुरक्षताम्। नासंस्मृत्य पदस्पर्श सम्पत्सोपान- पद्तिः ॥ इत्यादि । vol. II. pp.292). On p. 78 (of GOS ed. vol. III.) अभिनव remarks that rasa is a store of strikingness and charm that is entirely out of the common run and quotes six verses of Tota in support (about वा्याभिनय), the last two of

220 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

which are corrupt. On p. 153 chap. 22) a half verse of तोत is quoted न चालडकृतीनामत्र (!) लचयं महदाश्रयमिति (vol. III GOS). On नाव्यशाख 31. 513-520 (Ch. ed.) a half verse is quoted to the effect that there is no restriction about employing a particular language in a poem or as to the characters in a play, but in the context the language meant is Saindhavi (i. e. the dialect of Sindhudesa). 'यत्र भाषानियमो नोकस्तत्र प्राथम्यात्संस्कृतव, यथेच्छमित्यन्ये, स्त्रीपुंभावाश्रयत्वाद् प्राकृतमाषैवेत्यपरे, सैन्धव्येव प्रकरणादिति भट्टतोतः । यदाह काव्यकौतुके-न भाषानियमः पात्रे काव्ये स्यास्सैन्धवीमिति। (p. 503 of B. O.R. I. transcript). On p.345 of B.O.R. I. transcript काव्यकौतुकview is referred to; on p. 355 of transcript (B. O. R. I.) 'तथा च भट्टृतोतेनोक्तम्-कामावस्था न शद्गारः कचिदारसा तदझता।'. On p. 497 (B.O.R. I. transcript) there is a corrupt passage which is important : 'तथा च डोम्बिकासु स एवार्थ: प्रधानभूत इति चूडामणी स्पष्टमेवोक्तम्। चोरिभमि ... तथा च चिरन्तन्तेयं ... (gap) दयप्रवादं पएडमचूडामखिशा इति। तदेतद्रदृतोतेन काव्यकौतुके वितत्य दर्शितम् । (in chap. 31 verse 478 of Ch. ed.). The words पएडमचूडामखिशा remind one of similar words quoted on p. 197 above. In numerous places Abhinava mentions the views of his teacher with the words उपाध्याया: or गुरव: as in GOS vol. I pp.3, 107, 207, 275, vol. II. pp. 67, 386, 395, 423, 440, 441 and vol. III. pp. 3, 10, 19, 47, 71 (उपाध्यायपादाः), 163. There is no doubt that Tota exercised a profound influence on Abhinava and through him on the theory of rasa. From the several quo- tations cited above it appears that the काव्यकौतुक was mostly in verse (if not entirely), dealt with the theory of Poetry in general and rasa in particular and that it also explained relevant passages of the Natyasastra, though it cannot be said in the preseent state of our knowledge that it was a regular commentary thereon. On ch. 16. 4 (about 36 लक्षयऽ) भ्. भा. remarks 'पठितोद्देशक्रमस्तु अ्स्मदुपाध्यायपरम्परागत :,' thereby making it clear that azala was the representative of a school of the interpretation of the Nātyaśāstra. It will be shown later on that Abhinavagupta's literary activity lies between 980-1020 A. D. So his teacher's activity may be placed between 950-980. Another doctrine that ala held was that the poet, the hero (of a poem) and the (sympa- thetic) reader pass though the same experience 'नायकस्य कवेः श्रोतुः समानोनुभवस्ततः' (लोचन p.34). The भौचित्य० of वेमेन्द्र (on कारिका

KAVYAKAUTUKA 221

35. attributes to him the well-known definition of प्रतिभा 'प्रभ्ना नवनवोन्मेषशालिनी प्रतिभा मता'. The काव्यकौतुक of तोत and its विवरस by भमिनव have not yet been discovered. They would be of great use in solving problems of identity and in tracing all the stages of the doctrines of Poetics in the several schools. हेमचन्द्र (काव्यानु. p. 316) quotes three verses from भट्टतोत 'नानृषिः कविरित्यु- कमृषिश्च किल दशनात्। विचित्रभावधमांशतत्त्वप्रख्या च दर्शनम्॥ स तत्त्वदर्शना- देव शाख्रेषु पठितः कविः। दर्शनादर्णनाश्वाथ रूढा लोके कविश्रुतिः ॥ तथाहि दर्शने स्वच्छे नित्येप्यादिकवेमुनिः(नेः?)। नोदिता कविता लोके यावब्जाता न वर्षना॥'. सोमेश्वर (in his टीका on काव्यप्र. I folio 2 b) quotes these verses. The काव्यप्रकाशसक्कत (of माशिक्य) ascribes the following to काव्यकौतुक 'प्रशा ... प्रतिभा मता। तदनुप्राणनाजीवद्णनानिपुयः कविः। तस्य कर्म स्मृतं काव्यं' (p. 7 Mysore ed.). This is quoted by हेमचन्द्र (काव्यानु. p. 3) also without name; the व्यक्तिविवेकव्याख्या (p. 13) also says "अ्रनेन कवे: काव्यमिति काव्यकौतुकविदितां काव्यस्य शब्दव्युत्पत्ति कविमूलकाव्यत्वप्रतिपादिकां दर्शयति। तत्र अक 'तस्य कर्म स्मृतं काव्यम्' इति ॥." It may be noted that the कामधेनु on वामन's सूत्र ascribes these to भामह. हेमचन्द्र (विवेक p. 59) tells us that भट्टतौत was against the view of शङ्कुक 'अनुकरण- रूपो रस:'. So also मासिक्यचन्द्र (p.69), सोमेश्वर and अमिनवभारती vol. I. p. 37 say the same. 19 The हुवयदर्पण of भट्टनायक. भट्टनायक is one of the four writers whose interpretations of the sutra of Bharata 'विभावानु- भावव्यमिचारिसंयोगाद्रसनिष्पत्तिः' are quoted in the काव्यप्रकाश (IV.90 Va). His view of रस is: (1) न ताटस्थ्येन नात्मगत्वेन रस: प्रतीयते नोत्पचते नाभिव्यज्यते भपि तु काव्ये नाट्ये चाभिधातो द्वितीयेन विभावादिसाधारखी- करखात्मना भावकत्वव्यापारेय भाव्यमान: स्थायी सत्त्वोद्र कप्रकाशानन्दमयसंविद्धिभ्ान्ति- सतत्त्वेन भोगेन भुज्यत इति भट्टनायक:। काव्यप्र. IV. p. 90 (Va). Vide लोचन pp. 82-83 for a more detailed statemant of the views of भट्टनायक about रस. According to him, there are three functions of the words of a poem or drama, अभिधा, भावना, भोगीकृति (or रसचर्वणा or भोग).1 The first is common to शाख also. By the second function (भावना), the निभावs (like सीता &c.) are presented to the reader or spectator stripped of their individual existence and only in a general or impersonal way (as chaste and charm- ing womanhood &c.). The third function leads to the ultimate 1. लोचन p. 82 summareses his views as follows : प्रतीयते नोस्पपथते नामिव्यन्यते काव्येन रसः । कि त्वन्यशब्दवलक्षएयं काव्यात्मनः शब्दस्य श्र्यंशताप्रसादाद। तत्राभिधायकत्वं वाच्यविषयम्, भावकत्वं रसादिविषयम्', भोकतृत्वं सहृदयविषयमिति त्रयोंऽशभूता व्यापारा:।

222 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

experience of the reader or spectator (which, like मक्ानन्द, is स्वसंबेध and not capable of being defined in words); that expe- rience for the moment makes the सहृदय reader or spectator forget all else and makes him one with the subject presented. भमिनवभारती vol. I p. 279, हेमचन्द्र (विवेक p. 61) and जयरथ (अलं.स. बि. p. 11) quote the following verses on this point: (2) भभिषा भावना चान्या तन्भोगीकृतिरेव च। अभिधाधामरतां याते शब्दार्थालक्कती ततः ॥ भावना- भाव्य एषोषि शृक्गारादिगणो मतः । तन्भ्रोगीकृतिरूपेख व्याप्यते सिद्धिमान्नरः ॥'. जयरथ adds one half verse (दृश्यमानाथवा मोक्षे यात्यऋ्त्वमियं स्फुटम्). That he was the author of the हृदयदर्पण follows from several circumstances. The लोचन quotes certain verses of भट्टनायक in which he distinguishss between शाख and भाख्यान on the one hand and काव्य on the other : (3) 'शब्दप्राधान्यमाश्रित्य तत्र शाखत्रं पृथ- गिविदुः। भ्थतत्त्वेन युक्त तु वदन्त्याख्यानमेतयोः। दयोगखतवे व्यापारप्राधान्ये काव्य- गीर्भवेद्।I' (p. 32) and भ. भा. vol. II. p. 298. These verses are quoted from the हृदयद्पण by हेमचन्द्र (काव्यानु.pp.3-4). मासिक्यचन्द्र on का. प्र. (संकेत p.6) quotes these verses. The अलक्कारसवस्व (pp. 10-11) summarizes the views of भट्टनायक 'भट्टनायकेन तु व्यज्ञयव्यापारस्य प्रौढोक्त्याभ्युपगतस्य काव्यांशत्वं ब्रुवता न्यग्भावितशब्दार्थस्वरूपस्य व्यापारस्यैव प्राधान्यमुकम्। तत्राप्यभिधाभावकत्वलक्षणव्यापारद्योत्तीरणों रसचवशात्मा भोगापर- पर्यायो व्यापार: प्राधान्येन विश्रांतिस्थानतयाङ्गीकृतः'. With reference to this view, जयरथ speaks of भट्टनायक as हृदयदपसकार (p.15). महिमभट्ट says that he composed the व्यक्तिविवेक to secure fame (of demoli- shing the ध्वन्यालोक) without looking at the दर्पण (the हृदयदपख) 'सहसा यशोभिसत समुदतादृष्टवर्पणा मम घीः। स्वालक्कारविकल्पप्रकल्पने वेति कथमिवावधम् ।I' (p.1, अभिसतृ means also to approach as an भभि- सारिका' and दर्पस also means 'mirror'). The commentary on this explains 'दपणो हृदयदर्पणाख्यो ध्वनिध्वंसग्रंथोपि'. The com. on व्यक्तिविवेक (p.13) quotes a half verse from the हृदयदपय-तत्कर्ता च कविः प्रोक्तो भेदेपि हि तदस्ति यत्।' इति काव्यमूलं कवित्वं प्रतिपादितम्. It follows that भट्टनायक wrote the हृदयदरपया for demolishing the theo- ry of ध्वनि. The लोचन (p. 23) refers to the adverse criticism of भट्टनायक on the illustration भम धम्मित्र (ध्व.p.19). and then twits him by saying 'किं च वस्तुध्व्नि दूषयता रसध्वनिस्तदनुग्राहकः समथ्यंत इति सुष्ठुतरां ध्वनिध्वंसोयम् (लोचन p. 23). The principal point on which he differs from the ध्वन्यालोक is that he regards ध्वनि as transcending definition and as purely स्वसंवेध. So he was a follower of those of whom the ध्वनिकारिका says 'केचिदाचा स्थितम- बिषये तस्मूचुस्तदीयम्' or as the घ्व0 says 'केचित्पुनलचयकर पाशालोनबुद्धयो ध्वनेस्तसवं गिरामगोघरं सहृदयहृदयसंबेधमेव समाख्यातवन्तः' (p.12). According

HRDAYADARPANA 223

to him रसचर्षंण्ा (or भोगकृत्व) is the soul of poetry and he is not prepared to admit ध्वनि in general as the soul of poetry. "ध्वनि- र्नामापरो योपि व्यापारो व्यजनात्मकः। तस्य सिद्धेपि भेदे स्यात्काव्यान्त्वं न रूपिता ।।' (लोचन pp. 14 and 19; नयरथ p.10). The लोचन refers to the views of भट्टनायक and हृदयदर्पण very frequently and generally for condemnation. Besides the references given above vide लोचन p.14 ('काव्ये रसयिता सर्वो न बोद्धा न नियोगभाक'), pp. 24-25 (on the verse 'अत्ता पत्थ' in ध्व.p.24), p. 32 (एतदवोक्तं हृदयदपये 'यावत्पूर्णो न त्वेतेन तावन्नैववम् इति), 32 (आत्मसद्भावेपि कचिदेव जीवव्यवहार इत्युक्तं प्रागेव। तेन तत्निरवकाशं यदुक्तं हृदयदर्पये-सर्वंत्र तर्हि काव्यव्यवहार: स्यात् इति), 34 (यदाह भट्टनायक: -वाग्धेनुदग्ध एकं हि रसं यल्लाभतृष्णया। तेन नास्य समः स स्याद दुसते योगिभिर्हि य:), 39 (तेन यद्भट्टनायकेन द्विवचनं दूषितं तद्गजनिमीलिकयैब); the reference here is to the form व्यड्क्त: in ध्वनिकारिका I. 13 and this passage of the लोचन has been criticized in the व्यक्तिविवेक (p.19); 77 (भट्टनायकेन तु यदुक्ं-इवशब्दयोगाद्रौरताप्यत्र न काचित्-तच्छ लोकार्थमपरामृश्य- on निश्वासान्ध इवादर्श:); this is with reference to the verse निश्वासान्य इवादर्श: (from रामायख); p. 76 यत्तु हृदयद्पसे उक्त्तम्-हहा हेति संरम्भार्थोयं चमत्कार इति (on the verse स्निग्धश्यामल० in ध्व. p. 74-75). From thes: quotations it will be clear that the हृदयदर्पण was a work in verse and prose composed for establishing a theory of Poetics and for controverting the position of the ध्वन्यालोक. मागिक्यचन्द्र givestwo verses characterising लोल्ट, शङ्कुक and नायक quoted above on pp. 50-51 but the सक्केत p. 147 (in Anan. ed.) has some different readings. Whether the work was originally called सहृदयदर्पण, vide above pp. 196-7. In the edition of 1923 I could not make use of the अभिनवभारती, no part of which had then been published. On Pp. 4-5 of the भभिनवभारती vol. I. is set out the view of भट्टनायक on the first verse of the नाट्यशास्त्र 'नाट्यशाखं प्रवच्यामि ब्रह्मया युदाहतम्' which comes to this that this world of name and from (नामरूप) is a means of helping one on the road of the highest goal of man (viz. मोच) and that this verse suggests the idea of Santarasa and then quotes the following verse from the सहृदय- दर्पण of भट्टनायक viz. नमस्नैलोक्यनिर्माणकवये शम्भवे यतः। प्रतिक्षणं जगनना- व्यप्रयोगरसिको जन: ॥. This appears to have been the first verse of the सहदयदर्पण (or हृदयदपष). The late Prof. V. V. Sovani thought that the work of भट्टनायक was a commentary on the Nātyasastra (vide Dr. Bhandarkar Commemoration volume p. 390). But this does not seem to be right. The quotations cited above from भड्नायक establish that the latter was concerned to

224 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

show that ध्यनि means rasa only, that the Dhvanikara is wrong in postulating वस्तुध्वनि and अलक्कारध्वनि, that the principle of rasa apprehension cannot be explained in words and that the explanation of such verses as भम धम्मिभ and भत्ता एत्थ given by the ध्वन्यालोक (p. 19 and p. 24) are not correct. Thus the हृदयदर्पखdealt with रस and in explaining it had naturally to deal with Bharata's sutra 'विभावानुभाव०'. The भभिनवभारती very rarely puts forward the interpretations of नायक on the verses of Bharata asit does in the case of उद्ट or लोलट or शक्कक (vide pp. 48-52 above). On the chapter on सिद्धिलक्षय (27th at p.305 of भ. भा. in G. O. S. vol. III) अभिनव quotes the following from भट्टनायक 'प्रधाने सिद्धिभागेस्य प्रयोगाऊत्वमागताः। गेयादयस्तथैवैते त्रैधैनं (१) त्थुपयोगिनः। सोपानपदपठक्त्या च सा च मोक्षस्पृगात्मिका ।'. Then on page 309 again नायक is quoted and ridiculed as a prosaic follower of जैमिनि 'यत्ु भट्टनायकेनोक्तं सिद्धेरपि नटादेरअत्वं ब्रजन्त्यास्तत्पच्ेय- मिति तेन नाट्याअता समर्थिता फलं च पुरुषार्थत्वादिति केवलं जैमिनिरनुसृत इत्यलमनेन ।'. For 'फलं च पुरुषार्थत्वात्', vide पूर्वभीमांसासूत्र III. 1. 5. In the लोचन also (pp. 76-77) in rejecting the view of भट्टनायक on the verse निःश्वासान् इवादर्शश्चन्द्रमा न प्रकाशते his interpretation is ridiculed as follows : न च ... कल्पना युक्क्ा। जैमिनिसूत्रे सेवं योज्यते न काव्ये- पीत्यलम. It appears from these references that भट्टनायक was a मीमांसक or at least relied on मीमांसा rules in his work. भट्टनायक's approach to the theory of रसचवण or भोग reminds one of the सांख्य doctrine that पुरुष is only भोक्ता and not कर्ता (i.e. is quite passive and not active). The mention of सत्त्वोद्रेक in the passage about मम्मट's resume of भट्टनायक's theory also tends to show that he leant on the सांख्य doctrine of the three gunas of सत्व, रजस् and तमस. I am of the opinion that भट्टनायक was not a regular commentator of the नाव्यशास्र as उद्दट and शङ्कक were. His main differences from the ध्वन्यालोक have bcen pointed out above. Bhatta-Nayaka held that kavya is different from शाख and भाख्यान in this that काव्य depended solely on कविव्यापार, that काव्य gives भानन्द to all, while शाख gives injunctions and भाख्यान (इतिहामपुराय) gives information. भट्टनायक flourished after the ध्वन्यालोक and before the लोचन i. e. between 900 and 1000 A. D. From the somewhat bitter and personal attacks that the लोचन makes it appears likely that he was nearer to the times of the लोचन than to those of the ध्वन्यालोक. If he was a contemporary of भभिनवगुत or only slightly older, then भट्टनायक, the author of the हदयदर्पस, cannot be

HRDAYADARPANA 225

identified with the भट्टनायक mentioned in the राजतरदिण्णी 'दिजस्तयो- र्नायकाख्यो गौरीशसुरसअनोः । चातुर्विधः कृतस्तेन वाग्देवीकुलमन्दिरम् ॥' (V. 59). This refers to the time of शक्कर वर्मन् (883-902 A. D.). It is difficult to decide positively one way or other, but I am in- clined to hold that the two are not identical and that arm flourished between 935-985. Vide J. O. R., Madras vol. I. pp. 267-276 for 'Fragments of Bhattanayaka' collected by Mr. T. R. Chintamani and Journal of Bombay Un. vol. 17 part 2 pp. 267-276 for भट्टनायक's criticism of ध्वन्यालोक and for Bhatta- Nayaka's theory of Rasa. The verse कीटानुविद्ध० quoted in the साहित्यदर्पण I is ascribed to the हृदयदपण by प्रभाकर in his रसप्रदीप (p. 3 Tri. ed.). The work of भट्टनायक would be of great value for the theories of kavya, rasa and dhvani and as it was avail- able to saT towards the end of the 16th century, it is quite possible that, if a vigorous search were made, a ms. of his work may yet be discovered. 20 The वकोक्तिजीवित of कुन्तक. This work had been known for many years only through quotations and references in other Alankara works, such as the अलं. स०, साहित्यदर्पख Through the kindness of Dr. Belvalkar I was able to secure a transcript of a ms. of the work recently discovered in Madras. That transcript was used in my edition of 1923. Dr. De published the first two a a4s in 1923, which are used in this edition. Subsequently in 1928 he brought out another edition but I could not get a copy of it. The ms. made use of here is No. 114 of 1919-24 at the B. O. R. I, described in Cat. vol. XII No. 256 pp. 300-2. The work consists of three parts, कारिकाS, वृत्ति, and exa- mples, almost all of which are taken from previous authors. It is divided into four 3aqs. The transcript breaks off in the fourth, but it seems that the work did not extend much beyond where the transcript breaks off. That aae is the au- thor of the whole of the work and that the entire work contai- ning कारिकाS, वृत्ति and examples was called वक्रोकिजीवित follows from several considerations. It appears that aa meant the Karikas alone to be called TETT as the Karika1 of the first उन्मेष states : लोकोत्तरचमत्कारकारिवैचित्र्यसिद्धये। काव्यस्यायमलक्कारः 1. An excellent edition of the four Unmesas of the Vakroktijīvita, with a modern Hindi commentary by Ācarya Viśveśvara and exhaustive Introduction in Hindi has been

226 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

कोप्यपूर्वो विधीयते ॥1. The वृत्ति on this says ननु च सन्ति चिरन्तनास्तदलंकारास्त स्किमर्थमित्याइ-भपूर्वः तद््यतिरिक्तार्थाभिधायी । ... कोप्रि अलौकिकः सातिशयः । लोको ... सिद्धये-भसामान्याहादविधायिविचित्रभावसम्पत्तये । यद्यपि सन्ति शतराः काव्यालक्कारास्तयापि न कुतश्िदप्येवंविधवैचित्र्यसिद्धि: ।. It may be noticed that the works of मामह, उन्भट and रुद्रट were called काव्यालक्कारs Though the कारिकाs thus appear to have been meant to be called काव्यालक्वार, the whole work has been referred to by later writers as वक्रोक्िजीवित. The वृत्ति is quite clear on this point : तदयमर्थः। मरन्थस्यास्य अलक्कार इत्यमिधानम्, उपमादिप्रमेयजातमभिधेयम्, उक्तरूपवैचित्र्थसिद्धि: प्रयोजनमिति।'. The व्यक्तिविवेक (p. 28) quotes the words 'शब्दार्थी सहितौ. .. कारिणि (which is बक्रोक्तिजीवित I. 8 p.7), says that certain people who regard themselves as सहृदय assert that वक्रोकि is the soul of poetry and then (on p.37) quotes the verse संरम्भ: करिकीट० (which is quoted in the वक्रोकिजीवित I. p. 17 as an example of an excellent काव्य) and finds several faults in that verse and winds up by saying (p. 58) 'काव्यकाखनकषारममानिना कुन्तकेन निजकाव्यलक्ष्मणि। यस्य सर्वनिरवद्यतोदिता छोक एष स निदर्शितो मया ॥'. This shows that the definition (लक्ष्म) and the citation of examples are कुन्तक's according to महिमभट्ट (who was not far removed in time from the वक्रोकि०). The टीका on the व्यक्ति० (p. 16) says 'भयं छोको वक्रोक्िजीविते वितत्य व्याख्यात इति तत एवावधार्यः'. So according to the टोका also, the वृत्ति and the examples formed part of the बक्रोक्तिजीवित. The एकावली (p. 51) says 'एतेन यत्र कुन्तकेन भक्तावन्तर्भा- वितो ध्वनिस्तदपि प्रत्याख्यातम्'. सोमेश्वर in his commentary on the काव्यप्र० (61 b and 67a) quotes two verses of कुचक (१कुन्तक) the first of which is found in the printed वक्रोक्ि० (कारिका I. 31.p. 48) and the 2nd is quoted below.1 The काव्यप्रकाशसक्केत of माणिक्य० says on the verse 'तरन्तीवाङ्ञानि स्खलदमललावएयजलथौ' इत्यत्र सादृश्योप- भारमूचे यथा चोपचारस्तथा वक्रोफिजीवितगंथाजेयः' (p. 40-41). This verse is cited as an example of उपचारवक्रता in the वक्रोकि० (II. p. 99) with the remark 'अत्र चेतनपदार्थसम्भविसादृश्योपचाराद तारुफ्यतरल- तदयोगात्रारयां तरणमुत्प्रेचितम्।'. The colophons at the end of the first and second उन्मेषs are respectively 'इति राजानककुन्तल (क १) विरचिते बक्रोकिजीविते काव्यालक्टारे प्रथमोन्मेषः' and 'इति श्रीकुन्तलविरचिते वक्रोक्तिजीविते published recently by Dr. Nagendra of the Delhi University. There are, however, many misprints and it is not clear on what mss. or editions the text is based. 1. सोमेश्वर (folio 67a) सुकुमारेति यत्कुन्तकः 'सन्ति तत्र त्रयो मार्गा: कविप्रस्थानहेतव: । सुकुमारो विचित्रश् मध्यमश्रोभयात्मक:॥'.

VAKROKTIJĪVITA 227

द्वितीय उन्मेष:'. As the work is not generally studied, a somewhat detailed analysis is given below. The first उन्मेष begins 'वन्दे कवीन्द्रववत्रेन्दुलास्यमन्दिरनर्तकीम् । देवी सूक्तिपरिस्पन्दसुन्दराभिनयोज्ज्वलाम् । वाचो विषयनैयत्यमुत्पादयितुमुच्यते। भादिवाक्ये- मिधानादि निर्मितेर्मानसूत्रवत्।। लोकोत्तरचमत्कारकारिव चित्र्यासिदये। काव्यस्या- यमलरगर: कोप्यपूर्वों विधीयते॥ धर्मादिसाधनोपायः सुकुमारक्रमोदितः। काव्य- बन्धोभिजातानां हृदयाहादकारकः ॥ (after two more verses) the वृत्ति goes

आयत्यां च तदात्वे च रसनिष्यन्दसुन्दरम्। येन सम्पधते काव्यं तदिदानी विचार्यते॥ (I. 7) अलक्कृतिरल क्वारमुपोद्धत्य (र उपो?) विवेच्यते। तदुपायतया तत्त्वं सालक्कारस्य काव्यता ।'. It will be noticed that he gives the प्रयोजन of काव्य like भामइ I. 2 (धर्मार्थ ... काव्यनिबन्धनम्) and calls his work काव्या- लक्कार. The वृत्ति begins 'जगत्त्रितयव चित्र्यचित्रकर्मविधायिनम्। शिवं शक्किपरि- स्पन्दमात्रोपकरणं नुमः ॥ .. साहित्यार्थसुधासिन्धोः सारमुन्मीलयाम्यहम्॥ येन द्वितयमप्येतत्तत्त्वनिर्मितिलक्षणम्। तदिदामद्धतामोदं चमत्कारं विधास्यति ।'. Follow- ing भामह (I. 16 शब्दार्थों सहितौ काव्यं) he defines काव्य as शब्दाथों सहितौ वक्रकविव्यापारशालिनि। बन्धे व्यवस्थितौ काव्यं तद्िदाहादकारिषि॥' (quoted in व्यक्ति० p.28 and by समुद्रबन्ध p.8) i.e. words and senses that contain a certain striking turn of ideas due to the poet's imagination and fancy constitute काव्य .. His position is that सालकुत sabda and artha constitute काव्य and it is not proper to say that अलक्वारs belong to काव्य (as this mode of speech suggests that काव्य may exist without them). In order to attain the position of काव्य, the composition must be 'वक्रताविचित्रगणालक्कार- संपदा परस्परस्पर्धाधिरोहः' (p.10). He gives as an example of काव्य the verse (on p. 10) ततोरुखपरिस्पन्दमन्दीकृतवपुः शशी। दध कामपरिका मकामिनीगएडपायडुताम ।। (quoted in the काव्यप्र. IX). Then he comes to the part वक्रोकि plays (कारिकाs I. 10-11) 'शब्दो' विवचिता- थैंकवाचकोन्येषु सत्स्वपि। अर्थः सहृदयाहादकारी स्वस्पन्दसुन्दरः ॥ उभावेतावलकायों तयोः पुनरलकृतिः। वकोक्तिरेव वंदग्व्यभक्ेभणितिहच्यते ।'(last quoted by जयरथ p.9). बक्रोकि is a striking mode of speech differing from and transcending the ordinary everyday mode of speaking about a thing (and hence called बक्रोकि); it is speech that charms by the skill of the poet. The वृत्ति explains 'वक्रोकिः प्रसिद्धामियानव्य- तिरेकिणी विचित्रवाभिषा वै दग्धयं कविकमकौशलं तस्य भङ्गी विच्छिति: तया भणिति। (p.21). He cites तामभ्यगच्छत् (रघु. 14. 70) and सथ: पुरीपरिसरे (in बालरा. 6. 34.) respectively as examples of poetry that is सहृदया- हादकारि and not so (and points out how the latter verse will become charming by a change of words). He ridicules those who regard स्वमावोकि as an अलद्कार and says that when in a s0-

228 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

called स्वभाबोकि other figures occur, there will always be सङ्कर or संसृष्टि; अलक्कारकतां येषां स्वभावोकिरलक्कतिः अलक्कायतया तेषां किमन्यदवतिष्ठते। ... स्पष्टे सवंत्र संसुष्टिरस्पष्टे सङ्करस्ततः' (कारिकाs I. 12 and 16). The साहित्य of शब्द and भर्थ is explained in the वृत्ति as 'तत्र वाचकस्य वाच- कान्तरेय साहित्यमभिप्रतम्' and negatives the साहित्य of वाचक with वाध्यान्तर and of वाच्य with वाचकान्तर. 'शब्दार्थों सहितावेव प्रतीतौ स्फुरतः सदा। ... साहित्यमनयो: शोभाशालितां प्रति काप्यसौ। भन्यूनानतिरिक्तत्वमनोहा- रिएयवस्थितिः ॥ (कारिका I. 17 and 18). Then the वृत्ति proceeds p. 26) मार्गानुगुएयसुभगो माधुर्यादिगुणोदयः । अलक्करणविन्यासो वक्रतातिशयान्वितः ॥ वृश्यौचित्यमनोहारि रसानां परिपोषयम्। स्पर्धया विद्यते यत्र यथास्वमुभयोरपि॥ सा काप्यवस्थितिस्तदिदाहादकनिबन्धनम् । पदादिवाकपरिस्पन्दसारः साहित्यमुच्यते॥' (these are quoted in साहित्यमीमांसा p.14 Tri. ed.). वक्रता is ex- plained as 'वक्रत्वं प्रसिद्धप्रस्थानव्यतिरेकि वै चित्र्यम्' (p. 27 on कारिका I. 19). Then he enumerates six varieties of कविव्यापारवक्रत्व०, viz. वर्णविन्यास- वक्रत्व, पदपूर्वाधव०, प्रत्ययव०, वाक्यव०, प्रकरशव०, प्रबन्धव० वर्णविन्यासवक्रत्वं, पदपूर्वाधवक्रता। वक्रतायाः परोप्यस्ति प्रकारः प्रत्यवाश्रयः ॥ वाक्यस्य वक्रभावो-, न्यो विद्यते यः सहस्त्रधा। यत्रालकरवर्गोंसौ सर्वोप्यन्तर्भविव्यति (this verse is quoted by समुद्रबन्ध p. 9) ।। वक्रभावः प्रकरये प्रबन्धेप्यस्ति यादृशः । उच्यते सहजाहायसौकुमार्यमनोहार: ॥।' (कारिका I. 20-22). पदपूर्वार्ष means पदस्य सुबन्तस्य तिकन्तस्य वा पूर्वार्ध प्रातिपदिकं धातुर्वा (p. 28). He briefly mentions the varieties of these and cites examples. His posi- tion is that बक्रोक्ति is the soul of poetry1 (i. e. is वक्रोक्ति that breathes life into poetry, makes it poetry, without it काव्य cannot exist), but बक्रोफि itself is not possible unless the poet possesses the necessary fancy and imagimation (therefore कविव्यापार is प्रधान in काव्य). Vide p. 55 also. out वैचित्र्य he says 'विचित्रो यत्र बकरोकिवैचित्र्यं जीवितायते। परिस्फुरति या न्तः सा काप्यतिशयाभिषा ॥' (कारिका I.27 p. 45), the first half being :uoted by जयरथ (p. 8). He then speaks of certain gus of वै चित्र्य viz. माधुर्य, प्रसाद (rare use of compounds and well-connected sentences), लावएय, भाभिजात्य. लावस्य and भाभिजात्य are defined as 'अत्रालुप्तविसर्गान्तैः पदैः प्रोतैः परस्परम्। हस्वैः संयोगपूर्वैश्च लावएयमतिरिच्यते (quoted by सोमेश्वर, folio 1lb)॥ यन्नातिकोमलच्छायं नातिकाठिन्यमुदहत्। आ्रभिजात्यं मनोहारि तदत्र प्रौढिनिर्मितम्।।' (कारिका I. 31-32 pp. 48-49). Examples of all

1. This follows from what is stated in the qfar (p. 27) 'शरीरं जीवितेनेव स्फुरितेनेव जीवितन्। विना निजीवतां येन वाक्यं याति विपशि- साम्॥ यस्मास्किमपि सौभाग्यं तदिदामेव गोचरम् । सरस्वती समम्येति तदिदानी विचार्यते॥'. This कविव्यापारवक्रत्व is जीवित.

VAKRAKTIJĪVITA 229

these are cited. कि ताकण्यतरो: (साहित्यद० X example of सन्देह) illu- strates माधुर्य as causing वैचित्र्य. An example of लावयय is 'बासोत्क- व्पतरदविगि स्तनतटे धौताअनश्यामला: कीर्यन्ते करशः कशाकि किममी वाष्पाम्भसा विन्दवः। कि चाकुन्चितकएठरोधकुटिला: कर्णामृतस्यन्दिनो हुङ्गारा: कलप्यमप्रययि- नसत्रयु्यन्ति निर्यान्ति च ।।' (p. 48). He speaks of three मागs, बैचित्य- मार्ग, सुकुमारमार्ग and सौकुमारयवचित्र्यसंवलितमार्ग. The last is called मध्यममार्ग; 'मार्गोसौ मध्यमो नाम नानारुचिमनोहरः। स्पधया यत्र वर्तन्ते मागदितय- सम्पद: ।।' (कारिका I. 35 p. 50). The edition of Dr. Nagendra contains a few additional kārikās, vrtti and examples about माधुर्य, प्रसाद and other gunas which are not noticed here. And it also contains in the first उन्मेष karikas on aucitya and saubhāgya. The 2nd उन्मेष starts with the explanation and elucidation of वर्ष विन्यासवक्रत्व. He defines it as 'एको दौ बहवो वर्षा वध्यमानाः पुनः पुनः। स्वल्पान्तराख्तिधा सोका वर्णनविन्यासवक्रता ॥ वर्णान्तयोगिन: स्पर्शा दविरु- कास्तलनादयः। रेफादिभिश्च संयुक्ता: प्रस्तुतौचित्यशोभिन: ॥' (II. 1-2 pp.60- 61). It will be noticed that वर्विन्यासवक्रता is practically the same as the अनुप्रास of the ancient आलक्कारिकs. An example (of एकस्य दयोबंहूनां च) is भग्नलावल्लरीकास्तर लितकदलीस्तम्वताम्बूल जम्बूजम्बीरास्ताल- तालीतरलतरलतालासिका यस्य जहः। वेलवत्कल्लोलहेला बिसकलनजडाः कूलकुम्जेपु सिन्धोः सेनासीमन्तिनीनामनवरतरताभ्यासतन्द्री समीराः ॥'. The verse प्रथम- मरूच्छायस्तावत्ततः कनकप्रभः (cited in the काव्यप्र. VI. p. 260 Va.) is an example of वर्ष विन्यासव०. He does not like, however, that too many alankaras should be heaped up in one verse 'अलक्कारस्य कवयो यत्रालङ्करणान्तरम्। असन्तुष्टा निबध्नति हारादेमखिबन्धवद्।। नातिनिबन्ध- विहिता नाप्यपेशलभूषिता। पूर्वावृत्तपरित्यागनूतनावर्तनोज्जवला ।।' (first verse is quoted in व्यक्तिविवेकटीका pp. 43-44 and it is stated that वक्रोक्िजीचित finds fault with it). He says that the उपनागरिका and other वृत्तिs of the ancients (vide उद्धट I) are the same as वषविन्यासवक्रता 'वर्ण- च्छायानुसारेय गुयमार्गानुवर्तिनी। वृत्तिवैचित्र्ययुक्तेति सैव प्रोक्ता चिरन्तनैः ॥ (II. 5 p.66). यमक also is a kind of वर्णाविन्यासव० 'यमकं नाम कोप्यस्याः प्रकार: परिदृश्यते। स तु शोभान्तराभावादिह नातिश्रतन्यते ।' (II. 7 p. 67). Then he comes to the several varieties of पदपूर्वाषवक्रता, viz. रूढिवैचित्र्यवक्रता (रूढि means रूढिप्रधाना: शब्दाः) 'यत्र रूढेरसम्भाव्यवर्माध्यारोप- गर्भता। सद्वर्मातिशयारोपगमंत्वं वा प्रतीयते ॥ लोकोत्तरतिरस्कारक्राष्योस्क्षभि- वित्सया। वाच्यस्य सोच्यते कापि रूढिव चित्र्यवकता ।' (कारिका II. 8-9 p. 68). There are two varieties of रूढितo, as the first verse shows. Exam- ples (of the first variety) are the word कमलाएँ in ताला जाभन्ति quoted above (from ध्व. p. 76) and the word राम: in स्निग्प० (ष्व० 75). Example of the 2nd variety of रूढिन• (विधमानपर्मा-

230 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

तिशयवाध्याध्यारोपगर्भत्व) are : ततः प्रहस्याह पुनः पुरन्दरं (रघु. III. 51, the word रघुं) and रामोसौ मुवनेषु (quoted in the काव्यप्र. IV p. 182). Another variety of पदपूर्वाध is पर्यायवकता (पर्यायप्रधान: शब्द: पर्यायः)

विशेषरोनापि स्वच्छायोत्कर्षपेशलः। पर्यायस्तेन वैचित्र्यं॥' (II. 11-12 p. 72). An example is नाभियोक्तुमनृतत्वमिष्यसे कस्तपस्विविशिखेषु चादरः। सन्ति भूमृति हि नः शराः परे ये परात्रमवसूनि वंख्िण: ॥ (here the word इन्द्रस्य for वज्रिया: would not convey the same force and charm). Another and a very important variety of पदपूर्वाष० is उपचारवक्रता 'यत्र दूरान्त- रेन्यस्मात् सामान्यमुपचयते। लेशेनापि भवत्कांचिद् वक्तुमुद्रिक्तवृत्तिताम्॥ यन्मूला सरसोल्लेखा रूपकादिरलक्कतिः। उपचारप्रधानासौ वकता काचिदुच्यते ॥' (कारिका II. 13-14 p. 80, both quoted by जयरथ p. 10). Examples of उपचारवकता are स्निग्धश्यामल०, गच्छन्तीनां रमणवसति (पूर्वमेध 38) and 'गभ रं च मत्तमेहं' (the first and last being cited in the व. as exam- ples of अर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्य and अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्य respectively). It is therefore that the अलं. स. (p. 10) in summarising the view of the वक्रोकिजीवितकार says 'उपचारवऋरतादिभिः समस्तो ध्वनिप्रपञ्नः स्वीकृतः' and जयरथ after saying that the verse गभं च मत्तमेहं is cited as an example by the वकोक्तिजीवितकार remarks 'अत्र मदनिरहद्कारत्वे भौपचारिके इति उपचारवक्रतादीनामपि ग्रहयम्'. As remarked by Jayaratha the वक्रोकिजीवितकार was to be included among those who regarded ध्वनि as भाक. माछ (in वo) is derived from भक्ति which is the same as लक्षणा or गुसवृत्ति and is used by आनन्दवर्धन in the sense of 'something associated with भक्ति or लक्षणा'. The words of जयरथ (p. 9) on भलं. स. are 'इदानीं यदप्यन्यैरस्यभक्त्यन्तभतत्वमुक्तं तदपि दर्शयितुमाह-वक्रोक्ति- जीवितकार: पुनवेदग्ध्यभक्गीभगितिस्वभावां बहुविधां वत्रोक्तिमेव & C .; vide Dr. Haradatta Sharma on the meaning of उपचार in Poona Orientalist vol. I. p. 26 ff. and the author's notes to साहित्यदर्पस pp. 59-60. Two other varieties are विशेषणवक्रता and संतृतिवक्रता 'विशेषषस्य माहा- त्म्यात् क्रियाया: कारकस्य वा। यत्रोल्लसति लावएयं सा विशेषणवकता ॥ यत्त संव्ि- यते वस्तु वैचित्र्यस्य विवक्षया। सर्वनामादिभि: कैश्चित्सोक्ता संवृतिवक्रता ॥'(II. 15- 16p. 83 and p. 85). Examples of the two are (respectively) शुचिशीतलचन्द्रिकाप्लुताश्चिरनिःशब्दमनोहरा दिशः । प्रशमस्य मनोभवस्य वा हृदि तस्याप्यथ हेतुता ययुः॥ and निवार्यतामालि किमप्ययं बटः (कुमार० V. 83). He remarks अन्र ... भगवदपभाषणं च न कीर्तनीयतामहतीति संवरयेन रमीयतां नीतम् 1. Then he speaks of various other varieties of पदपूर्वार्धव० such as वृत्तिवचित्र्यवक्रता (वृत्ति is fivefold कृत, तद्धित, समास, एकरोष, सन्नन्त), भाववैचित्र्यव०, लिभवैचित्र्यव०, कर्त्रन्तरविचित्रता, क्रियावैचित्यव०, कालवै०, कारकव०, संख्या०, पुरुष०, उपग्रह०. An example of लिङ्र० is 'तवं रकसा भीर यतोपनीता तं मार्गमेता: कृपया लता मे' &c.' (रघु. 13. 24 where लताः

VAKROKTIJĪVITA 231

for वृत्ता: is very charming); of संर्यावकता is 'वयं तत्वान्वेषान्मपुकर &C. शाकुन्तल 1; उपग्रह1 is explained as 'धातूनां लक्षयानुसारेय नियतपदाश्रयः प्रयोग: पूर्वाचार्याणासुपग्रहशब्दाभिधेयतया प्रसिद्धः' and an example of उपग्रह- वकता is 'तस्यापरेश्वपि मृगेषु शरान्मुमुतो: कर्णान्तमेत्य बिभिदे निविडोपि सुद्िः। (रघु. 9. 58, अत्र विमिने मिद्यते स्म स्वयमेवेति कर्मकर्तृकत्व भात्मनेपदमतिचम- त्कारकारि). In the third उन्मेष the author comes to the discussion of वाक्यवचित्र्यवक्रता. In connection with this he speaks of वस्तुव क्रता. The वस्तु may be सहज or आहायं (कविशक्तिव्युत्पत्तिपरिपाकप्रौढ). In this उन्मेष and the next it is very difficult to construct the origi- nal कारिकाs from the वृत्ति (in which they are imbedded and are not given in full). 'उदारस्वपरिस्पन्दसुन्दरत्वेन वर्णनम्। वस्तुनो वक्रशब्दै- कगोचरत्वेन वक्रता ॥'. He quotes here the verse अपारे काव्यसंसारे ... परिवतते (ष्व. p.278), for which see above pp. 7-8. The verse अस्या: सर्गविधौ (विक्रमोर्वशीय I. 10) is cited as an example in which सहज and आहार्य are both skilfully combined. He gives directions here as to how sentient and other objects can be used in a poem to yield charming results and how to lend charm to poetry by nourishing appropriate रसs, भावs etc. The verse तिष्ठे- त्कोपवशाव (विक्र. IV.9) is cited (folio 99) as an excellent example of विप्रलम्भ and the lamentations of वत्सराज (in तापसवत्सराज 2nd Act) as examples of करुण (folio 100). 'चूताङकुरास्वाद' etc.' (कुमार III. 32 and 'इदमसुलभवस्तु' (विक्रमो० II. 6) are examples where चेतनस्वरूप is रसोदीपनसामर्थ्यबन्धुर (बन्धुरं हृदयहारि) and अचेतनानां स्वरूपं रसोदीपनसामर्थ्य- बन्धुरम्. Incidentally he launches upon a discussion as to whether रसवद, प्रेयः, ऊर्ज्जस्वि, समाहित, उदात्त are alankaras and decides that they are not alankaras but अलक्कार्यं (folio 104) 'भलक्गारो न रसवद ... । स्वरूपादतिरिक्तस्यापरस्याप्रतिभासनाव ॥ ... ऊर्जस्व्युदात्ताभिधयोः पौर्वापर्यप्रणीतयोः। अलक्कर ययोस्तद्व द्रषणत्वं न विधते II'. He criticizes the various definitions of रसवत् such as 'रसवद्दर्शितस्पष्टशङ्गारादिरसं यथा' (भामह III.6), 'रसवद्रससं- श्रयात्,' 'रसवद्रसपेशलम्' (काव्या० II. 275). His words are दर्शिता: स्पष्टाः अस्पषटाश्ष शरुक्गारादयो यत्रेति व्याख्याने काव्यव्यतिरिक्तो न कश्चिदन्यः समासार्थ- भूतः स लच्ष्यते योसावलक्गार:। .. (folio 106) यदपि रसवद्रससंत्रयाद इति कैशि्चि- ल्वन्यमकारि तदपि न सम्यक समाधेयतामधितिष्ठति। तथाहि रसः संश्रयो यस्यासौ रससंश्रयः तस्मात्कारखादयं रसवदलक्कारः सम्पधते। तथापि 'वक्तव्यमेव कोसौ रसव्य- तिरेकवृत्तिरन्यः पदार्थः। काव्यमेवेति चेतदपि पूर्वमेव प्रत्युक्म्। तस्य स्वात्मेति

1. उपग्रह means परस्मैपद or भातमनेपद; compare महाभाष्य 'तिज्वभि- द्ितेन भावेन कालपुरुषोपग्रहा अभिव्यज्यन्ते कृदमिहितेन पुन्न व्यज्बन्ते' (Kiclhorn ed. II. p. 57 on qr. III. I. 67).

232 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

क्रियाविरोचादलक्गारत्वानुपपरतेः । ... रसपेशलमिति पाठे न किश्विदत्रा तिरिच्यते।'. He cited (on folio 107-108) the verse quoted by सव. p. 93 viz, तन्वी मेघ० and तरङभ्रभम्ा (ed.p.92) discusses them and quotes ध्व. कारिका II. 5 (प्रधानेऽन्यत्र० as that of अभियुक्तs folio 109). He considers the examples of रसवदलक्वार given by ध्व. pp. 87-88 (किं हास्येन) and दिप्तो० (ध्व० p. 89) and rejects the views of the ध्व. (folios 109-110). He criticizes the definitions and examples of प्रेय: and ऊर्जस्वि given by उद्ट, भामह and दएडी. Accarding to him proper examples of रसवदलक्कार (in a different sense, रसेन वर्तते तुल्यं) would be (folio 122-123) 'उपोढरागेण विलोलतारकं' (cited in ध्वo p. 41), चलापाङां दृष्टि (शाकुन्तल I. 21), ऐेन्द्रं धनुः' (cited in भलं. स. p. 92 and साहित्य० X). He finds fault with the threefold division of दीपक given by भामह and after citing भामह's three examples (folios 124-125) approves of the addition (भनतर्गतोपमाधर्माः) in the definition of दीपक made by उद्धट (whom he designates अभियुक- तर: on folio 125). His own example of a proper दीपक is 'अरसारं संसारं ... विधातुं व्यवसितः' (मालतीमाधव V; अत्र विधातुं व्यवसितः कर्ता संसारादी- नामसारत्वप्रभृतोन्धर्मानुद्दयोतयन् दीपकालक्वारमवापवान् on folio 127). He goes on examining many other figures and elucidates them in his own way, such as रूपक, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, पर्यायोक्त, व्याजस्तुति, उत्प्रेक्षा, त्रतिश- योकि and about 20 more figures. He quotes the लिम्पतीव verse (folio 140) as an example of उत्प्रेक्षा, and remarks 'अत्र दशडना विहितमिति न पुनर्विधीयते'. On परिवृत्ति he cites the example 'शख्त्रप्रहारं ददता भुजेन तव भूसुजाम्। चिरार्जितं हृतं तेषां यशः कुमुदपाएडुरम् ॥' (काव्या. II. 356) with the words 'तथा च लक्षणकारेखत्रवोदाहरएं दर्शितम'. On folio 161 he quotes व्वनिकारिका I. 13 and also the verse शाध्याशेषतनुं (ष्व. p. 117), which is आनन्दवर्धन's own verse. He remarks at the beginning of the 4th उन्मेष 'एवं सकलसाहित्यसव स्वकल्पवाक्यवक्रताप्रकार- प्रकाशनान्तरमवसरप्राप्तां etc.' In the 4th उन्मेष he gives the treatment of प्रकरणवक्रता and प्रबन्धवकता. As examples of प्रकरणवक्रता he cites several verses from रघुवंश (5th sarga, such as कि वस्तु विदन् गुरवे प्रदेयं, यावधते साधयितुं तवार्थ) with the remark 'कुबेरं प्रतिसामन्तसम्भावनया जयाध्यवसायः कामपि सहदयाहादकारितां प्रतिपद्मते' (folio 179). Similarly, the introduction of the curse of Durvasas in the शाकुन्तल is a charming example of प्रकरएवक्रता. Another example is the मृगयाप्रकरय in the रघुवंश on which he dwells at great lengh and remarks 'दशरथेन राश स्थविरान्वतपस्विवालवधोव्यधीयतेति एकवाक्यशक्यप्रतिपादनः पुनरयमप्यर्थः परमार्थ- • सरससरस्त्रतीस व स्वायमानप्रतिभाविधानकलेरेन तादृश्या प्रकरणविच्छित्या विस्फारित- श्चेतनचमतकारकर एतामवितिष्ठति (folio 190)'. 'प्रधानवस्तुनिष्पत्त्यै वस्त्वन्तरवि-

VAKROKTIJIVITA 233

चित्रता। यत्रोल्लसति सोल्लेखा सापराप्यस्य वक्रता ।।' (अस्य प्रकरणस्य). The episode introduced with the words ततः प्रविशति रज्जुहस्तः पुरुषः (6th Act of मुद्राराक्षस) is an instance of प्रकरणवक्रता. प्रबन्धवक्रता is defined as (folio 203) 'इतिवृत्तान्यथावृत्तरससम्पदपेच्षया। रसान्तरेख रम्बेष यत्र निर्वहयं भवेत्॥ तस्या एव कथामूर्तेरामूलोन्मीलितश्रियः । विनेयानन्दनिष्पस्य सा प्रबन्धस्य वक्रता ॥'. The रामायण and the महाभारत are examples 'रामाययमहा- भारतयोश्च शान्ताहित्वं पूर्वसूरिभिरेव निरूपितम् ।' folio 20t (probably a reference to ध्वन्यालोक pp.298-300). Another variety of प्रबन्धवक्रता is 'त्रैलोक्यामिनवोल्लेखनायकोत्कर्षपोषिया। इतिहासैकदेशेन प्रबन्धस्य समापनम्।। तदुचरकथावर्त्तिविरसत्वजिहासया । कु्वीत यत्र सुकविः सा विचित्रास्य वक्रता ।'. An example is the किराताजनीय. He says that great poets show their imagination in the very names with which they christen their works (भास्तां वस्तुषु वैदग्ध्यं काव्ये कामपि वक्रताम्। प्रधानसंविधानाककना- म्नापि कुरुते कवि:॥) and instances (folio 208) अभिज्ञानशाकुन्तल, मुद्रा- राक्षस, प्रतिमानिरुद्ध, मायापुष्पक, कृत्यारावण etc. as instances. But there is no such charm in the names of certain works such as हयग्रीववध, शिशुपालवध, पाए्डवाभ्युदय, रामानन्द, रामचरित &c. It is genius that mikes all the difference, though the plot may be the same (folio 209) 'कथोन्मेषे समानेपि वपुषीव निजैगः । प्रबन्धाः प्राखिन इव भासन्ते हि पृथक पृथक II'. The वक्रोक्तिजीवित denies the independent existeuce of ध्वनि or व्यक्षय as the soul of poetry and tries to include it under its all-pervading वक्रोक्ति. It therefore makes the soul of poetry to consist of something that is strikingly different from pue above what is ordinary. The emphasis is mainly laid by Kuntaka on कविव्यापार and secondarily on the aesthetic pleasure th it the man of taste enjoys from poetry or drama. According to Jayaratha and the Ekavali1 (p. 51) the Vakroktijīvita was included among those who belong to the भक्तिवादि school referred to in the first karika of the Dhvanya- loka (भाक्तमाहुस्तमन्ये). But this is not accurate, as the discussion about the Vakrokti school in the 2nd part will show. In the colophons to the unmesas of the ms. the author is spoken of as राजानककुन्तलक. But in the verse from the व्यक्तिविवेक quoted above (p.216 काव्यकाखन०) the nameis given as कुन्तक. Gopala in his com. on the काव्यप्रकाश (Intro. vers. 2) indicates

1. एतेन भत्र कुन्तकेन भक्तावन्तर्भावितो ध्वनिस्तदपि प्रत्याख्यातम्। एकावली p.51(B.S.S.ed.); इदानी यदप्यन्यैरस्य भक्त्यन्तमतत्वमुक्तं तदपि दर्शयितु- माह वक्रोक्तीत्यादि। जयरथ p.8.

234 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

that the name should be कुन्तक 'वक्रानुरअनीमुर्कि चञ्चूमिव मुसे बहन्। कुन्तक: क्रोडति सुखं कीर्तिस्फटिकपअरे ।' (कुन्तक means a small spear and can be compared to the beak of a parrot, but FTer meaning hair cannot be so compared). The वक्रोकिजीवित is a work of great value and deserves to be rescued from the oblivion into which it has fallen. What- ever one may think of his central theory that aatfir is the soul of poetry and of the somewhat quaint nomenclature adopted by the author, the work shows originality, great literary acumen and is full of charming ideas. He is at one with भटृतोत in saying that it is the poet's own genius that is the source of good poetry. His choice of examples is very judicious and he casts his net over a wide area. In the analysis given above I have referred to well-known examples for saving space; but no reader should entertain the impression that he very largly quotes Kalidasa only. The work contains over five hundred examples. The kārikas are composed in a smooth, limpid style and the qfu generally shows very high qualities of a grand literary style, which is rhythmic and melodious. He very pro- fusely quotes भामह and दएडी and to a lesser extent उद्ट and tries to weld together the figures of speech with his own theory of वक्रोकि. He does not slavishly follow anyone of his prede- cessors and criticizes them all, though he admires भानन्दवर्धन, भामह and दएडी. For example, he finds fault with भामह's three kinds of दीपक and with his way of dealing with the figure ऊजस्वि 'कैशिदुदाहरणमेव व्यक्तत्वाल्लक्षयं मन्यमानैस्तदेव प्रदर्शितम्। यथा-ऊर्जस्वि कर्ेन यथा पार्थाय पुनरागतः।' etc. (भामह III. 7). He finds fault with those who regard आशीः as an अलक्कार (दएडी does so). About रुद्रट's well-known verses भय तरुषि रममन्दिर० and अनसुरयन्मशिमेखलं (रुद्रट II. 22-23) he remarks (p. 7 Dr. De's ed.) 'प्रतिभादारिद्रयदन्यादतिस्व- ल्पसुभाषितेन कविना वर्णसावएर्यरम्यतामात्रमत्रोदितं न पुनर्वाच्यवैचित्र्यकणिका काचि- दस्तीति' and says that the verses are आम्य. He quotes the first verse 'स्वेच्छाकेसरिण :... नखाः' of भानन्दवर्धन's वृत्ति as a fine example of क्रियावैचित्र्य. He names a very large number of works. Among the authors and works quoted are :- उत्तररामचरित, उदात्तराघव (in which लक्षमण is represented as pursuing मारीचमृग), उद्ट, कालिदास (as composing kauyas which possess सहजसौकुमार्य), किरातार्जुनीय, कुमारसम्भव, कृत्यारावण, छलितराम, तापसवत्सराज (a drama in which करया is more charming in each succeeding Act), दणडी, ध्वनिकार, नागानन्द, पाएडवाभ्युदय, पुष्पदूषितक, प्रतिमानिरुद्ध, वालरामायग, भहवाय, भरत,

VAKROKTIJĪVITA 235

भवभूति, भामह, मञ्जीर (as a poet of the मध्यममार्ग), महाभारत, मातृगुप्त (as a poet of the मध्यममाग), मायापुष्पक, मालती०, मुद्रारा०, मेघ०, रघु०, राजशेखर, रामचरित, रामानन्द, रामाम्युदय, रामायख, रुद्रट, विक्रमो०, वोरचरित, वेखीसंहार, शाकुन्तल, शिशुपालवध, सवसेन (as a poet of the सुकुमारमार्ग), सेतुप्रबन्ध (a drama), हयग्रीववध, हर्षचरित (in which there are nume- rous charming descriptions of moonrise). The transcript in various places points out that there are large gaps (भत्र ग्रंथपातः)- Here and there certain kārikās (in all eight) occur which are styled अन्तसश्रोक (in some cases अनन्त०), which expression occurs in the व्यक्तिविवेक also (pp. 46.54.55, etc.) and is explained by हेमचन्द्र (विवेक p. 392) as अन्तरे मध्ये वक्तव्यशेषामिधायकौ शरोकौ अन्तरक्रोकौ'. One verse on p. 101 (of Dr. De's edition) is styled संग्रदश्लोक. There is no परिकरश्लोक. As the वक्रोक्तिजीवित quotes the ध्वनिकार, रुद्रट and the बालरामायणा of राजशेखर it is later than the first quarter of the 10th century. Therefore जयरथ is right when he says 'यदयपि वक्रोक्तिजीवितहृदयदपणकारावपि ध्वनिकारानन्तरभाविनावेव तथापि तौ चिरन्त- नमतानुयायिनावेवेति तन्मतं etc.' अलं. स. वि. (p. 15). The वक्रोक्तिजीवित is quoted and criticized by महिममट्ट in his व्यक्तिविवेक (pp. 28, 37, 58) and its views are summarised by the अलक्कारसवस्व and many verses from it are cited in the साहित्यमीमांसा. महिमभट्ृ's manner of referring to the वक्रोक्िजीवित (p. 28 सहृदयमानिनः केचिदाचक्षते) implies that 05 was his contemporary or only slightly older. He refers to the लोचनकार in a similar strain (व्यक्तिविवेक p. 19 अत्र केचिदिद्न्मानिन :... यदाङु:). It is further noteworthy that the लोचन contains no reference to the वक्रोक्ितिजीवित and कुन्तक does not refer to अभिनवगुप्त. Hence he was probably a contemporary of the लोचनकार also. Dr.P.C.Lahiri in 'Indian Culture'vol. III. 530-534 on Lakşaņas in Abhinavabhāratī and in 'Concept of Rīti and Guna' pp. 17-20 holds that Abhinavagupta's treatment of Laksanas is influenced by the वक्रोकि० and that अभिनव knew Kuntaka's work. Dr. Mookerjee in B. C. Law vol. I. at p. 183 says the same thing. On the other hand, Dr. Sankaran in 'the Theory of Rasa and Dhvani' pp. 119-120, while admitting that in the whole of the वक्रोक्तिजीवित there is no reference to the लोचन or अभिनवभारती, sets out passeges from Kuntaka and Abhinava which bear remarkably close resemblance and holds that there is a strong presumption in favour of the view that Abhinava was distinctly aware of the conception of vakratā according to the school represented by Kuntaka and possibly of the Vakroktijivita also, If the whole work was before

236 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Abhinava when he composed the Locana and the भभिनवभारती, it is unlikely that he would have allowed its views to be left uncriticized at length, when he severely handles Bhatta Nāyaka and others. Dr. Raghavan (in J. O. R., Madras vol. VI. pp. 218-222 and 'Indian Culture' vol. III. p. 756) holds that there is not evidence enough to enable us to speak definitely about Abhinava's indebtedness to Kuntaka. I agree with the views of Dr. Sankaran and Dr. Raghavan that the evidence is too meagre to enable one to pronounce a definite opinion on Abhinava's indebtedness to (or awareness of) Kuntaka. Dr. Haradatta Sarma contributes a paper on Kuntaka's conception of Gunas in I. H. Q. vol. 8 pp. 257-266. 21 afrra-Abhinavagupta is one of the most remark- able personalities of medieval India. He was a man of very acute intellect and was an encyclopoedic scholar. He had taken all knowledge for his province. Numerous works are attributed to him. From several of his works we get a tolera- bly full account of his ancestors, his parents, his other relatives, his several gurus and his works. At the end of his commentary on the परात्रिंशिका which is a dialogue between Bhairava (Siva,) and Bhairavi (Sakti) in 35 slokas, and at the end of ईशवरप्रत्यभि- शविवृतिविमर्शिनी, भभिनवगुप gives a brief account of his ancestors (in No. 18 of the Kashmir S. Series, pp. 278-280 and in No. 65, p. 405). He states that his remote ancestor अत्रिगुप्त at first resided in Antarvedi (the Doab between the Ganges and the Jumna), came to Kashmir at the instance of king ललितादित्य of Kashmir (for this last, vide Dr. Pandey's 'Abhinavagupta' Appendix A, p. 337, which quotes a passage from the 37th आाहनिक of तन्त्रालोक). राजत. (IV. 660 and 673) shows that ललितापीड ruled for twelve years after srqte from 783 to 795 A. D. In the family of Atrigupta was born Varāhagupta, whose son was Cukhala, a great devotee of Siva, whose son was Abhinavagupta1.

1. The name of the father is variously written or printed, either as चुखल (in परात्रिशिकातस्वविवरण) or as चुखुल or चुखुलक (as in तन्त्रालोक, Kashmir S.S. vol. XXIII, I. 12 'स चुखुलको दिश्यादिष्टं मे गुरुरुत्तम:) or as विचुलक (in Buhler's Kashmir Report p. CLV) or as दुःखल (in अभिनवभारती, G. O. S. vol. II. p. 117). In vol. III. of . . (G. O.S.) at the end of chap. 27 the father's name is सुखल and नृसिंहगुप्त also. Some of these must be

ABHINAVAGVPTA 237

'The father's name was really नृसिंहगुप्त, but चुखल was his well- known name. On the first verse of the तन्त्रालोक (बिमलकला- अयाभिनवसष्टिमहा भरिततनुक्ष जननी पञ्चमुखगुप्तरुचिजंनकः ।), जयरथ ex- plains the double meanings of the words in thick type, states that the father was called नरसिंहगप्त and the mother of अभिनवगप्त was called विमला or विमलकला, that अमिनवगप्त was what is designated as योगिनीभू:, since he was born of such spiritually high personages as his parents and was therefore peculiarly qualified to compose a work containing a summary of all the Agama workson त्रिकशास्त्र (pp. 14-15 of जयरथ's विवेक on तन्त्रालोक I. 1). भमिनवगप्त further states that he composed his commentary on परात्रिंशिका for the benefit of his younger brother मनोरथगुप्त, a ब्राह्मण named कर्सा who was son of वल्लभ minister of king यशस्कर1 of Kashmir and one रामदेव who was proficient in grammar, Tarka and Mimansa. Similarly, his मालिनीविजयवार्तिक was composed at the frequent requests of his good pupils कर्र and मन्द्र. In the अभिनवभारती (vol. I p. 297) he quotes a verse of his uncle वामनगुप्त on हास्याभास (G. O. S. ed. chap. 6-45) p.297 of the Nātyasastra. Abhinavagupta mentions that his father's maternal grand-father was a famous man named Yasorāga 'rfa षोडशमध्यायं अ्रन्थनिर्ग्रन्थिकं व्यधात्। यशोराशेर्यशोरागनाम्नो दौहित्रदेहज: ।।'. The fact that Abhinava feels pride in naming him and also states that he was famous would indicate that that relative must have attained eminence in some branch of learning or must have held some high position. But at present we know nothing about यशोराग.

mistakes due to not deciphering the script properly. At the beginning of मालिनीविजयवार्तिक (Kashmir S. S. No. 31) भभिनवगुप्त says: गुरुभ्योपि गरीयांसं युक्तं श्रीचुखलाभिषम्। बन्दे यत्कृतसंस्कार: स्थितोस्मि गलितग्रहः ॥ verse 5; नृसिंहगुप्तायतिनेत्थमत्र वृत्तिस्वरूपं प्रकटं व्यधायि । यन्त- स्त्रियोत्रेय हृदन्तरात्मस्वरूपमेव प्रकट व्यधायि॥। verse at the of the भ. भा. chap. 20 on वृत्तिs (p. 107 of vol. III of भ. भा. in G. O. S.). On p.14 of तन्त्रालोक I. 1 (No. 23) जयरथ states 'अस्य हि अ्रन्थकृतः श्रीनरसिंह- गुप्तविमलाख्यौ पितरौ इति गुरबः'. Vide also Dr. Raghavan on 'writers quoted in Abhinavabhārati' J. O. R., Madras, vol. VI. at p. 153 for नरसिंहगुप्त and विमला as अभिनवगुप्त's parents and for अभिनव being an भवतार of परमशिव. 1. From राजत. VI. 2-99 it appears that यशस्कर ruled for nine years from 939-948 A. D.

238 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

भभिनवगुप्त, it appears, remained celibate all his life, was extremely devoted to Siva and studied at the feet of several teachers in order to develop his intellect and knowledge.1 His works fall into several groups. One group concerns his work on the Tantras. The तन्त्रालोक is the most voluminous work of his that deals with Tantric Agamas enumerated in तन्त्रालोक I. 18 (Kashmir S. Series vol. XXII. p. 35) as दशाष्टादशवस्वष्टभिन्नं1 यच्छासनं विभोः। तत्सारं त्रिकशाखं हि तत्सारं मालिनीमतम् ।।'. To this group belong his मालिनीविजयवार्तिक (written by him in the eastern part of प्रवरपुर in Kashmir), परात्रिशिकाविवरण, तन्त्रा- लोकसार & C. The 2nd group consists of his स्तोत्रs such as भैरवस्तव and कमस्तोत्र and certain small tracts such as बोधपञ्चदशिका (Kashmir S. S. No. 14). A third group is constituted by his works on Poetics and Dramaturgy, which have been already mentioned above. His teacher in Poetics was Indurāja8 and in drama- turgy Tota." In these two branches his two works viz. लोचन

1. ईश्वरप्रत्यभिश्ञाविवृतिविमर्शिनी (Kashmir S.S. No 65,1943 A. D.) says at end (p. 405) 'तज्जन्मदेहपदभाक् पदवाक्यमानसंस्कारसंस्कृत- मतिः परमेशशक्तिः। सामर्थ्यतः शिवपदाम्बुजभक्तिभागी दारात्मजप्रभृतिबन्धु-

verses 2 and 3. 2. This means 10, 18 and 64 (these last divided into eight groups of eight each). The तम्त्रालोक says 'whoever always studies closely these 37 ahnikas would himself become Bhairava' I. 214-215). 3. At the end of the लोचन on the 4th उद्योत of ध्व. (publish- ed by Dr. De in J. of Letters, Cal. Un., vol. IX. p. 42) two teachers viz. सिद्धिचेल and इन्दुराज are mentioned (श्रीसिद्धिचेलचरणा- जपरागपूते भट्टेन्दुराजमतिसंस्कृतबुद्धिलेश: ।). The teacher सिद्धिचेल is not mentioned anywhere else in the लोचन or भ. भा. It is possible that we have to read 'परागपूत-भट्टेन्दुराज०, which would mean 'ESTI was purified by the pollen from the lotus of the feet of सिद्धिचेल' i. e. सिद्धिचेल was the guru of भट्टेन्दुराज. 4. Abhinavagupta bestowed great labour in consulting numerous mss. of the Natysastra and then found that there were two recensions on several sections such as the names and definition of laksana, the definitions of metres and the arrange- ment of the sections on gunas and dosas. Vide p. 13 above

ABHINAVAGUPTA 239

and भभिनवभारती are monuments of learning, critical insight, literary grace and style. He has been followed by all subse- quent eminent writers on these two subjects, except महिमभट्ट Vide Prof. S. P. Bhattācārya's paper on the impress of Kashmsr Śaivism on Alankāraśāstra in J. O. I (Baroda) vol. I pp. 245-252. He holds that such alankāras as Smaraņa, Pariņāma, Ullekha are due to Saivadarśana. I regard this as far-fetched. The fourth group of his works concerns the philosophy of the monistic Saivism of Kashmir (or Pratyabhijnāsāstra). In his ईश्वरप्रत्यमिश्ञाविमर्शिनी (I. 1. 2-5) he gives the गुरुपरम्परा as follows : a was the founder, in whose family was born सोमानन्दनाथ (who called his system शिवदृष्टि and expounded it). उत्पल, son of उदयाकर, was a pupil of सोमाननदनाथ and composed the प्रत्यभिश्ञासुत्र in 190 कारिकाड and himself wrote a वृत्ति and a टीका thereon (vide p. 175 above); his pupil was लक्षमणगुप्त whose pupil was अभिनवगुप्त.1 No work of लक्षमणगुप्त has so far been recovered. At the end of the ईश्वरप्रत्यभिशविवृतिविमर्शिनी

Kashmir S. S. No. 65). This means that the philosophy of

where passages concerning the first two matters have been set out. In the 2nd passage quoted there Abhinava expressly states that he follows the tradition that was handed down to him by his guru (Tota). As regards guņas and doșas he remarks (on नाट्यशाखत्र 16. 87 अतः परं प्रवच्यामि काव्यदोषान्गुणांस्तथा। vol. II. p.331 G. O.S.) 'केषुचित्पुस्तकेधु चैतद्यंथः पश्चाद् दृश्यते, बातुल्येन प्रथमं दृश्यते इति तथव व्याचछमहे।' We have seen above how but for his claborate commentary on the नाट्यशास we would have been in the dark about the vast literature on dramaturgy that once existed. अभिनवगुप in his great regard for poetry and drama- turgy boldly says (vol. III. p. 74 of GOS) 'रामायशेपि तथा वर्णित- मिति चेत्किमतः । वेदेपि तथा व्ष्यतां न वयमतो विभीमः। स हि भाग: काव्यं यम् यक्ष रसोमिष्यन्दी वयर्य इत्युक्तमसकृत्।', 1. उत्पल is mentioned in the लोचन (p.30 K. M. ed.) as परमगुरुof भभिनव० and a verse of his is quoted. The ईश्वरप्रत्यमिन्ना- बिमर्शिनी (Kashmir S. S. vol. XXII) states at the beginning that उत्पल propounded the प्रत्यमिन्चाशासत्र 'शरीसोमानन्दनाथस्य विज्ञानप्रति- बिम्यकम्। अनुत्तरानन्यसाचि पुमर्थोपायमभ्यषाव। ईश्वरप्रत्यमिश्ञायं यः शाखं यत्सुनिर्मलम्। तत्प्शिष्यः करोम्येतां तत्सूत्रवितृति लघुम्।' verses 2-4.

240 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Śaiva monism was systematized by the Śāstrakāra (Utpala ?) and was correctly expounded by लक्ष्मणगुप्तपाद. In the मालिनी- विजयवार्तिक1 Abhinavagupta highly praises his guru Laksmana- gupta. As regurds अभिनवगप्त himself he wrote two very important works on the प्रत्यभिज्ञाशास्त्र viz. ईश्वर प्रतिमिश्ञाविमर्शिनी (also called लघुवृत्ति) on उत्पलदेव's प्रत्यमिश्ञाकारिका and ईश्वरप्रत्यमिन्वा- विवृतिविमर्शिनी (also called वृहतीवृत्ति) on उत्पलदेव's टीका on his own प्रत्यभिश्ञाकारिका. The guru-paramparā to his study of the Tantras was as follows : सुमतिनाथ-सोमदेव-शम्भुनाथ-अभिनवगुप्त. Vide जयरथ on तन्त्रालोक vol. I. p. 236, तन्त्रालोक 1st भाह्निक verses 13 and 21 and तन्त्रसार (3rd Intro. verse about शम्भुनाथ.). In his eager search for knowladge Abhinavagupta states that he resorted to teachers of tarka (Nyāya and Vaiseşika systems), and of Bauddha, Arhata and Vaisnava doctrines.2 Abhinavagupta was proficient in yogic practices, he believed that he had realized the Highest Reality (Siva) and was inspired by Siva to proclaim an easy way of Release out of compassion for less favoured people struggling to find spiritual enlightenment and peace. Even after having become blessed, for the sake of others he wrote works.3 At the end of the प्रत्यभिश्ञाविमर्शिनी Abhinava says that he has opened an easy and new way which former great teachers declared in the 'Sivadrsti'; a man planting his feet on this path becomes perfect and one with Siva. At the end of his परमार्थसार (verse

1. तद्दृष्टिसंसृतिच्छ्ेदिप्रत्यमिश्ञोपदेशिनः । श्रीमल्लद्मणगुप्तस्य गुरोर्विजयते वच: । verse 8. 2. अहमप्यत एवाधःशास्त्रृष्टिकुतूहलाद्। तार्किकश्रौतबौद्धादृदवैष्णवादीन- सेविषि l तन्त्रालोक, 13 आहनिक verses 345-346; vol. VIII. p. 206 of Kashmir S. S. 3. शिवस्मृतिकृतार्थोपि परार्थ दुःखलात्मजः (चुखलात्मजः १)। त्र. भा. vol. II. p. 117; इति यज्जेयसतत्त्वं दर्श्यंते तच्छिवाश्ञया । मया स्वसंवित्सत्त- कपतिशास्त्रत्रिकक्रमात्। तन्त्रालोक 1st श्राहनिक verse 106. स्वसंवित् स्वानुभवः सचर्को युक्तिः पतिशासत्रं भेदप्रधानं शैवं त्रिकं परादिशक्तित्रयाभिधायकं शाखतरं क्रमः चतुष्टयार्थ: (जयरथ's विवेक). 4. इति प्रकटितो मया सुघट एष मार्गो नवो महागुरुमिरच्यते स्म शिवदृष्टि- शाखे यथा। तदत्र निदवत्पदं भुवनकर्नृ तामात्मनो विभाव्य शिवतामयीमनिशमाविशन् सिद्धयति॥ ईश्वरप्रत्यभिश्ञाविमर्शिनो vol. 2 p.271 No. 33 of Kashmir S. S.).

ABHINAVAGUPTA 241

105. he declares that in one hundred Aryas he has summariz- ed the very secret essence and adds that he, Abhinava- gupta, has received light by dwelling on the feet of Siva.1 In the 13th Ahnika, verse 215, he enumerates the five signs of a man that has attained the highest spiritual eminence viz. सुनिश्षला रद्रभक्ति, मन्त्रसिद्धि, सर्वतत्त्ववशित्व, कृत्यसम्पद्, (i. e. प्रारब्धकार्यनिष्पत्ति), कवित्व and सवंशाख्ार्थवेत्तत्व and जयरय in his commentary on it (vol. 8 p. 137, No. 47 of Kashmir S. S.) remarks that it was well-known that all these signs had manifested themselves in ufa and quotes a verse of his teacher in support. In commenting on the concluding verse of Pratyabhijna-karika (जनस्यायत्नसिद्धयर्थमुदयाकरसूनुना। ईश्वरप्रत्यभिश्वे- यमुत्पलेनोपपादिता । Kashmir S. S. vol. 33 p. 276) Abhinava- gupta boldly states that this Pratyabhijña philosophy is meant for all men whatever, without any reference to caste or the like.ª It is far beyond the scope of this work to set out or discuss the tenets of Kashmir monistic Saivism or its litera- ture. Those who desire to secure further information on these matters should read Mr. J. C. Chatterji's very careful and pioneer work on 'Kashmir Saivism' (in 1914) and Dr. K. C. Pandey's excellent dissertation,8 on 'Abhinavagupta; an Historical and Philosophical study in Chowkhamba Sanskrit studies vol. I .; Dr. 'Bhandarkar's Vaishnavism and Saivism' pp. 129-131.4 The tradition in Kashmir says that Abhinavagupta accompanied by 1200 disciples entered a cave repeating the 1. The word 'शिवचरयस्मरणदीप्तेन' (of परमार्थसार verse 105) is explained by योगेश्वर as 'उपदेष्टः समाविष्टमहेश्वरस्वभावोडनेन वाक्येनोक: स्याए'. 2. बस्य कस्यचिन्जन्तोरिति नात्र जात्याधपेकषा काचिए इति सर्वोपकारित्व- मुकम्। ई.प्र. वि. vol. II. p. 276. 3. Though I have had to criticize some opinions of Dr. Pandey I quite appreciate his great industry in putting together all about Abhinavagupta, his works and the monistic Saiva philosophy. I am sorry that he was misled by Mr. Kavi's method of editing the भभिनवभारती into thinking that नान्यदेव was quoted by ufara and needlessly expended pp. 121-125 of his thesis. He missed the note of Mr. Kavi on . HT. vol. I .p. 253. 4. On p. 130 there is apparently a slip, where Branx is mentioned as thepupil of सोमानन्द (not उत्पल).

242 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PORTIOS

Bhairavastotra and was seen no more (vide J. R.A. S. for 1910 p. 1334 at p. 1336 n. 1). Dr. Grierson states there that the cave is shown at Biru, ancient Bahurupa, 13 miles to the south-west of Srinagar. The question of the date of Abhinavagupta does not present any difficulty. At the end of his ईशवरप्रत्यभिन्चाविवृतिविमर्शिनी (Kashmir S. S. No. 65) there occurs the following statement about the date of its composition (verse 15 on p. 407) 'rfa नवतितमेऽरस्मिन् वस्सरेन्स्ये युर्गारो तिथिशशिजलविस्थे मार्गशीर्षावसाने। जगति विहित- गोभामीश्वरप्रत्यभिक्ञां व्यव्णुत परिपूर्णा प्रेरितः शम्मुपादः॥'. This means that the commentary was completed in the year 4115 of the Kali age when the Laukika year1 (in Kashmir) was 90 at the end of Margasirsa i. e. in 1014 A. D. At the end of Bhairavastava he states the date as follows: वसुरसपौवे कृष्पादरा- ग्याममिनवगुप्त: स्तवमिमकरोठ। येन विभुर्भवमरुसन्तापं शमयति फटिति जनस्य y: I' (vide Buhler's Kashmir Report p. CLXII). The भेरवस्तव was composed in 68 of the लौकिक era (22 years before the composition of the ईश्वरप्रत्यमिश्ञाविवृतिविमशिनी) i. e. in 992-3 A. D. The Kramastota was composed in 66 of the Laukika era. i. e. exactly 24 years before his great commentary faTo (पटूपटिनामके वर्षे नवम्यामसितेऽहनि। मयाभिनवगुप्तेन मार्गशीर्षें स्तुतः शिवः॥ vide p. 412 in Dr. Pandey's 'Abhinavagupta'). These three dates range from 990-1 A. D. to 1014-15 A. D. The तन्त्रालोक a voluminous work (29 ahnikas of which out of 37 occupy eleven volumes in the Kashmir S. S.) was composed before the alad, which latter in its turn was followed by another voluminous work viz. the भभिनवभारती on भरत's नाव्यशाख. Besides these he composed other works.ª Therefore, it would not be

1. For the 'lokakala' or 'laukika vatsara', vide Buhler's Kashmir Report pp. 59-60 and Stein's Intro. to राजतरद्विणी. This era called also Saptarsi era began in 25 of the Kaliyuga era. It is even now current in Kashmir and generally the centuries are omited in referring to it i. e. the year 4090 (= 4115 of Kaliyuga era) is mentioned by भभिनवगुप्त himself as 90. Vide E. I. vol. XX No. 1441-1445 p. 197 for inscriptions dated in the Saptarsi or Laukika era. 2. Vide for the works of ufrrrca, Intro. p. 15 (for books on Saivism) to परात्रिशिकाविवरण (Kashmir S. S. No. 18). Dr. K. C. Pandey on 'Abhinavagupta' pp. 122-124, Dr. Raghavan in J. O. R., Madras, vol. 14 pp. 318-328, New Cat. Cat. vol. I. pp. 224-226.

ABHINAVAGUPTA 243

quite wrong to assume that Abhinavagupta's literary activity must have extended over 35 or 40 years i. e. from about 980 A. D. to about 1020 A. D. If we suppose that his first works (among which the anes is one) must have been written when he was about or over 30 years of age, Abhinavagupta was probably born about 950 A. D. These dates receive strong corroboration from several considerations. afr. wrote his commentary on परात्रिशिका for his pupil कर्ष, son of a minister of qRaT who died in 948 A. D. This son must have been old enough to understand the doctrines of Tantra. So he must have been 25 or 30 years old at the time of his request and ifauf was born about 960 to the former minister of यशस्कर the परात्रिशिकाविवरण might have been composed about 980 A.D. वेमेन्द्र mentions at the end of his बहरकथामअरी and भारतमजरी that he learnt Sahitya from Abhinavagupta.1 We know that वेमेन्द्र wrote his समयमातृका in 1050 A. D. and his दशावतारचरित in 1066 A. D. He was also a voluminous writer. So his literary activity would have to be placed between 1030- 1070 A. D. It appears, therefore, that aaex came in contact with भभिनव० towards the close of the latter's life. 22 The दशरूप (or दशरूपक) of धनञ्जय. This work with the commentary called अवलोक by धनिक has been published several times, i. e. by F. E. Hall (B. I. Series) in 1865, by Haas (New York, 1912) with transliterated text, notes and a valuable Introduction and by the Nir. Press. Here references are made to Nir. Press, 4th edition (1941). As Dr. Hall remarked and Dr. Rāghavan in his 'Srngāraprakāsa part I pp. 188-190 says, there is a good deal of variance in the mss. of the Dasarūpa

1. श्रुत्वाभिनवगुप्ताख्यात्साहित्यं बोधवारियेः। माचा्यरोखर मयेविधाविर्- तिकारियः॥ बृहत्कथाम०, उपसंहार verse 37, भारतमजरी concluding verse 8 (here the halves are transposed). 2. The समयमातका (concluding verses 2 and 4) states that it was composed in the 25th year of Laukika era in the reign of king Ananta, while the दशावतारचरित (verse 5 at end) says that it was composed in the 41st year of the Laukika era in the reign of king कलश of काश्मीर. भनन्त ruled from 1028 to 1063 A. D., when be abdicated in favour of his son wert who

1089 A. D. was a king (for some, years only in name) from 1063 to

244 HISTORY OF SANKRIT POETICS

wit 'Avaloka', which suggests interpolations. The trnsy deserv. es to be referred to here because it contains a treatment of the rasa theory. Otherwise it is a work dealing with drama- turgy alone and not with the several topics of Poetics. The work contains about 300 kārikas and is divided into four AGTXIS. Bharata in chap. 20 verses 1-2 (Ch. ed .= 18th chapter in K. M. ed.) states that he will set out the ten kinds of plays together with their names, their actions, their representation on the stage. The ten principal varieties of drames are aree, प्रकरण, भक्क, व्यायोग, भाख, समवकार, वीथी, प्रहसन, डिम, ईहामृग. Out of these नाटक and प्रकरण are most important and serve as the pattern (prakrti) on which the remaining kinds and other kinds of plays (such as the नाटिका described by Bharata himself in chap. 20 verses 62-63) are constructed. The work is called Rrey or areys because it is concerned with the representa- tion of ten principal kinds of plays (called rūpakas). Bharata employs kāvya and nātya as synonyms.1 Vāmana states that among poetic compositions, the ten rūpakas are superior* (rTT. ₹. I. 3. 30). The view of Tota identifying rasa with natya has been already quoted (p. 219). Three works stand pre-eminent in the treatment of dramaturgy in Sanskrit viz. भरतनाव्यशाखत्र, दशरूप (with अवलोक) and the साहित्यदर्पण. In the Udepur

1. Vide नाव्यशाख 16. 169 काव्यवन्धास्तु कर्तव्या: षटत्रिशपक्षणा- न्बिताः ।; 'षट्त्रिशलवणान्येवं काव्यवन्वेषु निर्दिशेद। 17. 5; also 17. 42 and 121. 2. भवस्थानुकृतिर्नाट्यं रूपं दृश्यतयोच्यते। रूपकं तत्समारोपाद दशषैव रसाश्यम् । दशरूप I. 7. This means that नाट्य is called रूप because it is something to be seen (just as q i. e. the form of a body is seen) and it is called eya because while it is being represented the actors have for the time being superimposed upon them the actions and situations of other men (viz. the hero {IH and the like). Vide for a discussion on the meaning of ISTF J.O. R., Madras, for 1933 p. 277-290 (Dr. Raghavan). 3. The last verse of the work is : विष्णोः सुतेनापि घनञ्जयेन विदन्मनोरागनिबन्धहेतु:। भाविष्कृतं मुञ्जमहीशगोष्ठीवैदग्ध्यमाजा दशरूपमेतत्।. This goes to show that qrEq is the proper name of the work. The Colophons at the end of the commentary describe it as दरारूपावलोक composed by धनिक son of विष्णु. Hall notes in his Preface (p. 3) that one of the mss. of the Avaloka speaks of

DAŠARŪPA 245

Prasasti of the kings of Malwa edited by Buhler (E. I. vol. I pp. 222-238) and in the Nagpur Prasasti of the same line of kings (E. I. II pp. 180-194 edited by Kielhorn) the following pedigree of the Paramara kings is given. WTHR-descendant उपेन्द्र-वैरिसिंह I-सीयक I-चाक्पति I-वैरिसिंह II-एवं-s00 वाक्पति II-सिन्धुराज brother of the preceding-भोज son of सिन्दु०-उदयादित्य relative of भोज- लद्षमदेव and नरवर्मदेव. वाक्पतिराज was also called मुब्ज and उत्पलराज, while सिन्धुराज was called नवसाहसाढ् and कुमारनारायण. The नवसाइसाक्कचरित of पश्मगप्त alias परिमल states in (XI. 101-102) that सिन्धुराज younger brother of वाक्पतिराज was called नवसाहसाक्क. The तिलकमब्जरी of धनपाल also gives briefly the pedigree as वैरिसिंह-सीयक alias श्रीहर्ष-s0ns वाक्पतिराज and सिन्धुराज-son भोज of सिन्धुराज. The first प्रकाश after bowing to गखेश, विष्णु, भरत and सरस्वती speaks of the ten kinds of rupakas, नृत्य and नृत्त, लास्य, ताण्डव, the five sandhis and their angas, definition of विष्कम्भ, चूलिका, अक्कास्य, अक्कावतार, प्रवेशक etc. The 2nd speaks of several kinds of heroes (नायक) and heroines (नायिका), their charcteristics, their friends, the four vrttis and their angas. The third gives practical directions as to how to begin a nātaka," about the prologue, about the various requisites that constitute the ten kinds of rupakas. The fourth deals with the rasa theory in all its details. The commentary of धनिक is a learned one and

धनिक as an officer of उत्पलराज. Buhler on Udepur Prasasti (E. I. vol. I. at p. 227) states that धनिक was the महासाध्यपाल of उत्पलराज (i. e. वाक्पति). मुज and वाक्पतिराज are the same since the same verse is attributed by धनिक to मुज and also to वाक्पतिराज and since the Nigpur prasasti (E. I. vol. II. p. 184 verse 23) speaks of मुब्ज as the son of सीयक and does not men- tion वाक्पतिराज. The नवसाइसाङ्कचरित XI. 93 speaks of him as कविमित्र, 'अतोते विक्रमादित्ये गतेस्तं सातवाहने। कविमित्रे विशश्राम यस्मिन् देवी सरस्वती ।I'. 1. The Nagpur Prasasti of samvat 1161 (1104-5 A. D.) in E. I. vol. II. 180 at p. 185 (verse 32) states 'तस्मित्वासवनन्धुता- मुपगते राज्ये च कुल्याकुले मन्नस्वामिनि तस्य बन्धुरुदयादित्योभवद्गूपतिः ।'. 2. The दशरूप expressly states that Nataka is the pattern on which other varieties of plays are to be modelled 'ysfaen- दयान्येषां भूयोरसपरित्रहास। सम्पूर्णलक्षरात्वात्र पूर्व नाटकसुच्यते I' III. 1.

246 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

is full of quotations. Over 330 verses are quoted, including about twenty verses of wfars himself, some of which are in Prakrit (two on II. 34 and one on II. 37). We learn from vfrn's comment (on IV. 37) that he wrote a work called काव्यनिर्यय from which he quotes seven verses. He seems to have held views somewhat similar to those of भट्टनायक, when he says (on IV. 37) 'न रसादीनां काव्येन सह व्यकय्य्जकभावः रकि तर्हि भाग्यभावकसम्बन्धः । काव्यं हि भावकम्। भाव्या रसादय:' ।. The दरारूप says that for the plot the poet should turn to the रामायण and the tEFaT (I. 68). For want of space all the works quoted by धनिक are not set out here. Of special interest are his quotations from वाक्पतिराजदेव alias मुज (the verse प्रणयकुपितां being attributed once to वाक्पति and again to मुब्ज on IV. 58 and 60), पद्मगुप्त (under II. 40 'चित्रव्तिन्यपि नृपे' नवसाइसाक०, VI. 42), the विदशालभब्जिका I. 31 (सुधाबद्धग्रासरुपवन० on IV. 53), कपूर- मन्जरी (रबडा चएडा I. 22. under दशरूप III. 15). धनब्जय, the author of कारिकाs, wasson of विष्ु and a member of the sabhd of king Munlja; while धनिक also was the son of fou and therefore seems to have been the brother of पनम्जय. The कारिकाs were composed in the time of Munja. In order to fix the date of the 5y we have to see when Munja alias Vakpatiraja flourished. In the paper of Buhler and Zachariae on the नवसाइसाकचरित (translated in I. A. vol. XXXVI pp. 149-172) there is an account of Vākpatirāja alias Muñja (pp. 168-170). In I. A. vol. VI pp. 51-52 there is an inscription of वाक्पतिराज dated संवद् 1031 (974 A. D.) which records a grant of lands to Vasantācārya, son of पनिकपरिक्त who hailed from भहिच्छन. In I. A. vol. XIV pp. 159-161 there is a copperplate grant of वाक्पतिराज in संवत् 1036 (979 A. D.) which records the gift of a village to the goddess Bhatteśvarī at Ujjayinī. It is stated that Muñja was defeated, captured and beheaded by Tailapa II (I. A. 36 at p. 170). भमितगति author of सुभाषितरतनसन्दोह composed it in संवत् 1050 (993-94 A. D.) during the reign of king Muñja and as Tailapa II. died before or in sake 919 (997-98 A. D.), it follows that वावपतिराज alias मुब्ज was killed between 993-4 to 997 (ibid.). Thus Munja was on the throne of Malva from at least 974 A. D. Therefore, the FRsy must have been composed between 974 to 996 A.D. Whether the धनिकपरिबत whose son वसन्ताचार्य was the donce in I. A. vol, VI. pp. 51-52 in 974 A. D. is to be

DASARŪPA 247

identified with भनिक the commentator of दसरुप is a difficult question. Whatever may be thecase, the anesy was composed in the last quarter of the 10th century. But it appears that the commentary was written a little later. सिन्धुराज alias नषः साहसाइ succeeded वाक्पतिराज (मुब्ज) and the नवसाहसाङचरित (a महाका्य) was composed by पभ्मगुप्त (alias परिमल) at the command of सिन्धुराज.1 For an account of सिन्धुराज, vide I. A. vol. 36 pp. 170-172. As धनिक quotes a verse from the नवसाहसाकचरित the commentary must have been composed not earlier than 1000 A. D. and if we identify धनिक with the धनिकपरिडत of the I. A. vol. VI (as Dr. Ganguly in his History p. 285 does) it would have to be held that धनिक was a very old man (about 80 or so) when he wrote the अवलोक. Vide Dr. D. C. Ganguly's 'History of the Paramāra dynasty' for वाक्पतिराज and सिन्धुराज (pp. 45-81). The verse दशारूप I. 6 (आानन्दनिस्यन्दिषु रूपकेषु व्युत्पत्िमात्रं फलमल्पदुद्धिः। योपीति- हासादिवदाह साधुस्तस्म नमः स्वादुपराङमुखाय) seems to ridicule मामह I. 2. There is a commentary by नृसिंह on धनिक's भवलोक (vide Bulletin of London School of O. Studics, vol. IV. at p. 280). He has also commented on the सरस्वतीकएठाभरण of भोज. There is a very valuable commentary on the Daśarūpaka by Bahurupamisra, for an account of which vide Dr. Raghavan in J. O. R., Madras, vol. VIII. pp. 321-334 and Dr. Raghavan informs me that a post-graduate student has pre- pared for publication a critical edition of the Dasarūpaka with Bahurupa's commentary. Some scholars regarded धनञ्जय and धनिक as identical but that is wrong. Vide for a discussion of this problem Dr. De's H. S. P. vol. I. pp. 131-134. The RET and its commentary भवलोक were probably composed before भमिनव wrote the भमिनवभारती. The earliest datable work of भभिनवगुप्त is the क्रमस्तोत्र composed in 990 A. D. It has been shown above that the दशरूप was composed between 974-996 A. D. and the commentary of धनिक was composed not before 1000 A.D. 1. Vide नवसा० I. 9 नैते कवीन्द्रा: कति काव्यवन्धे तदेव राज्ञा किमर्हं नियुक्तः । and the closing verse 'यञ्चापलं किमपि मन्दभिया मवैबमावनित नरपते नवसाहसाक। आजब हेतुरिड ते शवनीकृतोअराजन्यमौसिङसमा न कविस्वदर्प: ।।'.

248 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PORTICS

Therefore, बनन्जवand बनिक were contemporaries of भनिनयगुप्त. At all events the two works do not refer to each other, though they differ in several important respects. The most striking points of difference are: (1) The दशरूप does not regard शान्त as a proper rasa in dramaturgy and does not recognize as a स्थायिभाव of शान्त 'रत्युत्साहजुगुप्साः क्रोधो हास: स्मयो भ्य शोकः । शममपि केचि- त्राङ्डः पुष्टिरनाटयेषु नैतस्य॥' दशरूप IV. 35, on which धनिक after stating several views remarks 'सर्वंथा नाटकादावभिनयात्मनि स्थायित्वमस्माभिः निविध्यते। तस्य ममस्तव्यापारप्रविलयरूपस्याभिनयायोगाठ्।. अमिनवगुप्त on the other hand looks upon ma as the ninth and the most important rasa (भ. मा. vol. I. p. 340) (2) धनञ्जय as interpre- ted by धनिक (on दशरूप IV. 37-39) is opposed to the theory of the ध्वन्यालोक, holds that rasa is not suggested by kauya and that it is experienced or enjoyed by the spectator or reader : 'अतो न रसादीनां काव्येन सह व्यक््थव्यञ्जकभावः । किं तर्हि भाव्यभावकसम्बन्धः । काव्यं दि भावकं भाव्या रसादय: । तेहि स्वतो भवन्त एव भावकेषु विशिष्टविभावादि- मता काव्येन भाव्यन्ते।' धनिक on IV.37. In this he follows भट्टनायक. Vide New I. A. vol. VI. pp. 272-282 (Dr. K. C. Pandey) for धन्जय and अमिनवगुप्त. 23 The व्यक्तिविवेक of राजानकमहिमभट्ट. This work has been published in the Trivandrum Series (1909) with a commentary that breaks off in the middle of the 2nd fanrrf. महिम् wrote the work for demolishing the theory of dhvani propounded by the ध्व्न्यालोक. He controverts the position of the ध्वन्यालोक that there is a third function of words called व्यब्जना (besides भभिवा and लक्षणा) and that the suggested sense is conveyed by this process. His own position is that words have a single power (अभिधा), that the suggested sense (प्रतीयमान) is conveyed by the expressed sense through the process of inference (भनुमान) and that word and sense are not व्यब्जक. He does not dispute that the soul of poetry is rasa etc. (as the खवन्यालोक would say) "वाच्पस्तदनुमितो वा यत्रार्थोर्थान्तरं प्रकाशयति। सम्बन्धतः कुतश्चित्सा काव्यानुमितिरित्युक्ता।इति। एतचानुमानस्यैव लक्षयं नान्यस्य। यदुकं 'त्रिरूपलिप्ारण्यानं परार्थानुमानम्' इति। केव्रलं संवाभेदः। काव्यस्यात्मनि संजञिनि रसादिरूपे न कस्यचिद्विमतिः। संच्ञारयां सा केव्रलमेषापि व्यक्त्ययोगतोस्य कुतः ॥" (व्यक्ति• p.22); the last verse is: 'प्राशभुता ध्वनेर्व्यक्तिरिति सैव विवेचिता। यख्वन्यतत्र विमितिः प्रायो नास्तीत्युपेचितम् ।'. जयरथ on अलं. स. (p. 15) quotes the verse वाच्यस्तरनुमितो वा०, a3 from ग्यक्तिविवेक. It is not to be supposed that महिममह was the first to advance this

VYAKTIVIVEKA 249

theory. The धन्यालोक anticipates the theory and tries to meet it (vide pp. 251-254) 'अस्त्यभिसन्धानावसरे व्य्जकत्वं शब्दानां गमकत्वं तञ्च लिशस्वमतश्व्यक्थप्रतीतिर्लिक्विप्रतीतिरेवेति लिकलिदविमाव एव तेषां व्यक्यव्यम्जक- भावो नापर: कश्षित 1 ... न पुनरयं परमार्थो यद् व्यन्जकत्वं लिऋत्वमेव सर्वत्र व्यकष्य- प्रतीतिश्च लिभ्िप्रतोतिरेवेति l ... काव्यविषये च व्यक्थप्रतीतीनां सत्यासत्यनिरुपयस्या प्रयोजकत्वमेवेति तत्र प्रमाणान्तरव्यापारपरीक्षोपहासायैव संपदते। तस्माल्लितिप्रती- तिरेव सर्वंत्र व्यञ्थप्रतीतिरिति न शक्यते वक्तुम्.' The ग्यक्तिविवेक elaborates the arguments of those who relied upon भक्ति (गुयवृत्ति i. e. उपचार and लक्षणा) and regarded a्यब्जकत्व as identical with it (vide sवo pp. 59, 67 तस्मादन्यो ध्वनिरन्या च गुणवृत्तिः). शङ्कुक also was अनुमितिवादिन् acc. to मल्लिनाथ's तरल pp. 85, 191-197. The view of महिममट्ट is severely criticized by the अलं. स. (pp. 15-16), the एकावली and other later writers.1 The एकावली says: 'यत्पुनरनुमानतो नातिरिच्यते ध्वनिरित्याचष्ट महिमभटृस्तदपि पलालायमानम् (i. e. निःसारम्)। अनुमानस्य चाङं व्याप्ति:' and then it is established that there can be no invariable concomitance between शब्दारथौं, साधन or हेतु and ध्वनि (साध्य). The व्यक्तिविवेक is divided into three विमशs. महिम० states his प्रतिशा in the first verse 'अनुमानान्तर्भावं सर्वस्यव ध्वनेः प्रकाशयितुम्। व्यक्तिविवेकं कुरुते प्रषम्य महिमा परां वाचम् ।।'. In the first विमर्श he starts by quoting the definition of ध्वनि (यत्रार्थः शब्दो वा' ध्वनिकारिका I. 13), finds several faults with it and says that the definition, if properly considered, applies to अनुमान. The first objection is that the qualification उपसजनीकृतात्मत्व should not have been mentioned in connection with the word अर्थ. The second objection is that the word शब्द should not occur in the लक्षय, as a शब्द has no व्यापार except अभिषा. Then he finds fault with the word वा. Hequarrels with the word विशेष in काव्यविशेष, as according to ध्वनिकार himself, all काव्य must have रस as its soul (ध्व. p.31). He says that सूरिभि: (रब०. I. 13) in the definition is unnecessary. In all he finds ten faults 'अर्थस्यवि शिष्टत्वं शब्द: सविशेषणस्तदः पुंस्त्वम्। द्विवचनवाशब्दौ च व्यक्ति्ध्वनिनाम काव्यवैशिष्टयम।। वचनं च कथनकतेः कथिता ध्वनिलद्मणीति दश दोषा; 1' (pp. 21-22). His

1. The early commentators such as माणिक्यचन्द्र and सोमेशर do not expressly refer the passage in the काव्यप्रकाश V (beginning with ननु वाच्यादसम्बद्धं तावन्न प्रतीयते pp. 252-254 of वामनाचार्य's ed.) to महिमभक्; but गोविन्दठककुर and other comparatively later ones do- so). Therefore it is somewhat doubtful whether the Kavya- prakāśa is actually criticizing the Vyaktiviveka.

250 HISTORY OF SANSERIT POETIC

own position is 'सर्वं एव हि शाब्दो व्यवहार: साध्यसाधनभावगर्भतया प्राये- खानुमानरूपोऽम्युपगन्तव्यः, तस्य परप्रवृत्िनिवृत्तिनिबन्धनत्वात् तयोक्ष सम्प्रत्यया- सम्प्रस्ययात्मनोरन्यथाकतुमशक्यत्वतः ।' (p. 3) and अरथोपि द्विविषो वाध्योनुमेय- रच। तत्र शब्दव्यापारविषयो वाच्यः । स एव मुख्य उच्यते । ... तत एव तदनुमि- तादा लिकभूताधदर्थान्तरमनुमीयते सोनुमेयः । स च त्रिविधः, वस्तुमात्रमलङ्गारा रसादयश्चेति । तत्राधी वाच्यावपि सम्भवतः । अन्यस्तवनुमेय एवेति वश्यते' (p. 7). So it will be noticed that, according to his view, mrex has only two senses वाच्य and भनुमेय; the लक्षण of other writers will be included under भनुमान. He says that in such verses as 'सुवर्शपुष्पां पृथिवीं चिन्वन्ति पुरुषाखयः (example of भविवत्ितवाभ्यध्वनि in ध्व. p. 58), 'पत्युः शिरश्चन्द्रकलामनेन' (ध्व. p. 267), 'एवं वादिनि देवषों ('o p. 124), the suggested sense is really inferred 'अत्र हि सर्वंत्र सुलभा विभूतयः शूरादीनामित्ययमर्थोऽनुमीयत इत्येतद्वितनिष्यते' (व्यक्ति० p, 9). As वाच्य sense and प्रतीयमान sense stand in the relation of लिन and लिड्िन the process is अनुमान 'वाच्यप्रतीयमानयोर्वद्तयमायक्रमेय लिन्न- लिभिभावस्य समर्थनाव् सवस्यैव ध्वनेरनुमानान्तर्मावः समन्वितो भवति तस्य च तदपेचया महाविषयत्वात्' (व्यक्त० p.12) and he relies upon ध्वनिकार's own words that the principal sense intended appears more charming when it is suggested (i. e. is left to be gathered from the words) 'साररूपो हर्थः स्वशष्दानभिवेयत्वेन प्रकाशितः सुतरां शोभामावहति' (<वo p. 300). He says that in many of the instances of ध्वनि cited in the ्वन्यालोक the ultimate व्यक्य sense is not suggested by the expressed sense but between the two one or more inferences intervene (as in 'वाषिभत हस्थिदन्ता' ध्व० p. 157). In गौर्वाहीक:, the ultimate sense is arrived at by अनुमान; as the two cannot in reality be identical, one comes to the conclusion that they possess similar qualities 'तस्मादयोयं वाहीकादौ गवादिसाधर्म्यावगमः स तत्वा- रोपान्यथानुपपत्तिपरिकल्पितोऽनुमानस्यव विषयः न शब्दव्यापारस्येति स्थितम्' (p. 24). The same reasoning the व्यक्ति० applies to गङ्गायां घोष :. It asserts, by using ध्वनिकारिकाs themselves with a slight turn of expression, that ध्वनि is identical with भक्ति 'भक्त्या बिभति चैकत्वं रूपामेदादयं ध्वनिः। न च नाव्याप्त्यतिव्याप्त्योरभावाल्लचयते तथा॥ सुवर्यपुष्पामि- त्यादौ न चाग्याप्तिः प्रसज्यते। यतः पदार्थवाक्याथमेदाद् भक्िकिर्द्विषोदिता । भतस्मि- स्तत्समारोपो भक्तेलच्षणमिष्यते। अर्थान्तरप्रतीत्यर्थः प्रकार: सोपि शस्यते॥' (व्यक्ति० p. 26; compare ध्वनिका० I. 17 pp. 59-61). He opposes (pp.27- 28) the views of those who think that there is a single perva- sive power of words which conveys what is called the ape sense and the implied sense and who rely upon the instance of an arrow. He controverts the position of the वक्रोचिजोवित (कारिका I. 7-8 शब्दार्थौं सहितौ वक) and says that if what is con-

VYAKTIVIVEKA 251

veyed by the striking mode of speech adopted by the poet is different from the plain expressed sense, then वकोक्ति also is included like ध्वनि under भनुमान (p.28). He denies that words have any other power than भभिधा 'नापि शब्दस्याभिधाव्यतिरेकेश व्यापा- रान्तरसुपपद्यते येनार्थान्तरं प्रत्याययेत्, व्यक्तेरनुपपरेः सम्बन्धान्तरस्य चासिदे:' (p.29). He ridicules the ध्वनिकार for not giving a definition of kavya in general and for dilating upon the two varieties of it, ध्वनि and गुखीभूतव्यक्य, in the absence of a general definition "किं च काव्यस्य स्वरूपं व्युत्पादयितुकामेन मतिमता तल्लचयमेव सामान्येनाख्यातव्यम् ... यस्तु तदनाख्यायव तयोः प्रधानेतरभावकल्पनेन प्रकारद्वयमुक्तं तदप्रयोजकमेव।' (p.32). He finds fault (p.35) with the two terms भविवचितवाच्य and विवच्ितान्यपरवाच्य, says that examples of the former are like the examples of भक्ति (अभिर्माशवक:) and that the term विवच्ितान्य० contains a contradiction (if a thing is विवचित i. e. प्रधान, it cannot be अन्यपर). In the second विभर्श, he considers अनौचित्य (impropriety or incongruity). It is of two kinds, अर्थविषय and शब्दविषय. The अन्तरक भनौचित्य consists in the improper employment of विभावड, अनुभावs and व्यमिचारिभावs in the manifestation of रस and has been explained by former writer (such as भानन्द०). The बहिरम (formal) impropriety falls under five faults, विधेया- विमर्श, प्रक्रमभेद, क्रममेद, पौनरुक्त्य and वाच्यावचन. The whole of the second विमर्श (pp.37-112) is concerned with the explanation and exemplification of these five faults amidst several digre- ssions. The first fault विधेयाविमरश is treated of in pp. 37-58. He takes the verse 'संरम्भ: करिकीटमेघशकलोहशेन सिंहस्य यः सर्वस्यव स जाति- मात्रनियतो हेवाकलेश: किल। इत्याशादिरदक्तयाम्युदघटाबन्धेप्यसंरब्धवान् योसौ कुत्र चमत्कृतेरतिशयं यात्वम्निकाकेसरी' cited in the वक्रोक्तिजीवित (I. p. 17) as a faultless piece of poetry and shows that it contains three cases of विधेयाविमर्श. The first is that the compound (नञूसमास) भसंरब्धवान् is improper, the second is that the relative pronoun in योसौ has no corresponding demonstrative pronoun (सः) in the verse, and the third is that the compound अम्बिकाकेसरी is improper, as the word अम्बिका, being a member of a compound, is subordinate and the sense also is therefore subordinate and not at once perceived as principal (while Ambika is really the principal object of adoration to the poet). He suggests (on p. 57) how the verse should be read to avoid these faults. His position on this point of विधेयाविमर्श is briefly put in these words 'तदिदमत्र तात्पयं यत् कर्थचिदपि प्रधानतया विवचितं न तन्नियमेनेतरेख सद

252 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

समासमदत्तीति। इतरच्य विरोष्यमन्यद्वास्त न तन्र नियम: ।' (p. 52). He gives numerous examples where this rule is followed or viola- ted by the greatest poets and in cases of violation of the rule suggests how the verses should be composed. Examples where the rule is followed are 'सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ यस्य मातामहपितामरौ।' (विक्रमो. IV. 38); उपपन्नं ननु शिवं सप्तस्वस्तेपु यस्य मे। दैवीनां मानुषीणा च &c. (रघु. I. 60) ; अग्राज, सेनापते, द्रोणोपहासिन etc. (वेशी० III.); 'रामस्य पाणिरसि दुर्वहगर्भखिन्न०' (उत्तरराम. II). Opposite examples are 'आासमुद्रच्ितीशानाम्' (रघु. I. which should be भा समुद्राव); पृथ्बि स्थिरा भव ... देव: करोति हरकामुकमाततज्यम्' (बालरामा. I. 48 cited in साहित्यद० under अर्थान्तर०), where the reading 'देवो धनुः पुररिपोर्विद- धात्यधिज्यम would be better (as the most important point is that it is Hira's bow). प्रककममेद is dealt with on pp. 58-66. 'प्रक्रममेदो- पि शब्दानौचित्यमेव। स हि यथाप्रक्रममेकरसप्रवृत्तायाः प्रतिपत्तिप्रतीतेरुत्खात इव परिस्खलनखेवदायो रसभक्काय पर्यंत्रस्थति। ... स चायमनन्तप्रकार: सम्भवति प्रकृतिप्रत्य- यपर्यायादीनां तद्िषयभावाभिमतानामानन्त्यात (p.58) and 'यथोह्ेशं हि प्रतिनि- र्देशोस्य विषय: (p.59). Eximples of the fault are 'ते हिमा ... सिद्धं चास्म निवेद्यार्थ तट्टिसष्टाः खमुदयुः॥' (कुमार० 6. 24, असमे requires a similar pronoun in place of तत्); 'उदन्वच्छिन्ना भूः स च निधिरपां योज- नशतं' भर्तृ हरि (मिता भूः पत्यापां स च पतिरपा &c. whould be better); 'गाइन्तां महिषा' (शाकुन्तल II. 6, the active forms गाहन्ता, अभ्यस्यतु and लभता require the same form in the third पाद and therefore 'कुर्वन्त्वस्तभियो वराहततयो मुस्ता०' is better). Yet कर्तृ प्रकममेद (i. e. the use of the third person for the second or first) is not a fault, but a गुर e.g. 'अयं जनः प्रष्टमनास्तपोधने' (for अहं in कुमार० V.). कममेद is treated of in pp. 66-69. An example is 'कला च सा कान्तिमती कलावतस्त्वमस्य लोकस्य च नेत्रकौमुदी' (कुमार० V. 71, where the second च should be after त्वम्). पौनरुकत्य is dealth with on pp. 69-84. शब्दपुनरुक्तत्व is not a fault if the senses of the words are different (as in हसति इसति स्वामिन्युच्चै रुदत्यपि रोदिति) where इसति is 3rd per. present as also loc. sing of pr. p. and even if the sense of the repeated word be the same there is no fault (but it is an ornament called लाटानुप्रास) if the purport is different (e. g. 'वखायन्ते नदीनां सितकुसुमधराः शक्रसक्काशकाशाः काशाभा भान्ति तार्सां नवपुलिनगता: श्रीनदीहंस हंसा: ।' quoted in वामनीयवृत्ति IV. I. 10). Examples of (आर्थ) पौनरुक्त्य are 'बिसकिसलयच्छेदपाथेयवन्तः' (मेघ०), 'स्वगुत्तरासभवतीमधीतिनीम्' (कुमार० V. 16), where the affix बत् is superfluous as the same sense can be had by means of a बहुन्रीहि; one word इव after गेयस्य is said to be superfluous (p.72) in वर्षै: कतिपयैरेव ग्रथितस्य स्वरैरिव। अनन्ता वाक्मयस्याहो गेयस्येव विचित्रता।

VY AK TIVIVERA 253

and he proposes a better reading as गेयस्य वाक्मयस्याहो अपर्यन्ता विचित्रता॥; 'सहसा विदधीत न क्रिर्या' (किरावा० II. 30) is वाक्यार्थविषयपौ- नरुकस्य, as the second half contains the same proposition as 'भविवेक: परमापदा पदं); 'यदा यदा दि धर्मस्य' (गीता 4.7) also exempli- fies पुनरुकतत्व, as अम्युत्थानमधमंस्य is the same os धर्मस्य ग्लानि: His position on the point of पुनरुकत is 'न च सामर्थ्यसिद्धेर्थें शब्दप्रयोगमाद्रियन्ते सत्कवयः' (p. 77) and 'सा (प्रतीतिः) च यावद्विरुपजायते तावतामेव प्रयोगो युक्तो नातिरिकानाम्' (p. 78), on which the commentary justly observes that poetry is not व्याकरणसुत्र (न हीदं वाक्यं लक्षषशाखं येन मात्रालाघवं चिन्त्यते। तत्रापि वा न नियमेन लाघवामाश्रितं महद्दिः' p. 44). Where there is a special sense intended there is no पौनरुक्त्य as in कुर्यां हरस्यापि पिनाकपागेः' (कुमार० III. 10). The fifth fault वाच्यावचन is treated of in pp. 84-109. An example is 'कमलमनम्भसि कमले कुवलये etc' (here the2nd word कमल should have been ex- pressed by a सर्वनाम 'तस्मिश्व कुशलये'). He says 'यत्रान्यस्यालक्कारस्य विषयेऽलक्वारान्तरनिबन्ध: सोपि वाच्यावचनं दोषः' (p.86) and instances 'मरवाचार्यस्तु दूरादेव दृष्टा राजानं शशिनमिव जलनिधिश्वचाल' (हर्षचरित III. para 20, here राजानं would also mean शशिनं and this is a proper subject for श्लेष and not उपमा as the poet has done). His position about श्लेष is 'तस्मादर्थान्तरव्यक्तिहेतौ कस्मिश्च नासति। यः श्लेषबन्ध- निर्बन्ध: क्लेशायैव कवेरसौ ।।' (p. 89) and that the piling up of श्लेषS for their own saike and for no other purpose is वाच्यावचन. He finds this fault (on p.95) in the verse (सवँकशरणमक्षयमधीशं which is भानन्दवर्धन's own and cited in ध्वo p. 123). He finds this fault in many of the instances of शग्दशक्तिमूलध्वनि cited by the ध्वन्यालोक. He winds up by saying that even great poets did not perceive these faults and instances उमावृषाक्की शरजन्मना यथा (रघु. 3. 23) as vitiated by पौनरुक्त्य, प्रक्रमभेद and अवाच्यवचन and there are faults in काव्यस्यात्मा धनिरिति (the first धवनिकारिका). In the last there is प्रक्रममेद as इति should be placed after भात्मा; there is also पौनरुकत्य, as ुष: and पूर्व need not have been mentioned (as समाम्नात itself expresses past tense). Several more faults are found and then he proposes to read the कारिका diff:rently (p. 112) to avoid most of these faults and then states his position briefly but firmly. व्यच्ति० p. 112 states how the first verse of ध्वन्यालोक should be read: तेन वरमयमत्र पाठः श्रेयानल्पदोषत्वाद्। काव्यस्यात्मे- त्यमलमतिभिर्यों ध्वनिर्नाम गीतस्तस्याभावं जगदुरपरे भक्तिरित्येवमन्ये। केचिद्राचाम- विषय रति प्रस्फुर तश्मन्तस्तेन बूमःसहश्यजनप्रीतये तत्स्वरूपम् 1. इति। ... तस्मातस्थित- मेतथथा शब्दस्याभिधानमन्तरेख न व्यापारान्तरं सम्भवतीति। गमयन्त्यर्थमुखेन दि सुसिक वचनादबोऽपरानर्थान्। तेन ध्वनिलद्षमविधी। शब्दग्रहयं विफलमेव।। इति सम्प्रहार्या।

254 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

In the third विमर्रा he takes about forty examples cited by the ध्वन्यालोक and shows that they are really cases of भनुमान. For example, the verse भम धम्मिभ (्व. p. 19) contains nothing but अनुमान 'केवलं योसौ भ्रमसविधौ हेतुभावेन दृप्तपश्जाननव्यापारस्तन्ोपातः स एव विमृश्यमान: परम्परया धार्मिकस्य तन्निषेधे पर्यवस्यति तयोर्षोध्यवाधकभावेनाव- स्थानाव' (p. 113). As regards rasas he says that their apprehen- sion also comes under अनुमान 'यापि विभावादिन्यो रसादीना प्रतीतिः सानु- मान एवान्तर्भावमदृति। विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिप्रतीतिर्दि रसादिप्रतीतेः साधन- मिष्यते' (p. 119) and concludes by saying 'तदेवं सर्वस्यव ध्वनेरनुमाना- न्तर्भावाभ्युपगम: श्रेयानिति।' (p. 137). महिममट्ट was a Kashmirian as the title राजानक indicates. His father was शषर्यं and he was the pupil of श्यामल, a great poet. वेमेन्द्र in his सुवृत्ततिलक and भौचित्य quotes verses from a श्यामल and so does सुभाषितावलि (No. 2292). A श्यामिलक is the author of a भाष called पादताडितक (vide भ. भा. vol. I. p. 178), which has been edited by Mr. Kavi. महिमभट्ट wrote the work for his grandsons, who were the sons of भीम. The latter was probably his son-in-law 'आधातुं न्युत्पतति नप्तर्यां त्षेमयोगभाजानाम्। सत्स प्रथितनयानां भीमस्यामितगु सस्य तनयानाम् ।।'. 'The word च्षेमयोगभाजानाम् is probably double-meaning and ब्ेम, योग and भाज (?) were probably the names of the grandsons. If they were his son's sons he could have used the word पौत्राwt without spoiling the metre. He wrote another work called तत्त्वोक्तिकोश on Poetics 'इत्यादि प्रतिभातत्त्वमस्माभिरुपपादितम्। शाख्जे तरवोक्तिकोशाल्य इति नेर प्रपश्चितम् ।' (p.108). His work is one of the masterpieces. of the Alankara Literature and deserves to be saved from the unmerited oblivion in which it has fallen. His work contains brilliant arguments and exhibits great erudition, logical acumen, fastidious criticism and deep insight. Among later Alankara writers he found no follower and being pitted against the famous भानन्दवर्षन, he does not receive his due. Though he tries to disarm all critisism against his boldness in finding fault with great poets by saying 'स्वकृतिष्वयन्त्रितः कथ- मनुशिष्यादन्यमयमिति न वाच्यभ्। वारयति भिषगपथ्यादितरान् स्वयमाचरञ्नपि॥' (p. 37), yet he seems to have been proud and self-confident c.g.p. 97 'अन्रोदाहर ण प्रत्युदाहर ण प्रतीत्योर्यंदन्तरं तन्मतिमतामेवावभासते, भन्येषा वु शपथप्रत्येयमेव'; p. 109 'ता पता दोषजातयो महाकवीनामपि डुलचा इत्यव- सीयन्ते'. He seems to have followed राब्कक in regarding even rasa as inferred. His views are quoted at length and seve- rely criticized in the साहित्यदपंथ (under V.4). Vide also पक़ावती

VYAKTIVIVEKA 255

p. 32. Hevery often quotes the views of पाणिनि as thsoe of the भाचार्यं (p.55), he enters upon a learned discussion about पयुंदास and प्रसन्यप्रतिवेष (on pp.38-39), very often quotes others' views with the words तदुकं, यदाङु: (pp.6, 7, 82, 121). Often he gives verses styled संग्रहश्लोक or संग्रहार्या,1 which summarise the discussion that precedes them; vide (pp. 6, 14, 18, 22-23, 26, 32, 34-35, 56 etc.). They are in all 146, of which five are आार्याs. Some of these contain the पूर्वपत and the उत्तरपद on a topic (e. g. pp. 124-125). All these संग्रहश्लोकs seem to be his own. In other cases he gives verses that are called भन्तरश्लोक or भन्तरारया (pp.28, 39, 46. 54, 85-86, 97, 109, 110, 136). The संग्रहश्लोकs summarise a preceding discussion, while भन्तरकोक: seem to be verses that add to the discussion. In one case (on p. 97) the अन्तरश्लोकs seem to be not his own (viz. the two verses 'अनुवाध्यमनुक्तवैव न विधेयमुदीरयेत्', 'विधेयोद् श्यभावोय"). He cites कारिकाs dealing with Alankara topics which are styled neither संग्रहशलोक nor अन्तरश्लोक (pp.74, 76, 77,108). They may be his own composition, He profusely quotes from the works of कालिदास, from भरत, भारवि, the ध्वन्यालोक. He also quotes उत्तरराम०, उ्गट, चन्द्रिका (Intro. verse 5), बालरामायय (pp. 40, 50), भल्लट, भामह, माघ, रत्नावलि, लोचन, वक्रोकिजीवित, वामन, वेणीसंहार, विद्धशालभजिका (p. 85), हर्षचरित and refers to हृदयदर्पण (Intro. verse 4). As the views of the व्यक्तिविवेक are summarised by the भलक्कारसर्वस्व it is earlier than about 1100 A.D. and as it quotes the बालरामायया and विद्धशालभजिका and criticizes the वक्रोक्तिजीवित and the लोचन (p. 19, where a passage from लोचन on p. 38-39 is quoted) he is later than 1020 A. D. It is supposed by सरस्वतीतीर्थ, गोविन्दठक्कुर and other commentators of the काव्यप्रकाश that मम्मट in the 5th उल्लाम combats the view of the व्यक्तिविवेक though he does not name the latter. The passage of the काव्यप्रकाश (V. p. 252 beginning with ननु वाच्यादसम्बद्धं तावन्न प्रतीयते quoted above on p. 249n closely resembles the ग्यक्तिबिबेक (pp.15 and li1). Further,

1. On p. 98 there are three संग्रहश्लोकs of which the first (येन यस्याभिसम्बन्धो दूरस्थेनापि तेन सः । पदानामसमासानामानन्तयमकारखम् ॥) appears to be a quotation. The तन्त्रवार्तिक on जै. HI. 1. 27 states 'दूरस्थत्वादशक्योऽस्योपसंहार इति चेत् न । यस्य येनार्थसम्बन्ध इति न्यायाव'। p. 744 (Anan. ed.). The editor gives the whole verse as 'यस्य येनार्थसम्बन्यो दूरस्पेनापि तस्य सः । भर्थतो व्समर्थानामानन्त्थमकारयम् ॥'. The भभिनबमारती vol. I. p. 210 mentions this न्याय 'तथापि यस्य मेनार्थसम्पन्य इत्यर्यंक्रम भादतंष्यो न शब्द इति'.

256 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

in the 7th उल्लास the काव्यप्रकार seems to follow the म्यक्िविवेक very closely in pointing out dosas. If this is the case as appears very likely, then महिममह flourished between 1020 and 1050 A. D. Even supposing that the reference by मम्मट to ग्यक्तिविवेक is doubtful, he must be deemed to have flourished between 1020 to 1100 A. D. गोपाल in his com. on काव्यप्र. has a verse on महिममट्ट.1 The commentary as published is unfortunately incom- plete (i. e. only on the first two विमशs). The author's name is not given. But he appears to have been the same as the author of the वृत्ति in the अलक्गार सर्वस्व. On p. 44 the commen- tator says that he wrote हर्षचरितवार्तिक and on p. 32 that he wrote साहित्यमीमांसा and नाटकमीमांसा, while the author of the अलक्कारसवस्ववृत्ति (p. 77) refers to them as his own works. जयरथ (p. 13) ascribes a commentary on the ग्यक्तिविवेक to the author of the अलक्कारसर्वस्व (वृत्ति) 'व्यक्तिविवेकविचारे हि मयव तदितत्य निर्णीतमिति भाव:'. The commentary is a very learned one, but his stand- point being different from that of the व्यक्तिविवेक (as he is a staunch follower of the ध्वन्यालोक) he frequently takes महिमभट्ट to task. On the third introductory vers (ध्वनिकारस्य वचोविवेचनं नः) he remarks 'यथास्थितपाठे तु ध्वनिकारस्येति वच:शब्दान्वितमिष्यमाएं प्राधान्या द्विवेचनशब्दान्वितं प्रतीयते। एतच्वास्य साहित्यविचारदुर्निरूपकस्य प्रमुख एव स्खलितमिति महान् प्रमाद:'. The commentator pulls him up very frequently for his pride e. g. p. 41 'तदेतदस्य विश्वमगणनीयं मन्यमानस्य स्वात्मन: सर्वोत्कर्षशालिताख्यापनमिति'; vide p. 44 also. But the commentator is prepared to give the author his due; vide pp. 15 and 16 (where he calls him महामति). The commentator gives संग्रहश्ोकs of his own (on p. 3, which contains a reply to a verse of the text and p. 12 which contains a reply to a verse on p. 14 of the text). Older commentators seem to be referred to in the word केचित (on p.32). On p. 20 he quotes the well- known verse 'हेम्नो (हेम्ना) भारशतानि' about हर्ष and बाय and another verse about भर्तमेयठ. He refers to a work called बहती (p. 45) which he contemplated writing. He quotes भनपाद, दणडी (दाएडो ग्रंथ: p.47), a वार्तिक of धर्मकीर्ति (p. 34), उद्भट, ध्वनिकार, वक्रोकिजीवित, वामन, परिमल (p. 53), सहृदय, सौगताः (in Sanskrit p. 41). He discusses readings of the text (pp. 33, 35, 51 about an interpolation). As he is identical with the author of the 1. 'रसामृतनदीममे ध्वनिकारे महागुरौ। अनुमायापि महिमा काव्यगोष्ठी न सुश्ति।।' (p.3).

BHOJA 257

वषि in the भलं. स. he flourished about 1135-1145 A.D. For the mention of a com. called तिलकरस्न on the ग्यच्तिविवेक caused to be written by a king named चामुएडसिह on the banks of the river Sarayu, vide Prof. S. R. Bhandarkar's Report on the Search for mss. in Rajputana and Central India for 1904-5 and 1905-6, pp. 39-40 and 85-87. 24. The सरस्वतीकष्ठाभरण and शु्गारप्रकाश of भोज. The first work has been published several times (e.g. by Mr. Borooah, at Benares in 1887 and in the K. M. series 1934). In these pages reference is made to the K. M. edition of 1934 with the com. of रत्नेश्वर composed under king रामसिंह (on परिच्छेदs I-III) and of जगदर (on IV). The सरस्वतीकएठाभरण is a voluminous work, but it is more or less a compilation. It is divided into five परिच्छेदs. The first speaks of काव्यप्रयोजन, काव्यलक्षण, काव्यमेद, 16 dosas of pada, 16 of वाक्य and 16 of वाक्यार्थ, the 24 गुखs of शब्द and the same number in वाक्यारथ; in the second परि० the author treats of 24 शब्दालक्कारs such as जाति, रीति, वृत्ति, छाया, मुद्रा, गुम्फना, शय्या, यमक, श्लेष, प्रहेलिका; in the third he defines and illustrates 24 अर्थाल्कारs, जाति, विभावना, हेतु, अहेतु, सूक्ष्म, उत्तर, विरोष, सम्भव, भन्योन्य, परिवृत्ति, निदर्शन, भेद, समाहित, भ्रान्ति, वितक, मीलित, स्मृति, भाव, प्रत्यक्ष, अनु- मान, उपमान, आगम, अर्थापत्ति and अभाव; in the fourth परि० he dwells upon 24 figures of both शब्द and अर्थ viz. उपमा, रूपक, साम्य, संशय, भपह्नुति, समाधि, समासोकि, उत्प्रेक्षा, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, तुल्ययोगिता, लेश (the same as व्याजस्तुति), सहोक्ि, समुचय, आच्तेप, अर्थान्तरन्यास, विशेषोकि, परिकर, दीपक, क्रम, पर्याय, अतिशयोकि, श्लेष, भाविक, संसृहि; in the fifth he treats of rasas, bhāvas, heroes and heroines and their sub- divisions and characteristics, the five sandhis, मुख, प्रतिमुख etc., the four urttis भारती etc. In all there are 643 कारिकाs, some of which are taken bodily from the काव्यादर्श, ध्वन्यालोक and other works. For example, कारिकाs V. 5-6 are the same as काव्यादर्श I. 21-22, कारिका V. 3 (शृङ्गारी चेत्कविः) occurs (in ्व. p. 278). The first कारिका in the 5th परिच्छेद (रसोडमिमानोहड्ार: शजार इति गीयते) bears a close resemblance to certain verses of the भमिपुराय, (338. 1-4) quoted above on p. 8. Similarly, सर. क. II. 2, 39, 75 are much the same as the भभिपुराख 341. 18-19, 21 and 342. 10. Dr. De in J. R. A. S. 1923 pp. 537-549 holds that भोज borrows from the Agnipurana. I demur to his conclusion. He is wrong as to the verse मद्गारी चेत found both in सर. क. V. 3 and भमिपु. 338. 11, as shown above on pp. 7-8. The सरस्वतीकयठामरय quotes profusely from Dapdin's

258 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Kavyadarsa, about two hundred verses being borrowed from the latter. arHr is very rarely drawn upon (e. g. the definition of प्रसाद from भामइ II. 3 occurs as सर. क. I. 129). The सरस्वती- कयठाभरय quotes over 1500 examples from former poets and therefore is valuable for the chronology of Sanskrit literature. But, as much earlier works like the काव्यालक्वारसूत्रवृत्ति of वामन, the धवंन्यालोक and लोचन have become available to all, its importance is now much less than in the days of Aufrecht. It draws upon कालिदास and भवभूति at every step. Besides the above it quotes अभिधानमाला, कादम्बरी, कामशाखत्र, छलितराम, जैमिनि, तापसवत्सराज, ध्वन्यालोक, बाय, भटि, भरत, भामह, भारवि, महाभारत, रत्नावलि, राजशेखर, रामायण, रुद्रट, विक्रान्तश द्रक (a drama), वेणीसंहार, शिशुपालवध. Though several verses are quoted in the Hr. . which also occur in the com. of Dhanika on 154, it cannot be said with certainty that Bhoja took the verses from the Avaloka (as Dr. De does in H. S. P. vol. I. p. 145). It is quite possible that Bhoja took them from works to which both धनिक and he had access. But there is one verse which धनिक claims as his own (under दशरूप IV. 72 यथा च ममैव-लक्ष्मीपयोधरोत्सङ्कुक्कमारुखितां हरेः । बलिरेव स येनास्य मित्षापात्रीकृत: कर: ॥), which is quoted in the सर. क. (IV. verse 98 p. 462 as an example of अन्योकि). In several respects his views are peculiar. There is a certain symmetrical arra- ngement in everything that ara treats of, as in the sixteen dosas and 24 figures of शब्द, अर्थ and उभय, the six varieties of रीति, वृत्ति, मुद्रा etc. He stands almost alone in regarding उपमा, आप्षेप, समासोक्ति, अपछ्नुति and several others as figures of both sabda and artha. In this he probably follows the Agnipurana (vide chap. 344) or some other prior work. He looks upon riti as marai- लक्कार and enumerates six ritis वैद्भी, पाश्लाली, गौडीया, भावन्तिका, लाटीया and मागधी. He raised all the six pramanas of Jaimini to the status of figures of speech. Although, following old writers, he speaks of eight rasas, from the way in which he treats of them, it seems that he looked upon Srngara as the only rasa. This accords well with what we are told by the Ekavali (p. 98) that in the "FIT9ETT composed by 'the king' a single rasa alone has been admitted (राजा तु शद्गारमेकमेव शङ्गारप्रकारो रसमुररीचकार, on which the तरल S4ys 'भोजराजमतमाह राजा स्विति'). In the रत्नापण also (p.221) कुमारस्वामी quotes the same view from the मदार- प्रकाश 'शकार एक एव रस इति शरशारप्रकाशकारः'. The भावप्रकाशन (pp. 12, 213, 219, 242, 245, 251) mentions the views of the Hart-

BHOJA 259

प्रकार and भोज on matters of नाव्यशाख. The मन्दारमरन्दचम्पू (5th बिन्दु p. 107) says 'अ्रथ मोजनृपादीनां मतमत्र प्रकाश्यते। रसो ने स रति भुल्या रस एक: प्रकीर्तित: ॥। अतो रसः स्याच्छनार एक एवेतरे तु न। धर्मार्थंकाममोच्याखय- भेदेन स चतुर्विष: ॥'. Another very peculiar view is that he looks upon even guna and rasa as alankāras. He quotes the words of दएडी 'काव्यशोभाकरान् धर्मान्' (काव्यादर्श II. 1-2) and then remarks 'तत्र काव्यशोभाकरानित्यनेन श्लेषोपमावद्गुखरसभावतदाभासम शमादीनप्युपगृहाति' (5th 4fop. 704). Some of these Deculiar views have been referred to by comparatively early writers. The का. प्र. सक्केत of माणिक्य० frequently refers to भोज and कएठाभरण (e. g. p. 300, 332, 338, 339). On p. 469 it says 'शीभोजेन जैमिन्युक्तषटप्रमाखानि सम्भवश्चालक्कार- तयोक्ानि'. हेमचन्द्र (in काव्यानुशासनविवेक p. 295) says 'जातिगतिरीतिवृत्ति- छछाया ... राय्यापीति वाक्ये ... सम्भवप्रत्यक्षागमोपमानार्थापत्यभावलक्षणाश्चार्थालद्वारा ये भोजराजेन प्रतिपादिताः' etc .; जयरथ (pp. 244-45) says that भोज treats of only संसृष्टि (and not of सक्कर). When I published the History of Alankāra Literature in 1923 I had no access to the शदारप्रकाश of भोज. Since then Dr. Raghavan has published his studies in Srngārprakāśa (vol. I parts 1 and 2 pp. 1-542). The मशारप्रकाश is a very voluminous work, larger than any work on Sanskrit Poetics. No part of the original is yet published except three prakāsas (22nd, 23rd and 24th) that were published in 1926 under the auspices of His Holiness Sri Yatirajasvamin of Melcote, a short chapter XI in Dr. A. Sankaran's work on 'Theories of Rasa and Dhvani', and extracts from it are given by Dr. Raghavan on pp. 513- 542 in part 2 of his vol. I. on 'Bhoja's Śrngāraprakāśa.' In these circumstances I shall content myself by giving here a brief summary of the contents based on pp. 10-11 and 13-69 of Dr. Raghavan's work and the Sanskrit Summary given in the Introduction to the three ser7Ts already printed.1 In the mss. there are gaps in many places. The whole of chapter 26 is lost and so are portions of chapters 25 and 27 (Dr. Raghavan p.3). The शृद्ारप्रकाश deals with both Poetics and Dramaturgy just as the साहित्यदपण and the प्रतापरदयशोभूषस do later on. The भृहारप्रकाश defines kavya as शब्दाथों सितौ काव्यम् (which was the view of भामह I. 16) and propounds that मार identified with भभि- मान and अहक्कार is the only rasa in the higher sense. The contents 1. Recently, prakasa's 1-8 have been edited by Sri G. R. Joyser for International Academy of S. Research, Mysore, 1955.

260 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

of the 36 chapters (prakasas) of the FFRAERT are : I Defini- tions of kavya, sabda and artha, 12 functions of each; 2 srfaufen, its divisions and sub-divisions; 3 meaning of q and ur and their varieties; 4 The 12 varieties of भर्थ viz. क्रिया, काल, कारक &c .; 5 The meaning of उपाधि; 6 meaning of विभक्ति; 7 the several powers of a word viz. भभिषा, विवचा, तात्पर्य &c .; 8 the powers of words in connection with other words viz. sur, सामर्थ्य &c .; 9 avoidance of दोषs and securing of गुराs in काव्य; 10 अलक्कारs of शब्द, भर्थ and उभय; 11 Rasa; 12 Dramas and their 64 features: 13 Rati, mokş ı-śṛngāra, dharmaśṛngāra, vrttis, ritis; 14 हर्ष and48 भावs; 15 the भालम्बनविभावs of रति; 16 उद्दीपन- विभावs of रति; 17 अनुभावs; 18 delineation of धर्म शक्गार; 19 भर्थशद्गार; 20 कामसुक्ार; 21 मोक्षशुक्गार, नायक-नायिकाविभाग and नायकनायिकागुणाः; 22 अनुराग (ordinary love); 23 विप्रलम्भ and सम्भोगशुक्गार; 24 विप्रलम्भ; 25 पूर्वानुरागविप्रलम्भ; 26 wanting; 27 भभियोगविधि; 28 दूतीविशेषदूतकर्मों- पनरान; 29 दूतप्रेषर, सन्देशदान &c .; 30 मानस्वरूप; 3I प्रवासोपवर्यन; 32 करपारसविनिर्यय; 33 सम्भोगस्वरूप; 34 प्रथमानुरागानन्तरसम्भोग; 35 मानप्रवासकरुणानन्तरसम्भोग; 36 चतसुखां सम्भोगावस्थानां वर्नम् Not having read the शुद्ारप्र काश in the original (except the three printed prakasas) I am not in a position to say how many verses it contains. But they must be several thousands. In the three printed prakasas alone there are 467 quotations, out of which 251 are in Prakrit. In the 22nd prakasa the Prakrit quotations are three-fourths of the total verses quoted therein. A good edition of the whole of the शक्गारप्रकाश is sure to be of immense importance for the chronology of literary works, for the Prakrits and for the correct readings of many verses and above all for the unique theory of one rasa. Numerous works are ascribed to भोज. He seems to have written on धर्मशाख and is quoted by the मिताचरा (generally as पारेश्वर) and the दायभाग. In the राजमार्तण्ड (a commentary on the योगसूत्र) we read 'शम्दानामनुशासनं विदधता पातजले कुर्वता पृत्ि राज- मृगाक्ुसंच्कमपि व्यावन्वता बैधके। वाक्ेतोवपुर्षा मल: फयाभूरता मर्त्रेब येनोदतस्तस्प भीरणरङमल्नमृपतेवांचो जयन्त्युज्ज्वका:।।' (verse 4 Intro.). His astrono- mical work, the करय called राजमृगाक्ट, was probably composed in 1042-43. A. D. as it takes for its initial date the saka year 964.1 Dr. Bhandarkar ('Early History of the Deccan' p. 60)

1. शाको वेदतुनन्दोनो रविश्रो माससंयुतः। मरभो देवान्वितो दिस्बस्िवेदम- समोई तः ।। राजमुगाङ्ट (D.C. ms. No. 105 of 1873-74, verse 2).

BHOJA 261

came to the conclusion that ala fourished in the first half of the 11th century. Dr. Buhler (Intro. to विक्रमाङ्गदेवचरित pp. 19- 25) holds that भोज flourished somewhat later then that date. His reasons were principally two. The <TaaT. (VII. 259) says 'स च भोजनरेन्द्रश् दानोत्कर्षेष विश्रुतौ। सूरी तस्मिन्से तुल्यौ दावास्ता ferwrant I'. This passage according to Dr. Buhler refers to the period after 1062 A. D. when T had been crowned king of Kashmir. The second reason is that the सरस्वतीकयठामरय quotes a verse from the चौर पष्चाशिका which, according to Buhler, is the work of Bilhna. Buhler laid too much emphasis on the words तस्मिन् सरो in the राज०. Moreover, a gloss refers the word सः to अनन्त. Further, the authorship of the चौरपम्चाशिका is not beyond the pale of discussion. According to the भोज- , there was a prophecy that Bhoja would reign for 55 years. Bhoja's uncle Munji was slain by Tailapa between 994 and 997 A. D. and Munji was succeeded by his brother सिन्धुराज or सिन्धुल also styled नवसाइसाङ्. An inscription of जयसिंह the succe- ssor of भोज dated संवव् 1112 (1055-56) A.D.) settles this dispute about the date of भोज (vide E. I. vol. III. pp. 46-50 Mindhata plate of जयसिंह of धारा.). It shows that भोज could not have been living beyond 1054 A. D. Bhoja had a very long reign. Other certain dates are those of his grants such as I. A. vol. VI.p. 53 (संवत् 1078). The नत्रसाहसाङ्कचरित was written by order of king सिन्धुराज and speaks of his invasions. So सिन्धुराज must have reigned for some years. Therefore it must be held that भोज came to the throne about 1005 and not earlier. The सर- स्वतीकएठाभरण and शुह्गारप्रकाश must have been composed between 1005-1054, probably towards the close of Bhoja's career i. c. between 1030-1050 A. D. The सरस्वती० contains a verse in praise of मुश्ज 'सौजन्याम्बुनिधे ... शोमन्मञ्ज किमित्यमं जनमुपस्प्रष्टं दृशा नाशसि ।।' (1st परि० कारिका 71 p. 60). The Dhar प्रशस्ति speaks of भजनवर्म (whose dates are 1211, 1213 and 1215 A. D.) as a descendant and avatara of भोज (E. I. vol. VIII. p. 96). The story about Munji's cruel treatment of Sindhuraja and Bhoja set forth in the Bhojiprabindha and in Merutunga's Prabandha-cintamani (pp. 32-36 of Tawney's translation) and the statement that Vakp tiraja was immediately succeed- ed by Bhoja must be treated as mere legendary trash in view of the fact that several inscriptions (such as the Banswara plate, E. I. XI. p. 181 dated aiaq 1076, the Betma plate dated

262 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the same year in E. I. vol. XVIII p. 320, Mandhata plate of जयसिंद of धारा dated संवस् 1112, the plate dated संवद् 1079 in I. H. Q. vol. 8 pp. 305-315 and the Ujjain plate dated samvat 1078, I. A. 6 p. 53 speak of Sindhurāja as succeeding Vakpatiraja with the usual titles of परममट्टारक-महाराजाधिराज- war. Bhoja suffered from a long illness and died in the midst of wars with Bhima, king of Gujarat and Kalacuri -Karna, king of Tripuri (प्रबन्धचिम्तामषि; Tawney's tr. p. 4). The aagida (II. 16-18) narrates Bhoja's defeat by king Bhima and the Vadnagar prasasti of ATTuTa (1151 A.D.) in E. I. vol. I. p. 293 at p. 297 speaks of Dharā being devastated by the cavalry of Bhima. This unhappy state of arr is referred to in the Nagpur Prasasti (E. I. vol. II. pp. 180-191 verse 32). Vide Dr. Ganguly's 'History of the Paramara dynasty' pp. 82-122 for Bhoja and J. I. H. vol. VI. pp. 79-87 for the chronology of the Paramaras of Malva (Mr. Diskalkar). Bhoja was one of the most illustrious kings of ancient and medieval India. He was justly famed as a great patron of poets and literature, as a great builder of temples and as a literary man of no mean achievements. His has been a name to conjure with. The Udepur prasasti of the kings of Malva (E. I. vol. I. p. 222 at p. 235 very finely hits off Bhoja's achievements in a single verse 'साधितं विहितं द्तं ज्ञातं तघन्न केनचित्। किमन्यत्कविराजस्य श्रीभोजस्य प्रशस्यते ।' (he achieved, he laid down, he donated and knew what was not (achieved &c.) by anyone else; what further encomium can be passed on the glorious Bhoja, the poet-king (or prince of poets) ? The aao quoted above speaks of him as कविबान्धव. The सर. कएठा. II. verse 239 (on कारिका 99) contains a reference to भोज himself 'जयजयजय श्रीमन्मोज प्रभाति विभावरी वदवदवद श्रव्यं). विदुननिदं स्वधीयते। मृणुशुरुशण स्वद्स्सूयोडनु रज्यति मरडलं नहिनदिनहि दमामातंएड: वगोन विरज्यते॥.' Bhoja is credited with having composed 84 works on almost all sciences of medieval India by Ajada quoted by Dr. Raghavan in note 2 on p. 5. Dr. Raghavan appears to treat with ridicule those who hold that these works cannot all be the compositions of Bhoja and that several of them must have been composed by those whom Bhoja patronized (pp. 5-6 of Raghavan's vol. I). The analogy of Prof. Keith whom Dr. Raghavan cites has no application and carries no conviction. Prof, Keith was a university Professor not burdened with

KŞEMENDRA 263

much teaching work nor with the cares of Government nor with constant wars as king Bhoji was. Besides, the number of all Keith's works is hardly one-fourth of wht Bhoja is credited with and several of Keith's books are small manuals. Bhoja waged protracted wars with neighbouring kings viz. those of Karnata, of Gujarat and Cedi and also with Turusk's (vide Udepur Prasasti in E. I. vol. I. pp. 230-232). The विक्रमाङ्कदेव- चरित I. 91 says 'प्रमारपृथ्वीपतिकीर्तिधारां धारामुदारां कवलीचकार' (vide Buhler's Intro. on p. 23). The last years of Bhoj were unhappy as stated above. Some of Bhojas's works are very voluminous. He wrote सरस्वतीकएठाभरण (on Poetics and also on Grammar). His समरान्- WHETTIC (about 7000 verses) has been publishrd in the G. O.S. His work on grammar (सरस्वतोकएठाभरण) has been published in the Madras Un. S. Series (1937) and also in Tri. S. Series. In धर्मशार he appears to have composed several works such as भूपालकृत्यसमुच्चय (m. in कृत्यरत्नाकर Pp. 499), भुजबलभीम (quoted in रघुनन्दन'S तिथितर्त्व, संस्कारतत्त्व, श्राद्धतत्त्व), the राजमातण्ड (quot- ed in आह निकतत्त्व). The present author edited from three mss. 286 verses (out of the 1462 of the Rajamartanda) on tithis, vratas and utsavas in ABORI vol. XXXVI parts III-IV pp. 306-339. Vide the present author's paper on 'Bhoja and his works on Dharmasāstra and astrology' in JOR (Madras) vol. 23 pp. 94-127. His युक्तिकल्पतरु has been published at Calcutta by Dr. N. N. Law (1917) and the तत्त्वप्रकाश in the Tri. S. Series. Besides the huge work called शङ्गारप्रकाश he wrote a कथा called शुङ्गारमन्जरी (vide Annals of Venkateshwar O. Institute, vol. II pp. 459-60 and Buhler's reference in E. I. vol. I. pp. 231-232). He wrote राजमार्तएड (on medicine in 418 verses published by Vaidya Jadawji, 1924) and a com. of the same name on the योगसूत्र of पतञ्जलि (published in Kashi S. Series with five other commentaries). The commentary on the सर. क. is called रत्नदर्पण and was composed by महामहोपाध्याय रत्नेश्वर at the instance of king रामसिंहदेव (of Tirhut). He seems to have flourished in the 14th century. The commentary on the first three परिच्छेदs only has been published. The commentary is a learned one and quotes भानन्दवर्धन, the काव्यप्रकाश, चन्द्रगोमिन्, राजरोखर, रुद्रट, लोचनकार, शुज्गार- प्रकाश. He tells us that he wrote a commentary on the काव्यप्रकाश. On theverse 'हा तो जोज्जलदेउ नैग मदन: सापादयं भूतले' (Ist परि०

264 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PORTIOS

कारिका 118, pp. 110-111) the commentator remarks '[ तो' are Marathi words meaning 'srf a:'. There are other commenta- tors who are passed over here. 25 औचित्यविच्यारचर्चा and कविकळ्ाभरण of क्षेमेन. वेमेन्द्र, a Kashmirian, was a voluminouswriter and wrote on a variety of subjects. He wrote the भारतमव्जरी, the बृहत्कथामब्जरी and about forty other works. The राजत० (I. 13) refers to his नृपावलि (राजावलि) which has not yet been found. His contribution to Poctics was meagre and he did not exert any appreciable influ- ence over the Alankarasastra. In his स्षवृत्ततिलक (divided into three विन्यासंs) he makes very interesting remarks upon metres, gives directions as to their employment and points out in what metre certain poets excelled e. g. अभिनन्द in अनुष्टभ्, पाशिनि in उपजाति, भारवि in वंशस्थ, कालिदास in मन्दाक्रान्ता, रत्नाकर in वसन्ततिलक, भवभूति in शिखरिखी, राजशेखर in शादलविक्रोडित. His औचित्यविचारचर्चा (K. M. ed. of 1929) contains kārikās with his own urtti and illustrations taken from numerous authors and works (includ- ing his own). His position is that भौचित्य (appropriateness) is the essence of rasa, 'शचित्यस्य चमत्कारकारिणश्चारुचवये। रसजीवित- भूतस्य विचारं कुरुतेऽधुना' (कारिका 3) and defines शचित्य as 'उचितं प्रादुरा- चार्या: सदृशं किल यस्य यद। उचितस्य च यो भावस्तदौचित्यं प्रचक्षते ।' (7). Then he illustrates औचित्य in connection with पद, वाक्य, प्रबन्धार्थ, गुख (such as भोज:), अलक्कार, रस, क्रिया, कारक, लिङ्, वचन, उपसर्ग, काल, aT and several other matters. His method is to give an appropriate example on each topic and also to cite an inappro- priate one. In the भौचित्य० he simply developes what the ध्वन्या- लोक had laid down (in III. 7-14 and pp. 174-186) and which the o had summarised in the verse 'अनौचित्यादृते नान्यंद्रसभङ्गस्य कारखम्। प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत्परा ॥' (p.180).1 For want of space the numerous authors and works quoted by him are not given here. He quotes परिमल, the कुन्तेश्वरदौत्य of कालिदास, गौडकुम्भकार, भट्मल्लट, भट्टतौत and his own guru भटृगङ्गक.2 In the 1. In the वक्रोकिजीवित also it is stated (in कारिकाs I. 37 and 38, pp. 52-54 of Dr. De's ed.) that भौचित्य is a quality common to all the three margas mentioned by it. यत्र वकुः प्रमातुर्वा वाच्यं शोभातिशायिना। ाच्छाधते स्वभावेन तद्रप्यौचित्यमुच्यते॥ I. 31. रघुवंश 5. 15 and किराताजनीय 8.6 are cited as examples of this verse. 2. There is a com. called सहृदयतोषिणी on the भौचित्यविचार- at published at Madras in 1906. Vide Dr, De's H. S. P. vol.

KSEMENDRA 265

मोभिस्व० he refers to a work of his own called कविकर्णि काकाव्यालद्टार which is not yet found. Whether this is a different work from the कविकयठाभरण is doubtful. His कविकएठाभरय (K.M.ed. of 1937) is divided into five sandhis and has 55 kārikās, the subjects of which are respectively 'तत्राकवेः कवित्वाप्तिः शिक्षा प्राप्तगिर: कवेः। चमत्कृतिश् शिवासी गुयदोषोद्गतिस्ततः ॥ पश्चात्परिचयप्राप्तिरित्येते पश् सन्य: ।' (I.3-4). He divides pupils into three kinds and poets into छयोपजीवी, पदकोप- जीवी, पादोपजीबी, सकलोपजीवी, भुबनोपजीव्य, and gives certain directions to poets about the wws and dosas of काव्य and the study of व्याकरख, तर्क, नाव्य. In कविकक्ठाभरण III. 2 he speaks of ten kinds of चमस्कार (strikingness, रसास्वाद, विस्मय or वक्रत्व). His own works referred to in the two books are भवसरसार, अमृततरङ (काव्य), कनक- जानकी, क विकर्णिका, चतुव्गसंग्रह, चित्रभारतनाटक, देशोपदेश, नीतिलता, पदकाद- म्वरी, बौद्धावदानकल्पलता, मुक्तावलीकाव्य, मुनिमतमीमांसा, ललितरत्नमाला, लावएयवतो (काव्य), वात्स्यायनसुत्रसार, विनयवल्ली, शशिवंश. In the सुपुत- तिलक he quotes a verse of कलश and in the कविकएठा० (5th सन्धि) the ललिताभिधानमहाकाव्य of his pupil भट्टोदयसिंह and quotes a verse of his pupil राजपुत्रलद्तम खादित्य चेमेन्द्र was the son of प्रकाशोन्द्र and grandson of faay. His family was very rich and his father's benefactions were on a lavish scale.1 He wrote many of his works at the instance of one रामयरस्. In the बुहत्कथामब्जरी he tells us that he learnt साहित्य at the feet of अभिनवगुप्त 'श्रुत्वामिनव- गुप्ताख्याव साहित्यं बोधवारिधे: ।'. He was originally a शैव but was converted to the वैष्याव faith in later life by सोमाचार्य. He calls himself ग्यासदास in almost all works. He wrote his समयमातुका in 25th लौकिककाल i. e. 1050 A. D. and the दशावतारचरित in 41 लौकिक era (i. e. 4141) when कलश was ruling (i. e. 1066 A. D.). The भौचित्य and the कवि० were composed by him in the time of king भनन्त ('तस्य श्रीमदनन्तराजनृपतेः काले किलायं कृतः' भौचित्य० and 'राज्ये श्रीमद- नन्तराजनृपतेः काव्योदयोयं कृतः' कवि०. King Ananta ruled in Kashmir from 1028 to 1063 A. D. and crowned his son कलश in 1063.

I. p. 142. Vide Dr. Raghavan on the 'History of aucitya', J. O. R., Madras, vol. VI, pp. 111-134 and 135-162. 1. At the end of the दशावतारचरित verse 2 is : कश्मीरेवु वभूव सिन्वुरधिक: सिन्धोश् निम्नाशयः प्राप्तस्तस्य गुप्रकर्षयशसः पुत्रः प्रकाशेन्द्रताम् । विप्रेन्द्र प्रतिपादितान्नदानवनभूगोसव्कृष्णाजिनः प्रख्यातातिशयस्य तस्य तनयः क्षेमेन्द्र- नामाभवव्।।'. At the end of the भारतमब्जरी (K.M. ed. pp.849-850 verses 3-5) बेमेन्द्र specifies some of the great bencfactions of his father and a few ones at the end of the भौचित्यविचारचर्चा

266 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

मनम्त died in 1081 A. D. at the age of 61. The words of चेमेन्द्र lead one to suppose that the two works .were written while भनन्त was actually reigning. Therefore, केमेन्द्र wrote the two works before 1063 A. D. and his literary activity lay in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the 11th century. As he was a pupil of भमिनव० whose literary activity lay between 980-1020, चेमेन्द्र must have been born about 990 A. D. and died sometime after 1066 A. D. For further information about his works vide Buhler's Kashmir Report (pp. 45-48), JBBRAS vol. 16 (extra No. pp. 5-9) and vol. 16 pp. 167-179 (Peterson on the nfry.), Dr. De in H. S. P. vol. I pp. 142-143, Dr. Surya- kanta's exhaustive paper in Poona Orientalist vol. 17 for 1952 pp. 1. 220 for Ksemendra's life and works and translation of his भौचित्यविचारचर्चा, कविक एठाभरण, and सुवृत्ततिलक. . 26 The काव्यप्रकाश of मम्मट. This far-famed work has been published several times. Here it is the edition with the बालबोधिनी of वामनाचार्य (5th edition of 1933) that is referred to; it was originally published in the B. S. series. In the alankāra literature the r19GTT occupies a unique position. It sums up in itself all the activities that had been going on for centuries in the field of Poetics; while it becomes itself a fountain-head from which fresh streams of doctrines issue forth. Like the शारीरकभाष्य in Vedanta or the महाभाष्य in grammar, the काव्यप्रकाश becomes a starting point for future exegesis and expansion. The great merit of the work is that it combines fulness of treatment with conciseness. In 143 kārikas (often called sutras1) the whole field of Poetics is traversed. The work is divided into ten ullāsas and comprises as usual three parts, the कारिकाs, theवृतति and the examples, all of which are taken from other works (except probably a few simple examples under उपमा, व्यतिरेक &c.). The contents of the work are :- I, the purpose of काव्य, काव्यहेतु, the definition of काव्य, its sub-divisions into उत्तम (where the suggested sense far excels the वाच्य sense), मध्यम and भवम; II. word is वाचक, लाक्षसिक and व्यञ्जक and sense also is वाध्य, लक्ष्य and व्यङ्य; some maintain a fourth sense called aneuard; explanation of these terms and the sub-divisions of

1. The संप्रदायप्रकाशिनी of श्रीविद्याचक्रवर्तिन् (Tri. ed.) speaks of the कारिकाs as सूत्र (vide pp. 7,81); चएबीदास also in his com. calls the 'कारिकाकार सत्रकृत' (p.88).

KĀVYAPRARĀSA 267

शच्षया and व्यम्जना; III. how all kinds of senses may be म्यम्जक and how the function in such cases is व्यम्जना; IV. thetwo varie- ties of ध्वनि viz. भविवचितवाच्य and विवचितान्यपरवाच्य and their sub- divisions, the nature of rasa, of स्थायिभावs, of विभावs and व्यमिचारि- भावs; various theories about rasa; V. the second variety of काव्य viz. गुशीभूतव्यक्ञय and its eight sub-divisions: VI. third kind of काव्य called चित्र (or अधम) and its two varieties, शब्दचित्र and अर्थ- चित्र; VII. the dosas of पद, वाक्य, भर्थ and of rasa and how in some cases what is generally a dosa may lend charm; VIII. distinction between gunas and alankaras and the position that there are only three gunas माधुर्य, भोजसू and प्रसाद; definitions of these; other gunas are included under these or are really the absence of dosas; the combination of certain letters is condu- cive to these gunas; IX. the figures of sabda, viz. ntfas (two varieties, श्लेष and काकु), अनुप्रास्त (छेकानु० and वृत्त्यनु०) and the three पृस्तिs (उपनागरिका, परुषा and कोमला which were designa- ted वैदभी, गौडी and पाब्चाली ritis by Vamana and others), लाटानुप्रास, यमक (with its numerous varieties), श्लेष, चित्र (its varieties such as खङ्बन्ध, मुरजबन्ध), पुनरुकवदाभास; X. sixty-one अलद्दारs of sense; the dosas of MTEK are included under the dosas treated in the 7th उल्लास. It will have been noticed how anz deals with all topics of Poetics except dramaturgy. He casts his net over a wide area. He quotes about 620 verses from other authors to illu- strate his teachings. For want of space it is not possible to set out in detail all the authors and works from which quotations are taken. The following are mentioned by name :- भाचार्याभिनव- गुप्त, कालिदास, कामशाख, उद्धट, ध्वनिकार or ध्वनिकृत, बाय, भट्टनायक, भरत, महाभाष्यकार, मयूर, रुद्रट, लोल्गट, वाक्यपदीय, शङ्कुक, श्रीहष. Among those which are not named are the following :- the works of कालिदास and भवभूति, भमरुशतक, कपरमडजरी, कुट्टनीमत, चरडीशतक, नवसाइसाककचरित, नागानन्द, बालरामायण, भट्ि, भतृहरि, भल्लट, भामह, भास, माघ, रत्नावली, राघवा- नन्द, विज्जका, विद्वशालभन्जिका, विष्णुपुराय, वेखीसंहार, हयग्रीववध, हरविजय. Thought much of waHe's treatment is based upon the works of his predecessors, such as the ध्वन्यालोक, उद्भट, भामह, रुद्रट (frqm whose work about 30 verses are quoted), वामन, अमिनवगुप्त, yet he is a man of independent views and his respect for these ancient authoritics does not preclude him from criticizing them when occasion demands. For example, he strongly criti- cizes (in 9th उल्ास Pp. 516-527) महोडट for the latter's view about

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.

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

KAVYAPRARASA 271

tors such as मासिक्यचन्द्र, जयन्त, सरस्वतीतीर्थ, सोमेश्र makes any disti- nction between the author of the कारिकाs and of the वृस्ति. On the other hand, there are both early and later writers who distinctly ascribe the कारिकs and वृत्ति to the same author. हेमचन्द्र says (in com. on काव्यानुशासन p. 4) 'एवमानन्दयशश्चतुर्वर्गोपायब्युत्प चीना काव्यप्रयोजनतामसाधारणी प्रतिपाध यत्कैश्चिव श्रीहर्षादेघावकादीनामिव धनं ... नर्थ- निवारणं प्रयोजनत्रयमुपन्यस्तम'. It will be noticed that this passage ascribes the कारिका 'काव्यं यशसे etc.' and the वृत्ति thereon to the same person (viz. मम्मट). Similarly, हेमचन्द्र (com. on काव्यानुशासन P.'109) says 'यथाह मम्मटः-भगूढमपरस्याङ etc. (which is उल्वास V.1-2). Here हेमचन्द्र (who wrote his काव्यानु० within about 50 years of मम्मट) distinctly ascribes the कारिकाs to मम्मट. जयरय applies the term काव्यप्रकाशकृत without distinction to the author of the कारिकाड and of the वृत्ति (videpp. 102, 137,150, 199). The प्रतापरुद्रीय speaks of the कारिकाS as काव्यप्रकाश (vide pp.6.90, 225, 236). The चित्रमीमांसा (p. 80) ascribes a कारिका (definition of उत्प्रेक्षा) and an example thereon to काव्यप्रकाशिकाकार. The रसगङ्गाधर (p.30) ascri- bes the कारिकाs to मम्मटभट्ट. जयराम (in his तिलक), भीमसेन inसुषा सागर (p. 4. Ch. S. S.), गोपाल in साहित्यचूडामणि (p. 4, Tri. ed.), and कमलाक रभट्say that the कारिकाकार and वृत्तिकार are the same person. Therefore, मम्मट must be held to be the author of the karikas also. We find at the end of the काव्यप्रकाश a verse which has been interpreted in two ways even by the earliest comentators, viz. 'इत्येष मार्गो विदुर्षा विभिन्नोप्यभिन्नरूपः प्रतिभासते यत्। न तद्विचितं यदमुत्र सम्थग्विनिर्मिता सङटनैव हेतु: ।।'. The earliest known commentator माशिक्यचन्द्र remarks 'अथ चायं प्रन्योऽन्येनारग्घोऽपरेण च समर्थित इति दिख- यडोपि सङ्टनावशादखएडायते'. The काव्यप्रकाशसङ्केत (Peterson's 2nd Report p. 13 and Cal. O. J. vol. II ed. by Prof. S. P. Bhatta- charya) says: 'एतेन महामतीनां प्रसरणहेतुरेष अ्रन्थो अ्न्थकृतानेन कथमाप्यसमा- प्तत्वादपरेय च पूरितावरोषत्वात् दिखएडोपि etc. सोमेश्रर also says "अय च सुधियां विकासहेतुग्रन्थोयं कथंचिदपूर्णत्वादन्येन पूरितरोष इति दिखएडोपि &c." The काव्यप्रकाशनिदर्शन of राजानकानन्द (written in 1665 A. D.) tells us that मम्मट composed the work up to परिकर and the rest was completed by अलक, 'यङुकं-कृतः श्रीमम्मटाचार्यव्ये: परिकरावधिः। प्रबधः पूरितः शेषो विधायालकसरिया॥ अन्येनाप्युक्तम् -काव्यप्रकारादशकोपि निगन्धकप्या दाम्यां कृतोपि कृतिनां रसतस्वलाभ:। etc.' (vide JBBRAS vol. 16 extra

Prof. Divekar's suggestion as stated by Dr. De and r-rr is not a serious matter as the न्याय quoted above (p. 255 n. 1) 'यस्य येनार्थसम्बन्धो ...... मानन्तर्यमकारयम्' shows.

272 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

No. 23). The colophons at the end of the first and 10th chap. of the काव्यप्रकाशसक्केत are 'इति श्रीमद्राजानकामल्लमम्मटरचक विरचिते निजग्रन्थ- काव्यप्रकाशसक्टेते प्रथम उल्लासः' and 'कृती राजानक मम्मटालकरुचकानाम्' (vide Peterson's 2nd Report p. 14). A ms. of the काव्यप्रकाश dated daa 1215 (i. e. 1158 A. D.) described by prof. S. R. Bhandar- kar (Report on tour for 1905-6 p. 79) has the colophon 'ct राजानकमम्मटालकयोः'. This joint authorship of the काव्यप्रकाश is referred to by अर्जुनवमदेव in his commentary on the भमरुशतक. He says (on verse 30 of K.M. ed. भवतु विदितं p. 29) 'यथोदाहतं दोष- नियये मम्मटालकाभ्यां प्रसादे वर्तस्व etc. (vide काव्यप्र. p.438). In another place (on verse 72 of अमर 'लीलातामर साहतो०' p. 55) he remarks 'अत्र केचिद्ायुपदेन जुगुप्साश्ठीलमिति दोषमाचचते ... तदा वाग्देवतादेश इति व्यवसितग्य पवासौ। किं तु ल्ावंकमयीवरलब्धप्रसादी काव्यप्रकाशकारी प्रायेण दोषटृष्टी etc.' For the verse लीलाताम, vide काव्यप्रकाश (p. 278). भर्जुनवमदेव was 13th in succession from भोज of धारा and his inscriptions range from 1211 to 1216 A. D. Therefore, in about a hundrad and fifty years मम्मट came to be regarded as an avatara of सरस्वती. It further follows from the words of भजुन० that भलक had a hand not only in the 10th but also in the 7th agra. It is pro- bable that having known by tradition that wa was associat- ed with the composition of the काव्यप्रकाश, भजुन० ascribes to him the authorship of the whole work. Dr. H. R. Divekar (in JRAS 1927 pp. 505-520) puts forward certain grounds and holds that #az composed only the karikas up to the figure called Parikara and the remaining kārikas and the whole of the vrtti were composed by Alaka. His reasons are in some cases subjective and all af them are unconvincing. Most mss. read the name as wors, but Dr. Stein remarks 'In order to co- mplete the case. for sige as the name of the continuator of the Kāvyaprakāsa, it suffices for me to point out that this form of the name is the only one known to the tradition of the Kashmirian pandits, to whom the double authorship of the Kāvyaprakāśa is otherwise perfectly familiar' (vide Cat. of Jammu mss. p. XXIII-XXVI). Col. Jacob, therefore, thinks that waz is the correct form and not we (JRAS for 1897 p. 282). I would attach more importance to ancient mss. than to the traditions of modern pandits (one of the mss. which gives the name as sicra is so old as 1158 A.D.). Vide Gode, vol. I. pp. 234-238 where the colophon of the mss. is dated संबत् 1215 आश्िन सुदि १४ इुष (i. e. Wednesday 8th October 1158)

RĀVYAPRAKĀSA 273

and says 'कृती राजानकमम्मटालकयोः । ... अयहिल्वपाटके ... शाकम्भरिभूंपाल-श्री- कुमारपालदेव-कल्याणविजय &c.' कुमारपाल ruled from 1142 to 1173 A. D. अलक would be as good a Kashmirian name as मल्लट or भलट. We have such well-known Kashmirian names as कुन्तक, शाङ्कुक, लङ्डक, मङ्गक that end in क, to match with रुद्रट, मम्मट, कल्लट, w8e etc. Vide my note in I. A. for 1911 p. 209 on the subject.1 The सम्प्रदायप्रकाशिनी of विद्याचक्रवर्तिन् (Tri. ed.) says on the last verse इत्येष० 'मन्मथग्रन्थरोषं परिपूरितवतोयमलर्कस्य स्वापेक्षः श्लोक' (part II p. 449). Whether the अलकदत्त ((styled सान्धिविग्रहिक by जोनराज), who imparted instruction in Poetics to कल्याय (probably कल्हय, the author of the राजतर०), as said in the श्रीकएठचरित of मङ्ट (25. 78-80), is identical with this era, it is difficult to say. About the personal history of yrHz we know practically nothing. भीमसेन in his सुधासागर (Ch. S. S.) says that मम्मट was the elder brother of both कैयट (author of महाभाष्यप्रदीप) and उवट (author of भाष्य on ऋकुप्रातिशाख्य), that he was the son of जैयट and, though born in Kashmir, studied at Benares and taught his brothers. But this account furnished by an author who wrote six senturies after #rqz (in 1672-73 A. D.) seems to be more or less fanciful and based probably on the similarity of sounds in the three names. We know from उवट's भाष्य on the भक्प्रातिशासय that he was a son of बञ्रट (and not of जैयट) and a native of आानन्दपुर. उवट wrote his वाजसनेयसंहिताभाष्य while भोज was reigning (भोजे राज्यं प्रशासति). There is therefore nothing improbable in

1. In Z. D. M. G. vol. 66 pp. 477-490 on 'two authors of the Kavyaprakasa' Sukthankar shows that the portion after परिकर in काव्यप्रकाश X follows रुद्रट very closely, while the portion up to परिकर does not and that in the latter part of Ullasa X six examples are cited from the नवसाइसाकचरित while not one is cited from that poem in the first part of arrg. X. One curious coincidence may be noted. In I. A. vol. 58 for 1929 p. 161 there is an inscription of the time of Allata, king of Mewar, dated in samvat 1010 wherein one qaHz is referred to as qaer. Hence it follows that these names were not restri- cted to Kashmir. In the Harsha stone Ins. of चाइमान विग्रहराज (E. I. vol. II. p. 116 at p. 122) about 970A.D. a पाशुपत named भल्ट alias भावरक occurs.

274 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PORTIOS

मम्मट being a brother of उवट, but he cannot then be the brother of कयट, whose father was जैयट. The Kashmirian pandits say that मम्मट was the maternal uncle of शरीहर्ष, the author of the नैष- भीय (Buhler's K. Report p.68). मम्मट was a man of great eru- dition and vast reading. He seems to have been a profound student of grammar also. He quotes the महाभाष्य and the वाक्य- पदीय, places the divisions of उपमा on a grammatical basis, takes क्रिया in the sense of हेतु (in the definition of विभावना), follows the views of grammarians about the सक्केत of words (जात्यादि:), speaks of the grammarians as learned men par excellence. He wrote another work called शब्दव्यापारविचार (published by Nirņaya-sagar Press). In chat work he discusses in greater detail the subject of his 2nd उल्लास (viz. अभिधा and लक्षणा). He was styled ta, which is a title borne by Kashmirian brah- manas even now. It means 'almost a king'. Vide राजतर० (VI. 261) 'राभ्ी कृतश्भावेन सापि मन्त्रिक्षभान्तरे। तमाजुहाव निर्दोहं स्वयं राजानका- क्यया।'. मम्मट became the most popular writer on Poetics throughout India, as the large number of commentaries (about 75 yet discovered) testifies. मम्मट quotes अमिनवगुप्त (who was still living in 1015 A. D.) and नवसाइसाकचरित (composed about 1005 A. D.). He also refers to the liberality of भोज to learned men (यदिद्द्भवनेषु भोज- नृपतेस्तस्यागलीलायितं on उद्ास). Even if this verse was composed during afra's life-time, it must have been composed towards the latter part of his life, as it would take some years before his fame spread abroad. It was shown above that भोज could not have ruled beyond 1054 A. D. Hence the काव्यप्रकाश is not most probably earliar then 1050 A.D. हेमचन्द्र wrote his काव्या- नुशासन about 1143 A.D. and mentions मम्मट (vide p. 271 above). The काव्यप्रकाश was commented upon by माषिक्यचन्द्र in his सद्टेत in संवद् 1216 (i.e. 1159-1160A.D.) and a ms. of the work is dated aiaq 1215 (i ... 1158). Vide Prof. Gode in J. O. R:, Madras, vol. 13 p. 49 about the date of the ms. It will be established below that the अलक्कारसवंस्व refers to the काव्यप्रकाश and the काव्यप्रकारसक्टेत refers to previous commentaries on the HAT (pp. 3 and 5 of text in Cal. O. J. vol. II). Therefore, the ERT was composed at all events before 1100 A. D. Hence the date of the काव्यप्रकाश lies between 1050 and 1100 A. D. Among the numerous commentaries, those of माणिस्यचन,

KĀVYAPRAKĀŠA 275

सोमेश्वर, सरस्वतीतीर्थं and जयन्त deserve special mention as being amongst the earliest ones. The काव्यप्रकाशसद्केत of रचक was edited by Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya in the Calcutta Oriental Journal vol. II. pp. 1-75 with valuable English notes and the com. on 10th Ullasa by Prof. Sukthankar at the end of his edi- tion of a part of the काव्यप्रकाश. The com. (called प्रदीप) of गोविन्दठक्कुर is a very learned one. He flourished probably in the 15th century. Except the Bhagavadgita there is hardly any other work in classical Sanskrit that has so many commentaries1 on it. 27 The अलकारसर्वस्व of रय्यक. This is a standard work on figures of speech. The author is a staunch advocate of the dhvani school and briefly summarises the views of Bhamaha, Udbhata, Rudrata, Vamana, the वक्रोकिजीवित, व्यक्तिविवेक and ध्वनिकार on the essence of Poetry. He then deals with पुनरकव- दाभास, छेकानुप्रास, वृत्यनुप्रास, यमक, लाटानुप्रास, चित्र and about 75 figures of अर्थ beginning with उपमा. He defines more figures than मम्मट and his treatment (in the 86 sutras and the वृत्ति thereon) is generally more elaborate than that of the latter. The edition here referred to is the K. M. one of 1939 A. D. He adds a few figures such as परिणाम, रसवत्, प्रेयः, ऊजस्व्रि, समाहित, भावोदय, भावसन्धि and भावशबल to those defined by मम्मट and gives two altogether new figures, viz. विकल्प (pp. 198-200, as he himself says पूर्वेरकृतविवेकोत्र दर्शित इत्यवगन्तव्यम्) and विचित्र (Pp. 168- 169, about which जयरथ says 'एतद्धि ग्रन्थकृतैवाभिनवत्वेनोक्तम्). My notes to the साहित्यदर्पण will show how विश्वनाथ was indebted to the अलक्वारसर्वस्व and received inspiration from it. The same may be said of the एकावली, कुवलयानन्द and other works. The work is divided into three parts; first come the sūtras (in prose) defining the figures, then the vrtti and the examples, all of which are cited from previous works. Among the authors and works quoted or referred to the following deserve attention :- 1. कमलाकर (who wrote the निर्यायसिन्धु in 1612 A. D.) says in his टीका on the काव्यप्रकाश 'काव्यप्रकारो टिप्पयायः सहस्र सन्ति यथपि। ताभ्यस्त्वस्या विरोषो य: पशिडतः सोऽवधार्यताम्॥ (D. C. ms. No. 429 of 1895-1900 described in Govt. mss. at B. O. R. I. cat. vol. XII. P. 129). महेश्वर in his भावार्थचिन्तामणि remarks 'काव्यप्रकाशस्य कृता गृहे गृहे टीका तथाप्येष तथैव दुर्गमः। सुखेन विज्ञातुमिमं य ईहते धीरः स पर्ता निपुयं विलोकताम्।।'.

276 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

अलट्टारमजरी (p. 18), उद्धट, विल्हय's विक्रमाक्कदेवचरित (p.150, two verses I. 11-12), भामह (228), वामन (p. 160), श्रीकयठस्तव (p. 23 four verses quoted), श्रीकएठचरित of मङ्, हरिश्चन्द्रचरित (p.130). He frequently cites the views of उद्ट (pp.156,219,239,256) and जयरथ (p.158) tells us that the author of the सर्वस्व generally follows the views of राजानकतिलक who wrote a work called उद्धट- विवेक or-विचार (pp.146, 257). In one place (p. 151) he differs from the धवन्यालोक (p. 136) in not regarding the verse 'स वक्तुम- खिलाष्शक्तो हयग्रीवाश्रितान्गुखान्। योम्बुकुम्भैः परिच्छेदं कतु शक्तो महोदयेः।' as an example of आत्ेपध्वनि. He finds fault with the लोचन (52) for citing 'कि वृत्तान्तैः परगृहगतैः' &c. as an example of व्याजस्तुति (p. 144). The अलं. स. quotes the काव्यप्रकाश in several places and also criticises the latter. For example, the सर्वस्व (p.136) cites the verse 'राजन्राजसुता न पाठयति मां देव्योपि तू्ष्णी स्थिता :... चित्रस्थान- वलोक्य शून्यवलभावेककमाभाषते' as an example of पर्यायोक्त and remarks 'अन्ये तु दएडयात्रोदतं त्वां बुद्ध्वा त्वदरयः पलाय्य गता इति कारणरूपस्यैवार्थस्य प्रस्तुतत्वात्कार्यरूपोर्थोडप्रस्तुत एव राजशुकवृत्तान्तस्याप्रस्तुतत्वात्प्रस्तुतार्थ प्रति स्वात्मानं समर्पयतीत्यप्रस्तुतप्रशंसैवात्र न्याय्येति वर्णयन्ति'. The काव्यप्रकाश cites the verse as an instance of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा and makes the same remarks as in 'अन्ये तु etc'. The सर्वस्व (p. 130) quotes the verse 'अलक्का- रोजथ वस्त्वेव शब्दाधत्रावभासते। प्रधानत्वेन स ज्ञेय: शब्दशक्त्युद्गवो दिया ।' as a न्याय. This is a कारिका of the काव्यप्र. (4th उल्लास p. 128). On p. 230 the सवस्व says "अत एव 'प्रत्यक्षा एव ('इव' in समुद्रबन्ध) यत्रार्थाः क्रियन्ते भूतभाविनः । तङ्गाविक्रम्' इत्येवमन्यैर्भाविकलक्षयमकारि"; this is the defini- tion of भाविक in the काव्यप्र०. On p. 250 the सर्वस्व says 'शब्दालक्कार- सङ्करस्तु कैशिदुदाहतो यथा-राजति तटीयमभिहत ... सारा वनदा। अत्र यमकानुलोम- प्रतिलोमयोः शब्दालक्कारयो: परस्परापेव्षत्वेनाभ्गाभिसङ्कर इति। एततु न सम्यगावर्जकम्। - सटिस्त्वत्र श्रेयसी'. The काव्यप्र. cites the verse राजति तटी० as an exa- mple of शब्दालक्गारसक्कर (with the words 'अत्र यमकमनुलोमप्रतिलोमश्च चित्रमेद: पाददयगते परस्परापेे' p. 759. On p. 255 the सर्वस्व remarks 'भत एव व्यवस्थितत्वमन्यानुभाषितमप्रयोजनकम्'; this clearly refers to the words of the कारिका 'स्फुटमेकत्र विषये शब्दार्थालक्कतिद्वयम्। व्यवस्थितं च (काव्यप्. X. p. 765). On p. 256 the सर्वस्व asserts that आाश्रयाश्रयि- भाव is the determining principle as to whether a particular अल- शार is शब्दालक्कार or भर्थालक्गार (लोकवदाश्रयाश्रयिभावश्च तत्तदलक्कारनिबन्धनम्। अन्वयव्यतिरेकी तु तस्कार्यत्वे प्रयोजकौ) and not भन्वयव्यतिरेकौ; while मम्मट takes the opposite view; similarly, on p. 4 the सर्वस्व quotes 'स्वसिद्ये पराचेप: etc.' which occurs in the काव्यन. (II. p. 43). It may be conceded that the quotation by रय्यक of कारिकाs that

RUYYAKA 277

occur in the काव्यप्रकाश is not conclusive as to the priority of the काग्यप्र. over रुय्यक ; for, some of the कारिकाs in the काव्यप्र. are borrowed from others. Still, there are other passages from the वृत्ति in the काव्यप्र. quoted above, which are conclusive on this point. Vide also विमर्शिनी (pp. 189, 204). It is further to be noted that the definitions of several अलक्दारs are the same in both काव्यप्र. and अलं. स. e. g. चित्र, काव्यलिक, व्याजोक्ति, उत्तर, मीलित, समाधि and that about 76 illustrations are the same in the 10th gra of मम्मट and in the सर्वस्व. About the authorship of the तृत्ति in the अलक्कारसवस्व a very perplexing question arises. In the K. M. edition the first verse reads 'निजालारसूत्राणां वृत्त्या तात्पर्यमुच्यते ।'. जयरथ who flou- rished within about 75 years of रुय्यक commented upon the words निजालक्कार &c .; hence according to him रय्यक is the author of the वृत्ति also. Later writers also regard रुचक (or रुय्यक) as the author of the वृत्ति. For example, the रत्नापण says 'तदुककं रुचकेन एषार्थाश्रयापि धर्मविषये क्रिष्टशब्दहेतुका क्वचिद्दृश्यते' (p. 393: this occurs on p. 72 of सर्वस्व): 'न चेदं विषमाधमेदेन्तर्भवति। इह हि स्वनिषेधो वैपरीत्यं गमयति विषमे तु व्यत्यय इति भेदस्य रुचकेनोक्त्तत्वात्' (p.425; this is सर्वस्व p. 168); काव्य- ग्रहयं त्कव लक्षएयार्थम् । तेन व्याप्तिपक्षध्मतादयो न क्रियन्ते इति रुचकः' (p. 448; this is on p. 181 of सर्वस्त्र); चित्रमीमांसा (p. 72) 'ये तु उद्धिन्नवस्तुनिगूहनं व्याजोक्ति :.. तेषामिहापि व्याजोक्तिरेव नापहूनुतिरिति रुचकादयः' (vide अलं. स. p. 219). But a ms. described in Burnell's Tanjore cat. (p. 54) reads the first verse as गुवलक्कारसूत्राणां वृत्त्याo. The Triva- ndrum edition of the सर्वस्व with the commentary of समुद्रबन्ध reads the first verse similarly and adds at the end of the work the verse 'इति मङखुको वितेने काश्मीरक्षितिपसान्धिविग्रहिकः । सुकविमुखालक्कारं तदिदमलक्कारसवस्वम् ॥'. The com. of समुद्रवन्ध ends with the words 'मङ्खुकनिबन्धविवृतौ विहितायामिह समुद्रबन्धेन' and in several other places (p. 2 कदाचिन्मङखुकोपशं and p. 4 'व्यक्तिविवेक काराभिमतस्त्वनुमानपत :... मङखुकस्य पूर्वपत्षत्वेनाप्यनभिमत इत्याहु:) ascribes the urtti to मङ्खुक. मक्खुक is an incorrect form of मङ्गक. We know from the श्रीकएठचरित (25. 26-30) of मङ्ग that रुय्यक was the teacher of मङ्ग or मङ्तक (III. 63 and 72 for the form मङ्गक and I. 56 for मङ्ग) and the राजतरद्विणी says that awas made minister for peace and war by king जयसिंह of काश्मीर 'सान्धिविग्रहिको मङ्ककाख्योलक्वारसोदरः। स मठस्याभवतपष्ठः श्रीकएठस्य प्रतिष्ठया ।' (VIII. 3354). Vide श्रीकरठचरित III. 66 also. Therefore, it appears that a tradition arose in southern India that मक्कक had a hand in the अलक्धारसवस्व. For several reasons this tradition must be discarded. Except age,

278 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

hardly any writer ascribes the वृत्ति to मङ्गक.1 On the contrary, even such south Indian writers as कुमारस्वामी (vide रत्नापय pp.393, 396, 425. 448) and TTaTa (pp. 251, 342-43, 352, 482) ascribe both the sutras and the urtti to the same author. Besides pa, who was himself a very learned Kashmirian and flourished in the first quarter of the 13 century, distinctly ascribes the urtti to the author of the sutras. aa4 wrote about 1300 A. D. and is much later than जयरथ. It is probable that मङ्गक, who was a pupil of 5, took great pains to spread the fame of his master's work and in editing it afresh made some additions. It is probably in this way that a few verses from the श्रीकएठ- चरित of मझ (II. 49 on p. 25, and V. 23, VI.16 and X.10 on pp. 114-115) got into the अलं. स. (i. e. the master appears to quote from his pupil's work). That the afu came to be ascrib- ed to Hao is probably due to the fact that quotations from the श्रीकगठचरित occur in it. That unauthorised additions and alterations were made in the vrtti is attested by जयरथ who frequenely complains about the corruptions that crept into the text and about the tampering with the text itself (vide pp. 63, 85, 137, 158, 160); vide also JOR (Madras) vol. XXVI (1956- 57) pp. 40-52 for papers on the 'authorship of the Alankāra- sarvasva' by Mr. S. Venkitasubramonia Iyer, and pp. 53-54 (of the same) by Dr. V. Raghavan. According to the colophona of a ms. of the सहदयलीला, रुचक is another name of रुय्यक, who was the son of राजानकतिलक (vide Pischel's Intro. to शभ्ारतिलक pp. 28-29). जयरथ is positive (p. 130) that the काव्यप्रकाशसक्केत (ascribed to रुचक) was the work of the author of the अलक्ारसर्वस्व. This statement coming from a Kashmirian writer who flourished within less than a century of the स्वस्व is very valuable and should be accepted. The काव्यप्रकाशसङ्केत itself says that the author learnt poetics under facin (vide p. 139 note above). Later writers frequently use

1. But the following passage from the चित्रमीमांसा (p.10) is noteworthy 'कि तु श्लेतस्यालक्कारान्तरविविक्तविषयाभावेन निरवकाशतया मलवर्वेन ... श्लेष एव नोपमेति मङ्गकादिभिरम्युपेयते'. Vide p. 126 of सर्वस्व for this view. 2. The colophon runs 'कृतिः श्रीविपश्चिद्वरराजानकतिलकातमजश्री·

RUYYAKA 279

the form रुचक (vide रत्नापण pp. 393, 396) Instead of the name अलक्भारसर्वस्व many writers use the shorter form सर्वस्व (रत्नापण pP. 424, 449, 452, रसगङ्गाघर pp. 220, 227 355, चित्रमीमांसा p.98). The sutras as well as the urtti are often referred to as अलक्कारसवस्व or सर्वस्व; vide एकावलीतरल (pp. 136, 146, 237), प्रतापरुद्० p. 291, रस्नापस (pp.341,452). The भलं. स. was translated into German by Jacobi in Z. D. M. G. vol. 62. Besides the अलङ्कारसवस्व, रुय्यक wrote the following works :- 1, अलक्कारानुसारिणी (mentioned by जयरथ on pp. 44, 73, 76); 2, काव्यप्रकाशसक्केत (p. 130 of विमर्शिनी); 3, नाटकमीमांसा; 4, व्यक्तिविवेक- विचार; 5, श्रीकएठस्तव (vide अलं. स. p. 23 'उदाहरयं मदीये श्रीक एठस्तवे'); 6, सहृदयलीला; 7, साहित्यमीमांसा; 8, हर्षचरितवार्तिक. About the last two the अलं. स. says (p' 77) 'एषा (उत्प्रेक्षा) च समस्तोपमाप्रतिपादक- विषयेपि हर्षचरितवार्तिके साहित्यमीमांसायां च तेषु तेषु प्रदेशेषूदाहता। इह तु अन्थ- विस्तरभयान्न प्रपञ्चिता'. जयरथ (p.16) distinctly ascribes the com.on the व्यक्तिविवेक to रुय्यक 'वाच्यस्य प्रतीयमानेन तादात्म्यतदुत्पत्यमावादि नेह प्रतन्यत इति व्यक्तिविवेकविचारे हि मयवैतद्वितत्य निर्णीतमिति भाव:'. The com. on the व्यक्तिविवेक (Trivandrum ed. p. 44) claims the हर्षचरितवार्तिक as a work of the author 'एतदस्माभिषृषंचरितवार्तिके विस्तृत्य प्रतिपादितम्'. Vide p. 50 also for the same statement. In the same work (p. 32) the नाटकमीमांसा and साहित्यमीमांसा are said to be the author's works. Aufrecht (C. C. p. 32 b) says that the अलंकारानुसारिणी is a commentary on the सोमपालविलास of जहण, rel- ying upon the remarks of रत्नकरठ (1681 A. D.) on स्तुतिकुसुमाब्जलि (VIII. 19 तथाहि कविवरजहणकृते सोमपालविलासे ... अस्यार्थः श्रीराजनकरुचक- विरचितायामलक्कारानुसारिगां etc.). But the remarks of जयरथ show that the अलक्कारानुसारिणी wis an independent work on भलक्कार, containing a dissertation on the 48 varieties of प्रतीयमानोरप्रेक्षा, on मालारूपक etc. A mere commentary on another work is hardly likely to contain such dissertations. The ग्यक्तिविवेकविचार (p.45) shows that the author contemplated writing a work called बहती. This last, if actually completed, whould be his tenth work. The सहृदयलोला (published in K. M. series and by Pischel at Kiel in 1886) is a brief work divided into four aetras called गु, अलक्गार, जीवित and परिकर. The first उल्लेख describes the ten gunas, रूप, वर्ण, प्रभा etc. of charming ladies; the 2nd speaks of the various kinds of ornaments (of gold, pearl, stones) etc., unguents, flowers worn by women; the third speaks of youth, that is the very essence of charm; and the last briefly refers to the paraphernalia that sets off beauty to advantage.

280 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

In the Tri. S. Series a work callad साहित्यमीमांसा was published in 1934, the edition being based on a single ms. although a fragment of another ms. from Tanjore was also available for comparison. The editor points out that in several places there are gaps and lacunae. The work is a large one. It is in the form of kārikas, a vrtti in prose and illustrations. Unfortunately the name of the author is not given either at the beginning or at the end. About six hun- dred verses are quoted from numerous sources in this work, out of which one hundred are prakrit. It is divided into eight prakaranas, the first and last being very brief (about two printed pages each). A brief summary is given here. I. Salutation of vacya and vacaka (which stand for Para and Apara Brahma), enumeration of the topics to be discussed in the work viz. eight topics of वृत्ति, विवक्षा, तात्पर्य, प्रविभाग, व्यपेक्षण, सामर्थ्यं, अन्वय, ऐकार्थ्य (these eight are called साहित्य); 4 topics that set off साहित्य (i. e. साहित्यपरिष्कार) viz. दोषत्याग, गुखाधान, अलक्कारयोग and रसान्वय; four kinds of कवि viz. सत्कवि, विदग्धकवि, भरोचकिकवि, सतृखाभ्यवहारककवि; three kinds of रसिक viz. उत्तम, मध्यम, अधम (i. e. सात्त्विक, राजस and तामस); II. definition of वृत्ति (as पदानां व्यापारः), which is three-fold मुख्या, लक्षणा, गौणी; definitions of these three; definitions of विवक्षा, प्रविभाग (into प्रकृति and प्रत्यय, वाक्य, महावाक्य), व्यपेक्षण (आकांता), सामर्थ्य (भेद, संसर्ग and उभय), अन्वय (परस्परग्रथन), ऐेकार्थ्य (एकवाक्यता) and their examples; these eight constitute साहित्य (साहित्य is language and grammar and not poetics), diffe- rence between साहित्य and काव्य (the latter is साहित्य with four परिष्कारs, दोषत्याग &c.); III. Dosas, six of पद viz. अप्रयुक्त, ग्राम्य, भसमर्थ, भनर्थक, साधारण, प्रसिद्धार्थ (?); विरुद्ध of various kinds is defined and illustrated (there is loss of a page or two); IV Guņas of काव्य, शब्दगुखs being बाह्य and अरथगुखs being आभ्यन्तर; ten गुरs (श्लेष प्रसाद: समता माधुर्ये सुकुमारता। अर्थव्यक्तिरुदारत्वमोज: कान्तिसमाधयः ॥)1; their definitions and illustrations; V defininition of अलक्कार (काव्ये शोभाकरान धर्मानलक्कारान्प्रचक्षते ।, which is काव्यादर्श II. 1); difference between गएs and अलक्कारS; अलङ्कारso शब्द are अनुप्रास, क्रम, श्लेष, मुद्रा, दोपक, युक्ति, पठिती, गुम्फना, चित्र, यमक; their definitions and exampl- es; लाटानुप्रास; the three वृक्तिs called परुषा, उपनागरिका and कोमला; अलक्वारs of अर्थ are उपमा, रूपक, उत्प्रेक्षा, व्यतिरेक, विभावना, अपर्नुति, भ्रम, साम्य, संशय, सक्कर; definitions and illustrations; other भलक्वारs are 1. This very verse is काव्यादर्श I. 41.

RUYYAKA 281

included in these or are to be dealt with under वक्रोकि; VI1 Rasa, its causes (bija), nature, co-operating elements (सहकारि) and whatever else is useful for the elucidation of Rasa are dealt with here; भावs are प्रधान and अप्रधान; प्रधानभाव are the eight called स्थायिनः, अप्रधानभावs are वाद्य (eight called साखिविक) and 33 भाम्यन्तर (called व्यभिचारियः); enumeration of these, their definitions and examples; Rasa expounded; eight rasas enume- rated by the ancients; Sānta rasa enumerated by some, its स्थायिभाव being धृति; some add three more rasas; शुक्गार of two sorts सम्भोग and विप्रलम्भ; difference between विप्रलम्भ and करुण; other rasas; the four रीतिs वैद्भी, आवन्ती, पाव्चाली, गौडी and their appropriateness to the several rasas; the ritis लाटी and मागचिका resemble these four; the वृत्तिs कैशिकी, भारती, सात्वती and भारभटी and their employment in the several rasas; संस्कृत and प्राकृत and अ्प- भ्रंश; twenty modes of वक्रोक्ति; समासोक्ति, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, सहोक्ति and several others are varieties of वक्रोक्ति; there is वक्रत्व in ध्वनि, वर्ष, पद (पूर्वार्ष and प्रत्यय), वाक्य, प्रकरण and प्रबन्ध; enumeration of the 36 लक्षय and illustrations of the first three of them; VII The fourfold equipment of the poet (शमः सर्वकलावीक्षा नियोगस्त- स्य शीलनम् । स क्लेशः करयोदोगः प्रतिभा भास्वती मतिः। प्रज्ञा नवनवोन्मेष- शालिनी प्रतिभेति वा।); कवि is four kinds, सत्कवि who wields वैदर्भी style (such as वाल्मीकि and कालिदास), विदग्धकवि who is bent on वक्रोक्ि (such as व्यास and बाख), अरोचकिकवि who sticks to अर्थालक्वारS (such as माघ and भारवि), सतृाभ्यवहारककवि who writes in the Gaudi style and is after श्लेष, चित्र and यमक (such as शिवभद्र);8 conventions ( कविसमयs) ; certain directions to poets such as not employing words like खलु, बत, हन्त at the beginning of a पाद, a short vowel at the end of a pada being generally regarded as guru

1. The 6th and 7th प्रकर खs are the longest, covering pp. 54-118 and 119-159 respectively. 2. The first 7 verses of chapter 16 of the नाव्यशाख (G. O. S. edition) in which the लक्षयs are enumerated in the उपजाति metre are quoted here and the illustrations are the same that the अभिनवभारती gives. 3. वामन (I. 2.1-3) speaks of कविs as भरोचक्िन: and सतृया- भ्यवहारिय: Vide काव्यमीमांसा p. 14 for a discussion about these two and the addition of two more मत्सरिख: and तत्वामिनिवेशिन: by राजरोसर.

282 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

though not always' (like वामन V. I. 3-5); some examples of words employed in the Veda, in Pāņini, Vārtika and Bhāşya, Nirukta, sūtras, smrtis that are to be employed by poets; the usage of sistas like Kālidāsa and Bāņa is to be followed; modes of address for characters in dramas; characteristic des- criptions of the ladies of several countries and their complexi- ons; pravrttis called भावन्त्य, दात्षिर्खात्य, पौरस्त्य and भोड्रमागध; various festivals and sports of different countries and in different seasons; the six pramānas; VIII. The reader who relishes kavya secures the highest pleasure (ईदृशं भावयन् काव्यं रसिक: परमं सुखम। प्राप्नोति कालवैषम्याद्गुरतस्त्रिविधोपि सन् ॥।); the Veda (in Rg. X. 71. 2 सक्तुमिव०) and the Uttararamacarita भाविभतज्योतिषा IV. 18) state that the most auspicious glory resides in the words of poets and unparallelled pleasure is the reward of revolving the meaning of a good poem in the mind. Among the authors and works expressly named are अक्षपाद, अनर्घराघव, उत्तररामचरित, कादम्बरी, कालिदास, काल्यायन (p. 108), जैमिनि, धनदत्त (p.94), बाख, भगवदज्जुक (p. 72), भवभूति (p. 54 भव- भूतिः श्मशानाक्के जगाद रसिकप्रभुः), भामह (p. 89), भारवि, भोजराज, महावीर- चरित, माघ, मालतीमाधव, वक्रोक्तिकार (p.117), वामन (p. 32), वाल्मीकि, विन्ध्यवासिन (p. 43), वेसीसंहार, व्यास, शिवभद्र (p. 120). Among those not named are the following; more than a dozen defi- nitions and illustrations are quoted from the काव्यादर्श. Similarly, about a dozen definitions and examples are quoted from 3Re's भलक्कारसारसंग्रह. After quoting the first two verses of उद्दट's work the commentary of प्रतोहारेन्दुराज also is quoted 'पुनरुक्त ... कैश्चिदुपाहता इति पठित्वा एवमाचार्या व्याचक्ते अ्त्ालक्वारा ... र्थालक्वारता-इति' (p. 39). On p. 54 the verse विरुद्धरविरु ... याकरः is quoted from दशरूप (IV. 34). On p. 51 two verses and a half (अपहनुतिर० ... कथ्यते) are quoted from the सरस्वतीकएठाभरण (IV. 41-43) and on p. 87 is quoted the कारिका 'वैदर्भादिकृतः पन्थाः' which is सर. क. II. 27. Eight verses on p. 137 are quoted from the तन्त्रवार्तिक of कुमारिल (pp.259-260, व्याकरणाधिकरण). On pp. 145-146 are quoted three verses about the dress of the ladies of Gauda, Mahodaya and Avanti which occur in राजशेखर's काव्यमीमांसा (pp. 8-9). The most important thing is that the काव्यप्रकाश is quoted twice viz. I. 3 (शचिर्निपु- 1. Many of these such as न कर्मधारयः कार्यो बहुमीहिप्रतीतिदः। सम्भाव्यस्य निषेधे च दौ निषेधावुदाहतौ (p.128) are like वामन's in V. 1. 7 and 9.

RUYYAKA 283

ता०) on p. 119 and the passageof the वृत्ति in the 2nd उल्लास (p. 26 Vamanacarya) 'भाकांचासंनिधि ... समुल्लसति' is quoted on p. 85. The वक्रोक्िजीवित appears to have exerted a great influence over the साहित्यमीमांसा. The verse शब्दार्थों सहितावेव (वकरोकि० I. 17 p. 24) and the illustration ततोरुण० are both quoted on p. 13. On pp. 14-15 nine verses are quoted from the वक्रोक्िजीवित. On p. 117 the verses speaking of the six kinds of वक्रत्व are quoted from the वक्रोकिजीवित (I. 19-21), the same examples are cited (on p.116) and the words 'एतदेव वशविन्यासवक्रत्वं चिरन्तनेष्वनुप्रास इति प्रसिद्धं' (वक्रोक्ति० p. 28) are quoted in सा. मी. (p.117 एतदेव ... प्रसिद्धमिति व्याख्यातम्); many verses are quoted as from आचार्या: on pp. 21-25, 75, 85, 86, 94. Vide Dr. Rāghavan on 'Śrngāra- prakasa' vol. I. pp. 88-103, who shows that the साहित्यमीमांसा follows the शज्ञारप्रकाश, though it differs from it in some respects. He also doubts (pp. 99-100) whether it is the work of रुय्यक. The most important characteristics of the साहित्यमीमांसा are two, viz. that it does not speak of the व्यन्जना function of words at all, but of तात्पर्यवृत्ति whieh gives rise to the realization of rasa (भपदार्थोपि वाक्यार्थो रसस्तात्पर्यवृत्तितः । p.85). Secondly, it treats of only a few अर्थालक्कारs and includes such figures as समासोक्ि, अप्रस्तुतप्रसंशा, सहोक्ति under वक्रत्व. It does not appear to accept the theory of the शङ्गारप्रकाश when it says 'विशिष्टादृष्टजन्मन आात्मगुोन्ज् तिहेतोर नादिवासनारूपस्याहक्कारस्य च रसत्वमंक्यं घ निषिद्मस्माभिः। न तु कूटस्थात्मस्वरूपस्यानन्दस्यैकरूपस्य भेदो वकुं न सक्यते इत्यादि।' (p.161). The above characteristics of the साहित्यमीमांसा create a difficulty. A साहित्यमीमांसा was the work of रुय्यक author of the अलक्कारसवस्व, as stated by himself. The सर्वस्व was a staunch advocate of the ध्वनि theory and the व्यन्जना function, as stated on p. 16 (अस्ति तावद् व्यक्थनिष्ठो व्यन्जनाव्यापार:). It also enumerates about 75 अर्थालक्कारs beginning with उपमा and including समासोक्ति, अप्रस्तुतप्रसंशा, रमवद्, ऊर्जस्वि, प्रेय :. The only way in which this contradiction between the same author's view-point in two works can be explained is by supposing that the साहित्यमीमांसा was composed by him when the author was comparatively young and under the influence of the वक्रोक्तिजीवित, while the अलक्कारसवस्व was composed when he was of mature intellect and had come completely under the influence of the धवन्यालोक and अमिनवगुप्त. If this explanation be not accepted it would have to be held that the साहित्यमीमांसा in the Tri. S. Series is not the work of the author of the Alankarasarvasva, but of some one

284 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

else. I must say that this latter alternative is not very likely, though not quite impossible. The अलं. स. (p. 159) quotes as an example of अनुक्तनिमित्ता विभावना the verse 'भङगलेखाम काश्मीर समाल- म्भनपिब्जराम् । अनलक्तकताम्राभामोष्ठलेखां च बिभ्रतीम् ।' which is उद्धट's example of विभावना (p.38 of काव्यालक्कार०). The K. M. सवस्व mentions four views about the alankara in this verse. जयरथ (p. 160) states that the text of सर्वस्व has been tampered with here, that the author of सर्वस्व, when he cites this verse in the साहित्यमीमांसा and comments on it, refers to two views only 'ग्रन्थकृतापि साहित्यमीमांसायामेत्छलोकविवृतौ पच्द्रयमेवोक्तम्। लेखक श्वास्य अ्रन्थस्य प्रतिपदमेव विपर्यासः कृतः।'. In the साहित्यमीमांसा this verse is cited on p. 47 after setting out Udbhata's definition of विभावना and it then remarks : 'अशलेखा ... बिभ्रतीम्' इत्यादि: संपाध न पिरत्वाधुपमानेन स्वा- भाविक स्य पिन्जरत्वादेरुपमेयस्याभेदाध्यवसायोऽतिशयोक्त्या द्रष्टव्यः ।." Therefore, is appears that the printed साहित्यमीमांसा is the साहित्यमीमांसा which जयरथ knew as composed by रुय्यक. The प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण (p. 11) mentions the view of a साहित्यमीगांसा as follows: प्रपन्चितं साहित्य- मीमांसायाम्। नायकगुराग्रथिता: सूक्तिस्रजः सुकृतिनामाकल्पमाकल्पन्ति-इति. I have not been able to trace this in the साहित्यमीमांसा (Tri. ed.), The date of रुय्यक can be easily determined. He quotes from the विक्रमाङ्कदेवचरित (composed about 1085 according.to Buhler) and criticizes the व्यक्तिविवेक and the काव्यप्रकाश. There- fore the सर्वस्व is later than 1100 A. D. He was teacher of मङ्गक,1 whose elder brother was the सान्धिविग्रहिक of जयसिंह of Kashmir (1128-1149 A. D.), as stated in श्रीकएठचरित 25.66. मङ्ट's श्रीकएठचरित was composed according to Buhler (K.Report p. 50) between 1135-1145 A, D. Therefore, if the quotations from the श्रीकएठचरित were originally part of the वृत्ति, the स्वस्व was composed about 1150 A.D. The सर्वस्व cites (p. 118) the verse असमाप्तजिगीषस्य, which occurs in the राजतर० (IV. 441), but it is quoted also in अभिनवभारती vol. I. p. 305, and therefore no chronological conclusion should be drawn from this, Dr. De

1. In श्रीकएठचरित 25. 15 मङ states shat his elder brother g held a meeting of learned men from time to time and verses 48ff state the names of about 30 men before whom the ओीकरठचरित was read ont, among, whom were सुहल and तेजकस Ambassadors to Kashmir court from king गोविन्दचन्द्र of Kanoj and अपरादित्य ruler of कोङया. Verses 29-30 highly praise रुय्यक as गुड़-

RUYYAKA 285

is wrong in thinking that सर्वस्व borrows from राजतर. (videJ. R. A. S. 1927 at p. 474). The काव्यप्रकाशसक्केत of माणिक्यचन्द्र (composed in 1159-60) refers to the भलं. स. several times (pp. 321, 355 Mysore ed.). Therefore the अलं. स. was composed sometime between 1135-1150 A. D. Vide Z. D. M. G. 62 p. 289. A few words must be said about the commentators of the अलं. स. जयरथ's commentary; designated विमर्शिनी, is a learned one and is very frequently quoted and criticized by re (pp. 325, 337, 352, 380, 387, 414, 418). Among the authors and works quoted by him are अनङलेखा, अलक्कारभाष्यकार (pp. 44, 106,217), अलक्कारवार्तिक (p. 71), अलङ्गारसार (pp. 88, 97, 171,172), अलक्कारानुसारियी, उद्भटविवेक or-विचार, काव्यप्रकाश, काव्यप्रकाशसक्केत (P. 130), तिलक, पृथ्वीराजविजय (p.82), प्रत्यभिज्ञा, भोजदेव (pp. 154, 244), मम्मट, राजतर० (pp. 243-244 twelve verses describing ललितादित्य quoted containing pure upamas), रुद्रट, लोचनकार (p.144), वक्रोकि- जीवितकार (p.188). He frequently discusses readings (pp.26, 47, 63, 158, 215 etc.). He criticizes रुय्यक also (pp. 89, 137). He refers to previous commentators of the सर्वस्व as अन्य: (p. 5). He wrote another work called विवेक (a com. on the तन्त्रालोक of अभिनवगुप्त), at the end of which he gives his pedigree at great length (vide Buhler's Kashmir Report p. 98 and CXLVIII- CXLX). His great-grand-father's brother was a minister of king उच्छल (1101-1111 A. D.) and his father शुक्ार was a mini- ster of राजराज or राजदेव (1203-1226 A.D.). जयरथ learnt vidyas from शङ्त्घर and सुभटदत्त gave him दीक्षा. जयरथ's younger brother जयद्रथ wrote the हरचरितचिन्तामणि (in 32 cantos, published in K. M. series). Therefore, he flourished in the first quarter of the 13th century. This is corroborated by the fact that he men- tions पृथ्वीराजविजय which speaks of the exploits of the great Chohan king पृथ्वीराज (captured in 1193 A. D.). The com. of agaT4 (published in T. S. S. 1926) is not so learned and so copious as that of जयरथ. It was composed at the court of रविवर्मा (of यदुवंश) king of कोलम्ब in केरल (Malabar). This king is said to have been born in 1265 A. D. The com. quotes verses in honour of रविवर्मा (pp. 12, 13, 54, 196&c.), discusses various readings (p. 52) and complains of the loss of illustra- tions from aq4's work (p. 117) and refers to the explanations of other commentators of the स्वस्व (pp. 88, 132, 227). He states that there are five views about the special feature of

286 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

काव्य. A third commentary called सव्जीविनी composed by विधाचक- बर्तिन is quoted by मल्निनाथ in his तरल (pp. 31, 221), in the रत्ना- पण (pp.54,319,377, 387 &c.) and in चित्रमीमांसा (pp.7,74). That commentary contained verses summarising the distinctions between figures (e. g. between रूपक and परिणाम). Dr. Raghavan informs me that a postgraduate student of his has prepared for the Press a critical edition of the भलं. स. with the comme- ntary of विधाचऋ्रवतिन. 28 The वाग्भटालकर of वाग्भट. This work with the com- mentary of सिंहदेवगणि has been published in the K. M. series (1933). There are two बाग्भट's in अलक्कारशाब. This is the first. The work is not an elaborate treatise. It is divided into five परिच्छेदs, which contain 260 verses. Most of the verses are in the Anustubh metre, a few, particularly at the end of each परिच्छेद, being composed in other metres. There is a single passage in prose for illustrating ओजोगुख (III. 14). The passage

The first परिच्छेद defines काव्य, gives प्रतिमा as the source of काव्य and defines प्रतिभा, व्युत्पत्ति and भभ्यास, speaks of the favoura- ble circumstances for the out-turn of poetry and the conventions to be observed by poets. The second uf?o says that kāvya may be composed in four languages, संस्कृत, प्राफृत, अपभ्रंश and भूतभाषा, divides काव्य into metrical (छन्दोनिबद्ध) and non-metrical, into पध, गद् and मिश्र and then defines and illustrates eight dosas of pada and of vakya and the dosas of artha. The third ufto defines and illustrates the ten gunas. The fourth परि० treats of four alankaras of sadha viz. चित्र, वक्रोक्ति, अनुप्रास and यमक and their varieties and 35 alankaras of sense and the two styles arnf and गौडीया. The fifth परि० is concerned with the treatment of nine rasas, the different kinds of नायक and नायिका and kindred topics. The author was a Jain. His name occurs as बाहड or वाहड (in Prakrit) and he seems to have been the son of सोम and was a minister. On the verse बंभएडसुत्तिसंपुड-मुत्तिभरमशियो पहासमूह उ्व। 1. The five paksas are: first the Alankara school of Udbhata and others, 2nd of Vamana (the riti school), the third of वक्रोकिजीवित, 4th of भट्टनायक and 5th of भानन्दवर्धन. Vide समुदबन्ध p.4. The अनुमानपक of व्यक्तिविवेक is unworthy of serious . consideration acc. to the वृषि in भलं. स.

VĀGBHAȚĀLAŃKĀRA 287

सिरिबाहडसि तगओ भासि युहो तस्स सोमस्स (IV.148 p.72), the com. remarks 'इदानी ग्रन्थकार इदमलक्कारकर्तृत्वख्यापनाय वाग्भटाभिस्य महाकवेम- हामात्यस्य तन्नाम गाथयकया निदर्शयति'. All the examples cited in the work appear to be the author's own. A few examples are in Prākrit (e. g. IV. 49, 53, 54, 74, 78, 106, 107, 148). He cited (as pointed out by Col. Jacob,JRAS 1897 p. 309) six verses which occur in the नेमिनिर्वाणमहाकाव्य, the author of which is a वाग्भट. On the verse ककाकुकङकेकाङ्ककेकिकोकककु: ककः । अ्र्रकुकौक: काककाक ऋकाकुकुककाक्षकु: ॥(IV.12), the com. remarks 'ककाकु इत्येष कोक एकव्यअ्नो नेमिनिर्वायमहाकाव्ये राजीमतीपरित्यागाधिकारे समुद्रवर्णनरूपो शेय:'. But this verse is not found in the printed नेमिनिर्वाष (K.M. series), though नेमिनिर्वास VII. 50 is cited by वाग्भट in काव्यालक्कार as an example of महायमक. It appears that the same वाग्मट was the author of both works. In the verses cited as illustrations king जयसिंह (चालुक्य) of Anhilvad, son of कर्ष, figures very fre- quently. For example, 'इन्द्रेख कि यदि स कणनरेन्द्रसूनुररावणेन किमहो यदि तद्दिपेन्द्रः। दम्भोलिनाप्यलमलं यदि तत्प्रतापः स्वर्गोप्ययं ननु मुषा यदि तत्पुरी सा I।' (IV. 76); जगदात्मकीर्तिशुभंजनयन्नुद्दामधामदोःपरिघः । जयति प्रतापपूषा जयसिंह: दमाभृदधिनाथः (IV. 45); अणहिल्लपाटकं पुरमवनिपतिः कणंवेवनपसूनुः । श्रीकलशनामधेयः करी च रत्नानि जगतीह॥' (IV. 132). Vide also IV.81,85, the former of which (श: स्यन्दनध्वजधृतोडुर- ताम्रचूडः श्रीकणदेवनृपसू नुरयं रखामे) shows that the Anhilvad Chalu- kyas had the figure of a cock on their banner. जयसिंह reigned from 1093 A. D. to 1143 A. D. Vide I. A. vol. 6 p. 180 (at p. 213 the pedigree of the IgFTs of Anhilwad with dates is set forth by Buhler) and E. I. vol. I. p. 293 for the Vadnagar प्रशस्ति of कुमारपाल's reign. The editors of the K. M. series show from the प्रभावकचरित्र of प्रभाचन्द्र (p. 205) that वाग्भट was living in samoat 1179 and 1213 (i. e. 1123 and 1156 A. D.). Therefore, ara flourished in the first half of the 12th century and his काव्यालक्वार was written between 1125-1143 A. D. There are several commentaries besides that of सिंहदेवगखि such as those of जिनवर्धनसुरि, of गणेश, क्षेमहंसगणि, राजहंसोपाध्याय. 29 The काव्यानुशासन of हेमचन्द्र. This work, together with the author's own commentary, has been published in the KM series. The references here are to that edition. There is another edition in two volumes (in महावीरजैनविद्यालय series, containing text, Introduction pp. I-CCCXXX by Mr. R. C. Parikh and notes by Prof. R. B. Athavle (pp. 1-276). The work is divided as usual into three parts, sūtras (in prose), explanation and

288 HISTORY OF SANSERIT POETICS

examples. It appears that the sutras constitute the काव्यानुशासन and the वृत्ति explaining the sutras is styled अलक्कारचूडामणि and the commentary, which in some places is extremely meagre and explains the वृत्ति and adds some examples, is styled विवेक, as the introductory verse shows (विवरीतं कचिददृन्धं नवं सन्दर्मितुं कचित्। काव्यानुशासनस्यायं विवेक: प्रवितन्यते ।।). The work is divided into eight अध्यायs. The first deals with the purposes of काव्य, the hetu (cause) of kavya (viz. प्रतिभा), the aids to प्रतिभा, viz. व्युत्पत्ति, भभ्यास; definition of काव्य; the nature of शब्द and भर्थ, meanings of मुख्यार्थ, गौखार्थ, लक्षयार्थ and व्यंग्यार्थ. The second chap- ter deals with rasas, sthayibharas, व्यभिचारिभावऽ, सातत्विकभावS. The third treats of dosas of word, sentence, artha and rasas. The fourth is concerned with gunas which are three, माधुर्य, भोजस् and प्रसाद and the letters that help on these. The .fifth speaks of six figures of sabda, अनुप्रास, यमक, चित्र, श्लेष, वक्रोक्ति, पुनरुक्ताभास. The 6th discourses upon 29 figures of sense. He includes संसृष्टि under सङ्कर, so defines दीपक as to include तुल्ययोगिता in it, defines a figure परिवृत्ति which contains the पर्याय and परिवृत्ति (of मम्मट), omits all those figures that have a touch of rasa, bhava &c. in them (viz. रसवद्, प्रेयः, ऊर्जस्वि, समाहित) and passes over भनन्वय, उपमेयोपमा (as varieties of उपमा), includes under निदर्शन the figures प्रतिवस्तूपमा, दृष्टान्त and निदर्शना (of others). He used the names जाति and भन्योक्ति for स्वभावोक्ि and भप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. On pp. 292-294 he explains why he does not define some of the above figures. The 7th chap. treats of the characteristics and kinds of नायक and नायिका. The 8th gives the divisions of काव्य into प्रेच्य and श्रव्य and their sub-divisions and their characteristics. The काव्यानुशासन is a compilation1 and exhibits hardly

1. Mr. Vishnupada Bhattacharji takes objection (in 'Indian Culture' vol. XIII pp. 218-224) to my statement that the काव्यानुशासन is a compilation and has hardly any origin- ality. He points out that tHax demurs to Mammata's view that artha (wealth) is one of the rewards of writing poetry, that हेमचन्द्र differs from मुकुल and मम्मट and holds that लक्षणा is not based on रूढि or प्रयोजन but on प्रयोजन alone, that he differs (on P.46) from ध्वनिकार who divides भर्थशत्तिमूलध्वनि into three varieties viz. स्वतःसम्भवी, कविप्रौढोफिनिष्पन् and कविनिबद्धवक्तुप्रौढोफ्ति०, that मम्मट gives पुंस्त्वादपि प्रविचलेत as an example of श्लेषमूलाप्रस्ततप्रशंसा, while

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.

290 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

published in the Singhi Jain Granthamala), the प्रबन्धचिन्तामणि of मेरुतुन (composed in संवत् 1364, 1307, A. D. and translated by Tawney) and the प्रबन्धकोश of राजशेखर pp. 46-54 (written in tiq 1405, 1348 A. D. and published in the Singhi Jain Series). The प्रभावकचरित (pp. 183-212) gives at some length an account of the life of tHara, who was born at Dhandhuka of Modh Bania parents named चाच or चाचिग and पाहिनी. हेमचन्द्र's origi- nal name was चञ्देव. The four important dates concerning हेमचन्द्र are given by the प्रभावकचरित (p.212) as follows: He was born on the Full-Moon day of Kartika in eiaa 1145 (1088 A. D.), he was initiated in diaa 1150 (1093 A.D.), he became a sūri or भाचार्य in sarvat 1166 (1109 A. D.) and died at the age of 84 in संबद् 1229 (1173 A. D.). हेमचन्द्र's guru was देवचन्द्र. Forbes in his 'Rasmala' gives an account of the two kings Siddharāja and Kumarapala with whom Ha was connected (vol. I. pp. 165-197 of the Oxford Press ed. of 1924). Buhler's monograph 'Uber das Leben des Jaina Mönches Hemacandra' (1889) is complete and authentic, except in a few unimportant parti- culars. This German work was translated into English by Dr. Manilal Patel and published in the Singhi Jain Series in 1936. From the fact that हंमचन्द्र (on p. 109) mentions मम्मट by name and quotes from काव्यप्रकाश a verse and a half (V. 1-2) and from the fact that he wrote the काव्यानुशासन after the शब्दानुशासन and makes no mention of कुमारपाल in the काव्यानुशासन it may be said that he composed it about 1140 A.D. जयसिंह सिद्धराज at whose bidding he composed शब्दानुशासन reigned from 1093 to 1143 A. D. and कुमारपाल his successor from 1143 to 1172A.D. Mr. R. C. Parikh holds that the काव्यानुशासन was composed between 1136-1143 A. D. (Intro. p. CCLXII). 30 The चन्ब्रालोक of जयदेव. This has been printed several times in India. The Gujarati Prcss edition with the com. Rama of बैधनाथ पायगुएड has been used for purposes of this note. The चन्द्रालोक is an elementary treatise on Poetics written in the Anustubh metre. The author gives his own examples as do भामह and दएडी. The work is divided into ten मयूखs and contains about 350 verses. The style is lucid and easy, the language is flowing and sonorous, and the work is admirably adapted to the needs of beginners. The contents are :- I. the definition of काव्य, the hetu of काव्य (viz. प्रतिभा aided by श्रत and अभ्यास), the threefold division of words into रूढ, यौगिक and

HEMACANDRA 291

योगरढ; II dosas.of शब्द, भर्थ, वाक्य etc .; III. some devices which poets adopt to heighten the charm of their works, such as निर्वचन (exemplified in ्ईदृशैश्वरितैर्जाने सत्यं दोषाकरो भवान्); IV ten gunas; V figures af शब्द, अनुप्रास (छेका०, वृत्त्यनु०, लाटानु०), पुनरुकामास, यमक, चित्र and one hundred figures of sense; in the midst of the 5th मयूख, at the beginning of अर्थालक्कारs there is a fresh मङल; VI rasas, bhavas, the three ritis गौडी, लाटी and पान्चाली and the five वृत्तिs (मधुरा, प्रौढा, परुषा, ललिता and भद्रा); VII व्यजना and divi- sions of ध्वनि (as in the ध्वन्यालोक); VIII the divisions of गुणीभूत- व्यक््य; IX लक्षया; X अभिधा. The several editions differ to some extent in the number of verses. The author was also styled पीयूषवर्ष (shower of nectar) as the work itself shows 'चन्द्रालोकममुं स्वयं वितनुते पयूषवर्षः कृती' (I.2); 'भनेनासावाधः सुकविजयदेवेन रचिते चिरं चन्द्रालोके सुखयतु मयूखः सुमनसः ॥' (I. 16). The राकागम, com. on the चन्द्रालोक, by गागाभट्ट expressly says 'जयदेवस्यव पीयूषवर्ष इति नामान्तर म्' on the verse 6 at the end of the चन्द्रालोक in the Chowkhambha S.Series. जयदेव was the son of महादेव and सुमित्रा (महावेवः सत्रप्रमुखमखविधैकचत्रः सुमित्रा तन्मक्तिप्रसिदित- मतियस्य पितरौ। I. 16). जयदेव, the author of the drama प्रसभ्नराधव, was also the son of महादेव and सुमित्रा (vide प्रसन्न० I. 14 and 15). From the प्रसन्नराघव it appears that he was a great logician also (ननु अर्यं प्रमागाप्रवीणोपि श्रयते। ... सूत्रधार :- येषां कोमलकाव्यकौशलकलालीलावती भारती तेषा कर्कशतर्कवक्रवचनोद्वारेपि कि हीयते ॥ I. 18). This जयदेव is different from the जयदेव that was the author of the गीतगोविन्द, as the latter was the son of भोजदेव and रामादेवी and was an inhabitant of किन्दुबिल्व in the Birbhum district of Bengal (while जयदेव पीयूषवर्ष seems to have been a native of विदर्भ and not of Bengal). The author of the चन्द्रालोक is probably to be identi- fied with जयदेव named पक्षधर, author of the मययालोक (a work on logic). The date of the चन्द्रालोक cannot be fixed with certainty. The चन्द्रालोक mentions no author by name. But in the verse 'अक्गीकरोति यः काव्यं शम्दार्थावनलङकृती । अभसी न मन्यते कस्मादनुष्यमनलं कृती॥' (I.8), there is clearly a reference to the काव्यप्रकाशकारिका (तददोषौ शब्दायो संगुखावदलसकुती पुनः कापि). We saw above (p.275) that the अलक्वारसवस्व was the first to define the two figures विचित्र and विकल्प. The चन्द्रालोक defines both these figures and almost in the same words as the सर्वस्व ('तुल्यबलविरोधो विकल्पः' भलं. स. P. 198; 'विकल्प स्तुल्यबलयोर्विरोषश्वातुंरीयुतः' चन्द्रालोक V. 96; 'स्वविपरीतफलनिष्प- चमे प्रयत्नो विचिन्नम्' अलं. स. p. 168; विचित्रं चेतप्रयतन: स्यादविपरीतफलप्रदः ।

292 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

चन्द्रालोक V. 82)1 The चन्द्रालोक defines and exemplifies about 100 figures. This shows that the author is one of the later writers on alankāra. The number of alankāras defined is in favour of a late date. मम्मट defines only 61 figures of sense, the सर्वस्व about 75. Hence the चन्द्रालोक is much later than the अलं.स. and cannot be much earlier than about 1200 A. D. A verse of the प्रसननराघव (कदली कदली &c. I. 37) is quoted in the साहित्यदर्पय (under IV. 3). A few verses of the प्रसन्नराघव are quoted in the शाङ्गवरपद्धति (dated 1363 A.D.) viz. Nos 164 (प्रसन्न० 1. 9), :520 (1. 33), 3557 (2.22), 3626 (7.59), 3631 (7. 60). Therefore, जयदेव must have flourished before 1250 A. D. Hence the चन्द्रालोक is to be placed between 1200 and 1250 A. D. The अलक्कगाररोखर of केशवमिश्र (p. 17) speaks of a poet जयदेवपएडत who vanquished by his logical subtlety the pandits at the court of the king of उत्कल. This probably refers to the author of the चन्द्रालोक. The कुवलयानन्द has a verse at the end 'चन्द्रालोको विजयतां शरवागमसम्भवः। हृदः कुवलयानन्दो यत्प्रसादादभूदयम् ॥. The three words in thick type have two meanings each. वैधनाथ explains that शरदागम is the original work on which the चन्द्रालोक is based. But this is wrong. शरदागम is the name of a com. on the चन्द्रालोक by प्रधोतनभट्टाचार्य patronized by वीरमद्र, a Bundella prince (vide the com. published in the Kashi S. Series in 1929). This प्रघोतन wrote a commentary on the कामसूत्र in 1557 A. D. The कुवलयानन्द expressly states that it incorporates the definitions and examples of the चन्द्रालोक on अर्थालक्वारs (vide under अप्पय्यदीक्षित below). 31. The एकावली of विद्याघर. This work with the commen- tary, तरल of मल्निनाथ, has been edited by Mr. Trivedi in the B. S. series. The work contains three parts, the kārikās, the vrtti and the examples. The peculiarity of this work is that all the examples are composed by विदाधर himself and contain panegyrics of his patron, king नरसिंह of उत्कल (or Orissa). He himself says (Intro. verse 7) 'एष विद्याधरस्तेषु कान्तासमितलक्षणम्। करोमि नरसिंहस्य चाटकोकानुदाहरन्॥'. विदाधर notes (in I. 4-6) that शाख is of three kinds viz. शब्दप्रधान (called मधुसंमित), अर्थप्रधान (called

1. It is noteworthy that in some editions of the चन्द्रालोक ,such as Jivananda's the definitions of विकल्प and विचित्र are 'विरोधे सल्यवलयोविकल्पालक्क ति्मता' and 'विचिन्नं तत्प्रयत्नश्चेद्रिपरीतफलेच्छया'. The definition in the Gujarati Press edition is that of the साहित्यदपय.

EKĀVALĪ 293

मित्रसंमित, such as इतिहास i. e. महाभारत) &c.) and ध्वनिप्रधान (called कान्तासंमित). In this respect it resembles the प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण, the नज्जराजयशोभूषण, the रघुनाथभूपालीय and the अलक्कारमन्जूषा. The work is divided into eight उन्मेषs, the subjects of which are :- I the hetu of काव्य (प्रतिभा, बद्ुशाखतदर्शिता and अभ्यास), definition of काव्य, discussion of the views of भामह, महिमभट्ट and others; II. word is वाचक, लाक्षणिक and व्यञ्ञक and discussion of the three powers, भभिषा, लक्षया andव्यञना; III. sub-divisions of ध्वनि; IV. treatment of गुखीभूतव्यक्षय; V. gunas (three) and three ritis; VI: dosas; VII alańkāras of śabda; VIII alankāras of sense. In the first s-au, विधाधर is a thorough-going follower of the ध्वन्यालोक. His work is based on the काव्यप्रकाश and the अलक्कारसर्वस्व. In the treat- ment of alarkaras he prefers the सर्वस्व to the काव्यप्रकाश e.g. he defines the figures परिणाम, उल्लेख, विचित्र and विकल्प almost in the same words as the स्वस्व, which do not occur in the काव्यप्रकाश at all. Among others he names the following :- अभिनवगप्त, अल- क्वारसवस्व, काव्यप्रकाश, बिहय, भोज, मदिमभट्ट, वामन, श्रीहर्ष, हम्मीर, हरिहर and अर्जुन, and quotes from दशरूप, नैषधीय, राजशेखर. He wrote another work केलिरहस्य on Erotics; vide Trivedi's Intro. pp.XV-XVI. Mr. Trivedi (in his Introduction) collects all the data for arriving at the age in which विद्याधर flourished and comes to the conclusion (p. XXIII) that he was patronised either by केसरिनरसिंह (1282-1307) or प्रतापनरसिंह (1307-1327 A. D.). The Intro. verse 11 mentions the poet हरिहर and king भजुन (i.e. भर्जुनवर्मदेव), for whose dates vide p. 272 above. Therefore एकावली is later than the first half of 13th century. The रसार्यव- सुधाकर of शिक्ष्भूपाल (about 1330 A. D.) refers to the एकावली 'उत्कलाधिपतेः शृङ्गाररसाभिमानिनो नरसिंहदेवस्य चित्तमनुवर्तमानेन विधाधरेण कविना बाढमभ्यन्तरीकृतोसि। एवं खलु समर्थितमेकावल्यामनेन' (p. 206 of Trivandrum ed.) and on pp. 258 and 277 शिङ्गभूपाल quotes प्रसन्नराघव; therefore the एकावली must have been composed bet- ween 1285-1325 A. D. The तरल is a model commentary. It is from the pen of the famous commentator of the mahakauyas. मलि० flourished probably at the end of the 14th century and in the beginning of the 15th century. Vide Trivedi's Intro. pp. XXIV-XXX for the life and works of मल्निनाथ. 32. The प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण of विद्यानाथ. An excellent edition of this work, with the commentary called रत्नापय by कुमारस्वामिन son of मल्िनाथ, was brought out by Mr. Trivedi in the B. S.

294 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

series (in 1909). Another edition of the work with nqu was brought out in Madras in 1914 (which reached the third ed. in 1950). This work is very popular in Southern India. The work contains three parts, kārikas, vrtti and illustrations. All the examples are composed in honour of the काकतीय king of Telanigana, प्रतापरुद्रदेव (also called वीररद्र or रुद्र), whose capital was एकशिला (Orangal or Warangal) 'प्रतापरुद्रदवस्य गुणानाश्रित्य निर्मितः । अलक्कारप्रबन्धोयं सन्तः कर्णोत्सवोस्तु व: ।।' I. 9. In this respect it resembles the एकावली. The work has 9 प्रकरणs on नायक, काव्य, नाटक, रस, दोष, गुख, शब्दालक्कार, अर्थालक्गार, मिश्रालङ्गार. Among others the following are named :- अनघराघव, अमिनयदपय, भलक्कारसवस्व, उ्गट, काव्यप्रकाश, दण्डन्, दशरूपक, बालरामायण, भरत, भामह, भोज, रुद्रभट्ट, शृङ्गारतिलक, साहित्यमीमांसा. In the third प्रकरण, while illustrating the requirements of a aran, he exhibits a model drama called प्रतापरुद्रकल्याय (on p. 139-218). He follows in general the काव्य- प्रकाश but prefers the अलक्कारसर्वंस्व to मम्मट in the matter of figures. He defines the figures परिणाम, उल्लेख, विचित्र, and विकल्प, which are passed over by मम्मट and his definition of विकल्प (विरोधस्तु- ल्यबलयोर्विकल्पालङ्कृतिमता p. 456) is almost the same as that of the चन्द्रालोक. प्रतापरुद्रदेव was the son of महादेव and मुम्मुदि or मुम्मुडम्बा, who was the daughter of रुद्राम्बा. T'his रुद्राम्वा was known as रुद्र and ruled at एकशिला after her father गणपति. प्रतापरुद्रदेव is said to 'have routed सेवण of the यादव family (i. e. रामदेव of देवगिरि, 1271- 1309 A. D.). From this fact and the information supplied by epigraphic records it followes that प्रतापरुद्रदव ruled in the last quarter of the 13th and the first quarter of the 14th century and was captured in 1323 A. D. by Muhammad Tughlak's armies. Therefore, the प्रतापरद्यशोभूवस was composed in the first quarter of the 14th century.1 1. The pedigree of the काकतीय dynasty is as follows : (1) Betma-(2) Proda or Prola-(3) Rudra,-(4) Mahadeva brother of (3)-(5) Ganapati or Ganapa son of (4)-daughter Gaņapāmba married Beta; another daughter of Ganapati was Rudramba also styled Rudradeva who ruled as king, she is the 6th king-(7) Prataparudradeva was the daughter's son of Rudra. Vide the Yenamadala Inscription of Ganapamba (E. I. vol. III. p. 94), the Arulala Perumal Inscription of the time of Prataparudra dated saka 1238 (1316-17 A. D.), the Malkapuram stone Inscription of रुद्रदेब (i.e. रद्राम्बा) dated saka 1183 i. e. 1261-62 A, D. (J. of Andhra H. R. S. vol. IV.

PRATĀPARUDRAYASOBHŪŞAŅA 295

The रत्नापख of कुमारस्वामिन् is a good commentary, though inferior to the तरल of मल्िनाथ He quotes a host of writers, among whom the following deserve to be noted-अलक्कार चूडामणि, एकावली, एकावलीतरल, कविकल्पद्रुम, गोपाल, चक्रवर्तिन् (author of अलक्गार- सर्वस्वसजीविनी), दशरूपक्, नरहरि, नाटकप्रकाश, पञ्चपादिका, पदमजरी, भट्टमल्ल, भावप्रकाश, भोजराज, महिमभट्ट, मानसोल्लास, रसनिरूपण (of नरहरि), रसमज्जरी, रसाएष, रुचक, वसन्तराजीय, विदग्धमुखमएडन, विदयाधर, शारदातनय, शिङ्जभूपाल, शृङ्गारप्रकाश, सजजीविनी, साहित्यचिन्तामणि, साहित्यदर्पण, हेमचन्द्र. Another com. रत्नशाय is incomplete and refers to रत्नापय. 33. The काव्यानुशासन of वाग्भट. This वाग्भट is वाग्भट II, This work has been published in 1915 in the K. M. series to- gether with the commentary अलक्कारतिलक composed by the author himself. The work consists of sutras in prose, afa and examples mostly borrowed. The work is divided into five अव्यायs. The main part is in the form of sūtras in prose and the explanation and all illustrations occur in the commentary. The first eara dwells upon the प्रयोजन of काव्य, the hetu of kauya (viz. प्रतिभा aided by व्युत्पत्ति and अभ्यास) and the definitions of these; con- ventions of poets; definition of kāvya and its divisions a, yu and मिश्र; definitions of महाकाव्य, आख्यायिका, कथा, चम्पू, मिश्रकाव्य (the ten रूपकs and गेयs). The second chapter deals with the 16 dosas of पद and वाक्य, 14 dosas of sense, speaks of the ten gunas according to Dandin and Vamana, but gives as its opinion that the gunas are really three, माधुय, ओोजस, and प्रसाद; and mentions the ritis, वैदर्ी, गौडीया and पाश्चाली. The third chap. defines 63 alankāras of sense, of which the following deserve mention as being somewhat rare : अन्य, अपर, पूर्व, लेश, पिहित, मत, उभयन्यास, भाव, and आशीः. The fourth chap. treatsof six alankaras of sabda, चित्र, श्लेष, त्रनुप्रास, वक्रोक्ति, यमक, पुनरुक्तवदाभास, and their varieties. The fifth chapter dilates upon the nine rasas, विभावS, अनुभावs, व्यमिचारिभावs, the varieties of नायक and नायिका, the ten stages of love and the dosas of rasas. The author was a Jain. He mentions the country of मेदपाट (Mewad) and the towns of राइडपुर and नलोटकपुर. He was the son of नेमिकुमार and is to be distinguished from वाग्भट I who was the author of वाग्भटालक्कार, as he himself mentions the latter 'दषिडवामनवाग्भटादि- p. 47), 'Indian Culture' vol. III. pp. 465-475; J. of Andhra H. R. S. vol. III. pp. 111-118 on 'some interesting facts about the Kakatiyas' by Mr. M. Rama Rao. काकती is the name of दुर्गा. The काकतीय rulers were sudras and saivas.

296 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

प्रणीता दश काव्यगुखा:। वयं तु माधुयोंज:प्रसादलक्षर्यांसीनेव गुयान्मन्यामह्दे' (काव्या- नुशासनवृत्ति p.31). In his commentary (pp.3-5) he gives long lists of countries, rivers, plants and products peculiar to each. He seems to have written a महाकाव्य named ऋषभदेवचरित (p. 15) and a work on metrics styled छन्दोनुशासन (p. 20). A verse (on p. 58) addressed to arnrz (i. e. probably the author himself) is quoted in the com. and another in which नेमिकुमार is addressed occurs on p. 32 (गायन्ति रासकविधाविह मेदपाटनार्योघुमापि तव नेमिकुमार कीर्तिम् ॥). Among the authors and works quoted by him are अ्धिमथन (अपभ्रंशनिबद्ध p.15), आनन्दवर्धन, काव्यप्रकाश (p. 29), चन्दप्रभ- काव्य, त्रिविक्रम (p.20), दमयन्ती (p. 19), नेमिनिर्वास (p. 16), बाल- रामायण (p.67), भीमकाव्य (in ग्राम्यभाषा p.15), राजीमतीपरित्याग, लीलावती (पद्यमयीकथा p. 18), वासवदत्ता (चम्पू p. 19), विष्णुविजय, शीता (a poe- tessp.20), शृङ्गारतिलक (pp. 61 and 63 the verses अस्माकं सखि and गाढालिञन०). There is no originality in the work. He largely borrows from the काव्यमीमांसा of राजशेखर, the काव्यप्रकाश and other works and quotes examples contained in other works e. g. he quotes under यमक the verse रम्भारामा which is वाग्भटालक्वार IV. 30 and नेमिनिर्वाणकाव्य VII. 50. Ams. of the काव्यानुशासन (Eggeling's cat. No. 1157) is dated संवत् 1515 (1458-59 A. D.). He mentions the काव्यप्रकाश and arz. Therefore he is later than 1150 A.D. He probably flourished in the 14th century. 34. The साहित्यवर्पण of विश्वनाथ. Beyond a few scraps of information gathered from his own works, we know very little about the personal history of Visvanatha. He come of a brahmana family that had distinguished itself by learning. His great-great-grand-father was Narayana, who appears to have been a learned man and to have written a work on Rhetoric.1 His father was Chandrasekhara, who was a poet 1. 'तत्प्रायत्वं चास्मद्वृद्धप्र पितामहसहृदयगोष्ठीगरिष्ठकविपसिडतमुख्यश्रीमन्ना- रायणपादरुक्तम् ।' S.D. III. 2-3; but in his Kavyaprakasadarpana, Visvanatha says that Narayana was his grandfather "a4Tg: श्रीकलिङ्भूमगडलाखएडलमहाराजाधिराजश्रीनरसिंहदेवसभारयां धर्मंदत्तं स्थगयन्त ...... अस्मत्पितामहश्रीमन्नारायखदासपादाः" Intro. to K. P. p. 25 (Va.). Two explanations are possible; I Nārāyana was really the great-great-grand-father and is referred to as the grand-father for the sake of brevity; II The two Narayanas were distinct, one being the grand-son of the other. In India, a grandson often bears the name of his grand-father.

THE SAHITYADARPAŅA OF VISVANĀTHA 297

and scholar. His verses are often quoted by Viśvanātha (pp. 108, 122, 178, 182 &c. Nirn. ed, of 1922). Viśvanātha mentions by name two works of hisfather, viz. the Puspamālā (on VI. 25) and Bhäsārnava which dealt with the characteri- stics of Sanskrit, Sauraseni, Mahārāstrī and other Prākrit dialects. As Viśvanātha explains certain Sanskrit expressions by Uriya equivalents in his commentary on the Kāvyaprakāśa, he appears to have been an inhabitant of Orissa.1 The father of Viśvanātha and Viśvanātha himself appear to have held some important office at the court of a king, probably of Kalinga. Both of them are styled Sandhivigrahika-Mahapātra. Viśvanātha w.s a Vaisnava as is made clear by the colophon2 at the end of the first Paricchcda and the last verse of the Sāhityadarpana.3 He was a poet and quotes his own verses in Sanskrit and Prakrit at every step, when illustrating the canons of Rhetoric. He composed a number of works, besides the Sahityadarpana, of which the following are mentioned in the lıtter :- I. a mahākāvya in Sanskrit, called Rāghava-vilāsa (under III. 222-224); II Kuvalayāśvacarita, a kāvya in Prakrit (III. 149); Prabhāvatī-pariņaya, a Nāțikā (III (58); IV Chandrakalā, another Nāțikā (III. 96); V Praśastiratnāvalī, a Karambhaka in sixteen languages (VI. 337). After compo- sing the Sahityadarpana, he wrote two other works, a kāvya called Narasimha-vijaya4 and a commentary on the Kāvya- prakāśa called Kāvyaprakāśa-darpaņa (see Intro. to K. P. p. 25, Vā,). Candīdāsa, who wrote a commentary on the Kāvy- prakāśā, was the younger brother of Viśvanātha's grand-father.5 The question of Visvanatha's date does not present much difficulty. There are certain data, which fortunately for us, fix within very narrow limits his chronological position. 1. See Vāmanācharya's Introduction to K. P. p. 25 वैपरीत्यं रुचिं कुर्विति पाठः, अत्र चिङ्कुपदं काश्मीरादिभाषायामश्लीलार्थबोधकम्, उत्कलादिभाषायां घृतवांडकद्रव इत्यादि।' 2. 'श्रीमन्नारायणचरखारविन्दमधुव्रत etc.' Note the words 'काव्या- द्धर्मप्राप्तिर्भगवन्नारायखचर खारविन्दस्तवादिना' p. 1. 3. यावत्प्रसन्नेन्दुनिभानना श्रीर्नीरायणस्याऊ्मलक्वरोंति।. 4. अनन्तदास quotes a verse on p. 9 with the words यथा मम तातपादाना विजयनरसिंहे.

VII. 31. 5. 'अस्मत्पिताम हानुजकविर्पाएडतमुख्यश्रीचएडीदासपादानां तु खएडरसनाम्ना'

298 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

A ms. of the Sahityadarpana deposited at Jammu1 is dated in the Vikrama year 1440, i. e. approximately 1384 A.D. From this it may be safely concluded that the Sahityadarpana was composed at some time earlier than 1384 A. D. Viśva- natha quotes a verse which /speaks of a Mohammadon king named Allauddin. We saw above that Visvanatha came from Orissa. The king referred to in the verse is certainly Sultan3 Allauddin Khilji, whose favourite general Malik Kafur invaded the Deccan, seized Warangal and carried his victorious arms as far as Cape Comorin. Allauddin, it is said, was poisoned in 1316 A. D. Supposing that the verse in which Allauddin is mentioned by name was written in his life-time, the Sāhitya- darpana cannot be said to have been composed at a date earlier than 1300 A. D. From these two circumstances it follows that the Sahityadarpana was composed at some time between 1300 A. D. and 1384 A. D. There is a good deal of evidence, both internal and ex- ternal, that confirms this conclusion. I The internal evidence is a follows :- (a) Viśvanātha quotes a verse from the Gitagovinda of Jayadeva.4 Tradition makes Jayadeva, along with Govardhana, Sarana, Umāpati and Kavirāja, a protege of Laksmana-sena whose inscription at Gaya is dated in samvat 1173 or 1116 A. D.5 Jayadeva him- self mentions Govardhana and others as his contemporaries.6 We may say that Jayadeva flourished in the first half of the 12th century. 1. See Dr. Stein's Catalogue of mss. at Jammu under the heading Alankārsāstra p. 64. 2. सन्धौ सर्वस्वहरणं विग्रहे प्रायनिग्र्यः। अलावदीननृपतौ न सन्धिर्न च विग्रहः ॥ IV. 14, p. 244 Nir. ed. 3. The word Sultan, it should be noted, occurs under the Sanskritized from सुरत्राण in the साहित्यदपण, 'गङ्गाम्भसि सुरत्राय तव निःशाननिस्वन: ।' p. 30 of our text (under) उत्प्रेक्षा). 4. 'हृदि बिसलताहारो नायं' etc. p. 29 of our text (under faa). This verse is ascribed to Jayadeva in the Subhāshitā- vali also. 5. Buhler's Kashmir Report p. 64. 6. वाच: पल्मवयत्युमापतिघरः सन्दर्भशुद्धि गिरां जानीते जयदेव एव शरणः छाध्यो दुरूहद्रते। शभारोत्तरसत्प्रमेयवचनैराचार्यगोवर्धनः स्पर्धी कोऽपि न विश्रुतः अवपरो धोयी कविचमापतिः॥4th verse of th Gitagovinda.

SAHITYADARPAŅA 299

(b) विश्वनाथ quotes a verse (कदली कदली &c. under IV. 3) from the प्रसन्नराघव (I. 37) of जयदेव who flourished between 1200 and 1250 A. D. We have pointed out in our notes to arfer- ou that Visvanatha often quotes1 verbatim from the Alankār- rasarvasva of Ruyyaka and in some places even criticizes it. We know that Ruyyaka was the teacher2 of Mankha, author of Srikanthacarita. In the 25th sarga of the Srikarthacarita Mankha tells us that he showed his work to an assembly of learned men in the house of his elder brother Alankāra8 who was minister4 of king Jayasimha of Kashmir (1129-1150 A. D.). The Śrikanthacarita was composed about 1140 A. D. at an advanced age. A good deal of time must have elapsed before Ruyyaka's work attained such popularity as to be the guide of a writer from Orissa. (c) Viśvanātha quotes some verses from the Naișadhīya- carita of Śrīharsa.5 The date of Śrīharșa has been for a long time a subject of discussion among scholars. Śriharsa tells us that he was patronized by a king of Kānyakubja. Rājaśe- khara in his Prabandhakosa written in samvat 1405 informs us that Sriharsa was the son of Hira, who was a minister of Jayantacandra of Kasi. It is probable that this Jayanta- chandra is the same as the Jayacandra that was a king of Kanauj. One of the earliest inscriptions of Jayachandra is dated in samvat 1223.7 Buhler referred the composition of 1. See e. g. pp. 41, 42, 60 of the text and the notes thereon. 2. तं श्रीरुय्यकमालोक्य स प्रियं गुरुमग्रहीत्। सौहार्दप्रश्रयरसस्त्रोतःसम्मेदमज्जनम्॥ श्रीकगठ. XXV.30. 3. मदग्रजन्मनः श्रीमल्लक्ककस्यसभागृहम्। तेध्यासते च विस्रष्धाः सारसा इव मानसम् ।। XXV.15. लक्कक must have been another name of MTEIT. In the third sarga Mankha tells us that he was the last of four brothers, the other three being शृङ्गार, भृद्त and अलक्कार (verse 45, 53, 56). 4. एकं श्रीजयसिंहपार्थिवपर्ति काश्मीरमीनध्वजं तस्योपासितसन्धिवि्रहमलक्कारं द्वितीयं स्तुमः ।श्रीकरठ० X.XV.61. 5. हनूमदाध: etc. (p. 31), धन्यासि वैदर्भि etc. (p.36) which are respectively नषधीय IX. 123 and III. 116. 6. 'ताम्बूलदयमासनं च लभते यः कान्यकुब्जेशरात' etc. last verse of the Naișadhīya. 7. J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. X. p. 31 ff.

300 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the Naisadhiya to some date between 1167 A.D. and 1174 A. D. Gadādhara, a commentator of the Naișadhīya, makes Śrīharsa a protege of Govindachandra of Vārār asī.1 Mańkha informs us that a king of Kānyakubja, named Govindachandra, sent an ambassador to Jayasimha, king of Kashmir.2 It is not unlikely that this is the same as the king mentioned by Gadādhara. Vārāņasī and Kānyakubja may have both been the capitals of the king, or the king may have conquered Vārānasī after coming to the throne of Kanauj. There is another line of reasoning which leads us approximately to the sama date as the above. Srīharsa wrote the Khardana- khandakhādya3 in which he ridicules Uday: na by twisting a verse of the latter. उदयन wrote his लक्षणावली in sake 906 i. e. 984 -- 5 A. D. 'तर्काम्बराङप्रतिमेष्वतीतेषु शकान्ततः। वर्षेषूदयनश्चके सुबोर्धा लक्षयावलीम् ।।'. (d) Cardīdāsa, a commentator of the Kāvyaprakāśa, was the younger brother of Visvanatha's grand-father. It has been shown (p.274) that the काव्यप्रकाश was composed between 1050 and 1100 A. D. Candīdāśa is not one of the oldest commentators of the Kāvyaprakāśa and Viśvanātha is removed by two generations from him. Prof. Bhattacharya in his edition of काव्यप्रकाशसक्केत in Cal. O. J. vol. II. p. 10 (note) finds fault with me for saying (on p. 73 of my Notes) that in the words मान्य and उपजीव्य the reference is to रुय्यक. He says that विश्वनाथ refers in these words to चएडीदास's दीपिका. But I am not at all wrong. He admits that the words set out in the साहित्यदर्पण are not found in the दीपिका. I gave two meanings of that passage : (1) विश्वनाथ rebukes रुय्यक for going against मम्मट who is both मान्य 1. See Prof. S. R. Bhandarkar's Report on his second tour for 1904-5 pp. 43, 87. 2. अन्यः स सुहलस्तेन.ततोऽवन्धत पशिडतः । दूतो गोविन्दचन्द्रस्य कान्यकु्जस्य भूभुजः ॥ श्रीकगठ०.XXV. 102. 3. 'षष्ठः खएडनखएडतोऽपि सहजात्क्षोदक्षमे तन्महाकाव्येडयं व्यगमन्नलस्य चरिते सर्गो निसर्गोज्ज्वल: l।' at the end of the sixth sarga of the Nai. 4. See Preface to Nyāyr kusumāñjali, p. 15. Udayana's verse is 'शक्का चेदनुमारत्येव न चेच्छक्का ततस्तराम्। व्याघातावधिराशक्का तर्क: शक्कावधिमतः ॥' 3rd स्तबक, 7th verse p. 282 of न्यायकुसुमाअली, on which Sriharsa retorts 'तस्मादस्माभिरप्यस्मिन्नर्थे न खलु दुष्पठा। त्वद्वाथवा- न्यथाकारमक्षराशि कियन्त्यपि। व्याघातो यदि शङ्कास्ति न चेच्छक्का ततस्तराम्। व्याघातावधिराशक्का तर्क: शक्कावधि: कुतः ॥'.

SĀHITYADARPAŅA 301

and उपजीव्य to रुय्यक, or (2) he would not further criticize रय्यक who is मान्य and उप०. (e) Viśvanātha quotes the words of a writer called Dharmadatta,1 who was a contemporary of Nārayana, the grand-father (great-great-grand-father ?) of Viśvanātha and was vanquished by him in the court of king Narasimha of Kalinga. Whether Narayana was the grandfather or great- great-grand-father of Viśvanātha would not make much diffe- rence. Many kings of Kalinga bore the name Narasimha. Be- sides, there is a good deal of confusion about the dates of their accession.ª As a ms. of the Sahityadarpana is dated in 1384 A. D. Narasimha IV is not certainly the king at whose court Nārayana lived, because Narasimha IV came to the throne at some time between 1373 A. D. and 1411 A. D. Narasimha III also is out of question, as the date of his accession is some- where between 1328 A. D. and 1361 A. D. It is likely that Narasimha II is the king referred to. The date of his accession falls between 1270 A. D. and 1303 A. D .; he is also styled Kavipriya in his inscriptions, which makes it probable that he patronized many learned men. If Nārayana was really the great-great-grand-father of Visvanatha, then the king may have been Narasimha I, the date of whose accession is somewhere near 1253 A. D. II. The external evidence is as follows :- (f) The Sāhi- tyadarpana is twice mentioned by name in the Ratnāpana3 of Kumārasvāmin, a commentary of the Pratāparudrīya. Kumarasvamin is the son of the famous commentator Malli- nātha, who is believed by all competent authorities to have flourished in the 15th ccntury.4 1. तदाहः धर्मदस्तः स्वग्रन्थे 'रसे सारश्रमत्कारः सर्वत्राप्यनुभूयते। तच्चमत्का- रसारत्वे सर्वत्राप्यद्भतो रसः। तस्मादद्भतमेवाह कृती नारायणो रसम् ॥' on S.D. III. 2-3. 2. See Dr. Bhandarkar's Note on the kings of Kalinga in the Introduction to Mr. Trivedi's edition of the Ekavali. 3. See pp. 245, 248 of the प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण. The quota- tions are the definitions of the व्यभिचारिभावs मद and मोह, which occur in the S. D (III. 146-47 and 150). 4. See Dr. Bhandarkar's Preface to the Mālatīmadhava and Mr. Trivedi's Introduction (pp. XXIV-XXV) to the Bhatțikāvya.

302 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

(h) Govinda Țhakkura in his Kāvyaprakāśa-pradīpa quotes the criticism of Viśvanātha on Mammata's definition of kāvya and Viśvanātha's definition of kāvya without actually naming him.1 Govinda is earlier than 1600 A. D., as he is mentioned by Kamalākarabhatta, who wrote a commentary on the Kävyaprakasa and finished the Nirņayasindhu in 1612 A. D.2 From the foregoing, we see that Viśvanātha refers to a number of writers who flourished in the 12th century A. D. and is in his turn referred to by writers belonging to the 15th and 16th centuries. The date above assigned to Visvanatha, viz. between 1300-1380 A. D., is thus confirmed by unimpea- chable and independent testimony. In the first pari. after the customary mangala, the author speaks of the fruits of poetry, discusses the definitions of kāvya proposed by different writers and at last gives his own defini- tion and illustrates it. In the second pari. after defining a sentence and a word, the author deals at great length with three powers of a word. In the third pari. a full disquisition on rasas, bhävas and other cognate topics is given. The fourth pari. exhaustively deals with the two divisions of kāvya, viz. eafa and gurrasara and their sub-divisions. In the fifth, the author establishes the existence of the vyañjanārrtti and refutes the arguments of those who deny its existence. In the sixth a full and complete treatment of the science of dramaturgy is given. The 7th deals with the dosas of kavya. The 8th speaks of the three gunas of kavya and shows that the gunas spoken of by others are either included in the three mentioned by Viśvanātha or are no gunas at all. In the 9th, the author dilates upon the styles of composition, which are four aqut, गौठी, पाशाली and लाटी. In the 10th, both शब्दालक्कारs and भर्थालक्कारS are dealt with. In the galaxy of Sanskrit rhetoricians Viśvanātha is a 1. भर्वाचीनास्तु "यथोक्तरय काव्यलक्षत्वे काव्यपदं निर्विषयं प्रविरलविषयं वा स्यात्। दोषाणां दुर्वारत्वात्। तस्माव 'वाक्यं रसात्मकं काव्यम्' इति तल्लचरम्। तथा च दुष्टेऽपि रसान्वये काव्यत्वमस्त्येव। परं त्वपकर्षमात्रम्। तदुक्तम् 'कीटानुविद्धर- ल्नादि' इत्यादि। एवं चालक्वारादिसत्वे उत्कर्षमात्रम्। नीरसे तु चित्रादौ काव्यव्यवहारो गौपः" इत्याङु:। प्रदीप p. 13 (Nir.) 2. वसुभ्छतुभतुभूमिते गतेब्दे नरपतिबिक्रमतोऽय याति रौद्र। तपसि शिवतिथौ समापितोडयं रक्षुपतिपादसरोरहेडर्पितम् I1.

SĀHITYADARPAŅA 303

star of the second magnitude only. Beside the brilliance of Anandavardhana, Mammata and Jagannatha his light appears dim. Still the work of Visvanatha has some merits of its own. Its greatest merit is that it presents in the compass of a single work, a full and complete treatment of the science of rhetoric in all its branches. Most Sinskrit writers on Sāhitya, such as Dandin1, Mammata and Jagannatha, leave out the treatment of dramaturgy. The साहित्यदपण, however, contains a thorough disquisition on the technicalities of the dramatic art and forms, together with the Natyasastra of Bharata and the Dasarūpa of HT, a triumvirate in the domain of the Sanskrit drama. Another merit of the work is that it is written in a simple and flowing style. Tne reader is often hampered in going over the Kāvyaprakasa of Mammata by the author's studied efforts at brevity. Jagannatha frightens the student by his flowery language, his subtle reasoning and his scathing criti- cisms of his predecessors. Viśvanātha, although he displays here and there a love for hair-splitting, is generally clear in expression. He is, however, more or less a compiler and not an original writer., In the notes to the साहित्यद्पण we have pointed out in detail to what extent he borrows from the Hei. H.2 Sometimes his judgment seems to. forsake him and he follows slavishly the Sarvasva.8 He does not appear to have bestowed much time and pains upon the selection of examples. Out of about 250 quotations occurring in uf ers I, II and X he borrows no less than 85 from the Dhvanyā- loka, the Kāvyaprakāśa or the Sarvasva and quotes about 20 verses of his own. He is not happy in the innovations that he introduces4 and is sometimes wrong in what he says.5 In spite of these blemishes, his work forms an easy and suitable introduction to Sanskrit sāhitya. Vide an article on 1. Dandin says 'मिश्राशि नाटकादीनि वेषामन्यत्र विस्तरः ।' K.D. I.31; Bhamaha says 'नाटकं दविपदीशभ्यारासकस्कन्धकादि यद्। उक्क तद- भिनेयार्थमुक्तोन्यस्तस्य विस्तरः॥' I. 24. 2. See p. 187, 209, 216, 310 etc. 3. Vide e.g. the treatment of परिणाम, व्यतिरेक and भर्थान्तर- न्यास. 4. For example, vide निक्षय pp. 138-141 and अनुकूल pp. 230-231 of my notes on साहित्यदपण. 5. Vide remarks on pp. 100, 125, 213, 243, of the notes.

304 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Viśvanātha Kavirāja and his references to forgotten Alankāra writers by Prof. S. P. Bhattachārya in JOI (Baroda) vol. III. pp. 357-365. Tojudge from the number of commentaries, Viśvanātha's work seems not to have enjoyed much popularity except per- haps in Bengal. From the various report's on the search for mss. it appears that there exist five commentaries.1 That of Ramacarana is printed in the Nir. edition. The commentary, though useful in its own way, is not so learned or helpful as the Pradipa or the Uddyota. It seldom gives the sources of the verses quoted in illustration or explanations of them. It very rarely compares the author's definitions with those of other writers. It commits serious mistakes in certain cases.2 Mr. Motilal Banarasidas of Lahore published in 1938 A. D. an edition of the साहित्यदर्पय with two commentaries, viz. the विज्ञप्रिया of महेश्वरभट्ट and the लोचन of अनन्तदास, son of विश्वनाथ himself. The ata is brief, but learned and to the point. The विज्प्रिया is an extensive and learned commentary. महेश्वर commented on the pam also. He flourished about the middle of the 17th century. Recently the Kasi-sanskrita- granthmala (2nd ed. in 1955) published the whole of the Sahityadarpana with a modern sanskrit commentary called Lakşmī by ācārya Krsnamohana Sāstri, and Dr. Satyavrata Sinha has brought out an edition (1957) with a Hindi com- mentary in the Vidyabhavana-granthamāla (Banaras). 35 The रसमञ्जरी and रसतर्राङ्गणी of भानुदत्त. The first work has been published with two commentaries (in the Banaras S. Series) and the second by P. Regnaud in 'La Rhetorique Sanskrite' pp. 43-66 and by the Venkateśwar press, Bombay. The रसतरङ्गिणी is divided into eight तरङ्s; I मझल in honour of कृष्य, definitions, and sub-divisions of भाव, स्थायिभाव; II definition and divisions of विभाव; III अनुभावs (such as कटाक); IV the eight सातत्विकभावS (स्तम्भ, स्वेद, रोमाश् &c.); V व्यमिचारिभावs; VI Rasas and detailed treatment of शृक्वार; VII हास्य and other rasas; VIII three kinds of fe, viz. that due to 1. Viz. that of भनन्तदास, a ms. of which is dated in 1626 A.D .; that of रामचरय written in 1700 A.D., that of मथुरानाथ शुक्ल, the प्रभा of गोपीनाथ and विज्ञप्रिया of महेश्वर. 2. Vide notes on निक्षय (p. 139), विशेष (pp. 255-257), भाविक (pp. 307-308).

BHĀNUDATTA 305

स्थायिभावs (eight kinds), that due to व्यमिचारिभावs (20 kinds), that due to the rasas (eight kinds) and illustration of some of them; how some rasas spring from others and opposition among them. The रसमजरी is a somewhat smaller treatise than the रसतर० and their topics are somewhat different. The रसमञ्जरी deals with नायिकाs and their varieties (about two-thirds of the work are taken up by this subject), the सखी of the नायिका, दूती, नायकs (in शृङ्गार) and their varieties, the friends of the नायक (viz. पीठमद, विट, चेट, विदूषक), the cight सात्विकगुराS (स्तम्भ &C.), two varieties of शङ्ार and ten stages of विप्रलम्भ. In both works all the examples except in a few cases where the author indica- tes to the contrary are the author's own as he says 'अवगाहस्व वाग्देवि दिव्या रसतर्राङ्णीम् । अस्मत्पद्यन पद्मेन रचय श्रतिभूषयम् ।।' (रसत० 8. 29) and पधेन स्वीकृतेन तेन कविना श्रीभानुना योजिता (last verse of रसमन्जरी). In the रसत०, भरत is very frequently quoted and also author's father (pp. 16, 81, 141, 168). In both he quotes from the अमरुशतक the पाद 'ताम्बूलाहरणच्छलेन० of verse 18 in रसत० V. p. 109 and verse 35 प्रस्थानं वलयैः कृतं in रसमञ्जरी p. 183 (which is noted as प्राचीनग्रन्थलेखन). For the रसमञजरी the edition in the Benares S. Series is used. In both works the author refers to पूर्वाचार्य (रसत० 175), प्राचीनलिखित (रसम० p. 43), पूर्वअ्रन्थकारसंमति (रसत० p.168), प्राचीनसंमति (रसत० pp. 170, 182). In the रसत० hementions the रसरत्नदीपिका (p.20) and शृङ्गारतिलक (p. 68). The रसमब्जरी was composed before रसत० (p.130). He quotes in the रसत० 177) as प्राचीनग्रन्थ the verse 'अनौचित्यादृते नान्यद्रसभकस्य कारणम्। प्रसिद्धौचित्यवद्रस्तु रसहर्षाय जायते' ॥l which is very similar to a verse in ्वo (p. 180) and व्यक्तिविवेक (p.31). In the रसमन्जरी he tells us that his father was गरोश्वर and his country was विदेह watered by the Ganges (तातो यस्य गयेशवरो कविकुलालक्कार चूडामणिदेशो यस्य विदेहभ्: सुरसरित्कल्लोलकिमीरिता, last verse). Some mss. read विदर्भभू:, which does not agree with the word सुर ... रिता that follows. In Burnell's Tanjore Cat. भानुदर is styled मैथिल. In Eggeling's Cat. of India Office mss. vol. III. No. 1211 p. 353 a ms. of the Rasamanjari dated संवद् 1780 ascribes it to मैथिलश्रीगयनाथस न्मिश्र० The two published commentaries on the रसमम्जरो are the व्यक्यार्थकौमुदी of अनन्तपरिडत, son of त्र्यम्बक, composed in 1635 A. D. at पुएयस्तम्भ (modern Puntambem) on the गोदावरी, and प्रकाश by नागेशभट्ट son of शिवभट्ट in the first half of the 18th century. A lyrical poem called गीतगौरीश or गीतगौरीपति is ascribed

306 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

to भानुवस, which is an imitation of the गीतगोविन्द. It describes the affection of Gauri for Siva in ten cantos. It specifies how the verses (in groups of eight) are to be sung to certain melodies (such as Āsāvarī, Karņāțaka, Kedāra, Bhūpāla, Bhairavī, Malava). Vide Eggeling's Cat. of India Office mss. vol. VII. pp. 1443-45 No. 3847. This work was published in the nry- रस्नमाला in Bombay in 1887 but I could not get a copy of it. The गीतगौरीश appears to be the work of the author of the रसमम्जरी and रसतरदिणी. Another work named कुमारभागवीय described in Eggeling's Cat. vol. VII pp. 1540-41 speaks of Kartikeya. It is in twelve asares in mixed prose and verse. There the author's pedigree is given as follows : रत्नेश्वर-सुरेश्वर- विश्वनाथ-रविनाथ-भवनाथ-महादेव-गणपति-भानुदस्त. Introductury verse 18 ascribes the वार्तिक on Vedanta to सुरेश्वर, the ancestor of भानुदर्त. But this is certainly wrong; सुरेश्वर wrote his वार्तिक in the 9th century and it is not possible to hold that ut who was only 7th in ascent from भानुदस्त (including the latter) could have flourished in the 9th century. Dr. Har Dutta Śarma (in Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. 17 pp. 243-258) shows that in some of the later anthologies such as the पधरचना, सुभाषितहारावलि and रसिकजीवन verses from रसमब्जरी and रसत० are ascribed to भानुकर, that भानुकर and भानुदस are the same, that as भानुदत्त says in his रसत० V. p. 73 (कषोणीपर्यटनं श्रमाय विहितं ... कुज्ञानेन मया प्रयागनगरे नाराधि नाराय: ॥), he wandered over several parts of India and that भानुकर being patronized by वीर- g, he should be placed at the beginning of the 16th century. Dr. De in the same vol. (pp. 297-98) does not accept the identity of भानुकर and भानुदस and I also hold that the evidence for identifying the two is not satisfactory and is meagre. Dr. Raghavan (in Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. XVIII. pp. 85-86) states that the ascriptions of authorship in onthologies should not be much relied on and that a verse quoted in रसिकजीवन and relied upon by Dr. Har Dutta Sarma (on p. 257 of vol. 17 of Annals B. O. R. I.) is really a verse in the बालभारत (I. 28) of राजशेखर. We have seen (pp. 148-150) what a mess the anthologies make about रुद्रट and रुद्रभट्ट. Prof. Devasthali in New I. A. vol. VII. pp. 111-117 examines several questions connected with भानुदस and heconcludes that भानुदस is certainly the author of six works, viz. रसत०, रसम०, अलक्कारतिलक, गीतगौरीश, कमारभार्गवीय and चित्र चन्द्रिका (mentioned in अलक्वारतिलक as his work

BHĀNUDATTA 307

but no ms. of it is yet found) and that a ms. of ममारदीपिका not being available as yet, it cannot be said with certainty that it is भानव's work. He further establishes that भानदर was a Maithila and argues that as the शार्भ्रधरपद्धति (which was compo- sed about 1363 A. D.) does not mention any verse of aasu, the latter must be held to be later than that work. The argument from silence is never a satisfactory one. We must have positive evidence about maa and about the ancestors of भानुकर. As भानुदस mentions the सरस्वतीकएठाभरण, the काव्यप्रकाश and the गीतगोविन्द, he is certainly not earlier than about 1250 A. D. In Stein's Cat. of Jammu mss. the date of a commentary on the रसमन्जरी called विकास (or विलास) by गोपाल, son of नृसिंह, was given as 1484. Stein committed two mistakes; the date was really 1494 and he took it as referring to the tiaq era, but the mention of Angiras as the name of the year establishes that it was a śaka year (vide Prof. S. R. Bhandarkar's Report for 1904-6 p. 36 and Prof. Gode in Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. 16 pp. 145-147). Thus the ms. is dated in 1572 A. D. The रत्नापय (p. 280) quotes the view of रसमन्जरी as follows: 'नायकयो- र्निमिच्तो विप्रयोग: प्रणयमानापरपर्यायो विरह्विप्रलम्भ इत्यर्थ:। रसमजर्या परस्परमाश्चोल्लङनं प्रखयमान इति. It is not necessary to take this as a quotation. It is quite possible that this is a summary of the views of the रसमब्जरी which on pp. 42-44 (of the Benares S. Series, 1904) contains similar views. Therefore 3 flou- rished after 1250 and before 1500 A. D. In 1923 I had put forward the conjecture that भानुदस was the son of गणेशवर, who wasthe uncle of चएडेश्वर and minister of a king of Mithila. If we look to the pedigree of भानुदर given above from the कुमारभारगवीय and compare it with that of गेश्वर given in my H. of Dh. vol. I. p. 371 note 889, it would appear that this con- jecture cannot be supported. In Mitra's Notices vol. IX. No. 3115 (pp. 194-5) the commentary परिमल on रसमब्जरी by शोष- चिन्तामणि, son of नृसिह, is described and at the end of the colo- phon occurs the date aiaq 1609 (i. e. 1552-3 A. D.). There is nothing to show that this is the date of the composition of the commentary. It may be the date of the copying of the com. In Dr. Bhandarkar's Report on mss. for 1883-84 (pp. 365-66) the colophon is somewhat different and the date is altogether absent. Dr. Har Dutta Sharma has changed his

308 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

views from time to time (vide p. 248 of Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. 17) and at one time he held that Nizam mentioned as praised by maar (according to late anthologies) is a king of the Nizamshahi dynasty and now he thinks (ibid p. 254) that he is Nizamkhan of the Lodi dynasty. Further verses ascri- bed to भानुकर praise Sher Shah (1540-1545 A. D.). So if भानुकर and भानुदत्त are identical भानुदत्त flourished about 1540 A. D. This is an almost impossible date. If a com. on रसमव्जरी was copied in 1552-53 and भानुदत्त flourished about 1540, then the रसमब्जरी, its commentary and a copy of the latter would have only a period of ten or 15 years. It appears that मानुदस was married to a sister of मिसरुमिश्र, author of विवादचन्द्र (vide Patna University Journal vol. III. No. 1 and 2, a paper by Pandit Ramanatha Jha). In my H. of Dh. vol. I. p. 399 1 have shown that मिसरुमिश्र must be assigned to the middle of the 15th century. Therefore भानुदत्त also must be deemed to belong to a period not later than that date by more than a few years. The रसमन्जरी (Benares ed. p. 232, verse 121) is 'मेदो वाचि दृशोजलं कुचतटे स्वेद: प्रकम्पोधरे पाएडुगएडतटी वपुः पुलकितं लीनं मनस्तिष्ठति। आलस्यं नयनश्रियश्चरणयोः स्तम्भ: समुज्जम्भते तत्कि राजपथे निजाम- भरणीपालोयमालोकित: ॥'. There is here a reference to a Moslem ruler निजाम. The व्यक्ार्थकौमुदी explains that he was king of देवगिरि. If one looks at Duff's Chronology of India, there are atleast a dozen rulers between 1400 to 1550 A. D. who were called निजाम and who ruled in the Deccan or Central India and other places. Therefore, it is difficult to say what Moslem king is referred to by the रसमब्जरी. Dr. Har Dutta Sarma (in I. H. Q. vol. X pp. 478 ff) relies on this that some anthologies mention agET and quote some verses as his in which निजाम, वीरभानु and कृष्ण are mentioned. At present no great writer named भानुकर is known. Therefore Dr. Sarma and others identify भानुदस and भानुकर. But I cannot admit that this is legitimate. We do not know all poets that flouri- shed through the centuries. Besides, may be shortend into भान, just as भीमसेन is mentioned as भीम. There is so far as I know no instance of men like हरदत्त, रुद्रदत्त, रुचिदत्त being referred to anywhere as हरकर, रद्रकर or रचिकर. Therefore, it is doubtful whether भानुदत्त and भानुकर are identical. In the रसपारिजात1 edited 1. The रसपारिजात is a work of भानुदत, wherein are collect- ed about a thousand verses of भानुदत himself and his father

BHĀNUDATTA 309

by Pandit Badarinath Jha verses of mara and his father alone are included and in some of them verses of aas addressed to निजामशाह, कृष्ण and वीरभातु are quoted. But this may only prove that ma had the patronage of these three. Recently, Prof. G. V. Devasthali has published a work called अलक्कारतिलक of भानुदन्त (based on three mss.) in J.B.B.R. A. S. (New Series) vol. 23 pp. 57-82 and vol. 24-25 pp. 93-120. It is divided into five uf=eas. It is in mixed prose and verse. The illustrations are the author's own or of his father who is frequently quoted (pp. 60, 61, 62, 94, 95 &c.). The contents are: परिच्छेद I : after Mangala in honour of वाराहावतार and refe- rence to himself as भानुसत्कषि, he states that rasas are the soul, kāvya is the body, gati, rīti, vrtti, absence of doșas, guņas and alankāras are the indriyas, vyutpatti is prāņa and abhyāsa is mind; three kinds of kāvya, uttama, madhyama, adhama; kāvya is of four kinds acc. to language, संस्कृत, प्राकृत, अपभ्रंश, मिश्र; sabda, and artha are kāvya and rīti is a characteristic (f) of kāvya; 6 ritis; वृत्तिs कैशिकी &c. II discussion about दोषड, dosas of पद, वाक्य, वाक्यार्थ; III gunas of three kinds बाह्य, भान्तर and वैशेषिक; बाह्यगुराs are of शब्द and आन्तर of अर्थ; 24 gunas, श्लेष &c. IV Defi- nition of अलद्वार (शपाधिकप्रकर्षहेतुरलक्कार:); six अलक्कारs of शब्द, वक्रोकि, अनुप्रास, यमक, श्लेष, चित्र, पुनरुक्तवदाभास acc. to काव्यप्रकाश and गति, रीति, वृत्ति, छाया &c. in addition acc. to कण्ठाभरय; V अर्थालक्कारs, in all 71. भानुदत्त closely follows the सरस्वतीकएठाभरण in the matter of the number of वृर्तिs, the दोषड of पद, बाक्य and वाक्यार्थ and in other matters. Among the authors and works quoted are :

गणपति, divided into ten chapters called पल्लवs. In the 2nd and 3rd पल्मवs there are 89 verses of which 80 are those of भानुदर himself in which king Nijam Shah or simply Nijam is praised in 14 verses, वीरभान in five verses, king कृष्ण in two and king संग्रामसाहि in only one. Dr.De thought that Nizamshah was the first founder king of Ahmednagar, while Pandit Ramanath Jha thinks (Journal, Patna University vol. III cited above) that he is the 2nd king of that dynasty and gou is the Krishna- deva Raya of Vijayanagar who ascended the throne in 1509 A. D. and reigned up till 1530. These are all conjectures and the only solid basis is that argea had married a sister of मिसरुमिश्र. Therefore भानुदर must have lived between 1450 to 1500 A. D.

310 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

कयठामरस (सरस्वतीकएठामरय of भोज), काव्यप्रकाश, गीतगोविन्द (vol. 24 P, 94), चित्रचन्द्रिका (his own work, vol. 24 p. 96), दयडी (vol. 23 p. 58 and p.79 called दण्डीकार), भरत, वामन. He does not mention the name of his father or does not give any other information about himself. At the end he says : 'विदुधा पद्यसूत्रेण गुम्फितालङ्कृति- मया। सूत्रमको यथा न स्यादेतस्या: कलयेतथा ।'. This indicates that the illustrative verses are his own. 36 The भक्तिरसामृतसिन्ध and उज्ज्वलनीलमण of रूप- गोस्वामिन. The great Vaisnava movement inspired by Sri Caitanya (1486-1533 A. D.) produced an erotico-mystical technique. Dr. De in 'The Vaisnava faith and movement in Bengal' (1942, Calcutta) furnishes an exhaustive and well- documented treatment of this movement. Our concern with that movement is due to the fact that रूपगोस्वामी was inspired to write the above works to place the doctrine of bhakti concentrat- ed on Krsna into the garb and phraseology of the rasa theory. Religious hankerings and spiritual mysticism are here clothed in the language and ideology of earthly love and passion. It is impossible to give even a brief account of these two works within the limited space that I can afford. Ishall content myself by giving a very brief outline of the उष्ज्वलनीलमखि. Those who want further information may read the original works and the analysis of the भक्तिरसामृतसिन्धु and उज्ज्वलनीलमणि furnished in the abovementioned work by Dr. De at pp. 126- 153 and pp. 153-167 respectively and the paper 'Bhaktirasaśāstra in Bengal Vaişnavism' (by Dr. De) in I. H· Q. vol. VIII pp. 643-688. The उज्ज्वलनीलमणि1 has been published in the K. M. Series (1932) with two commentaries, viz. लोचनरोचनी of जीवगोस्वामी,

1. The last verse is : भयमुज्ज्वलनीलमणिरग हनमहाघोषसागरप्रभवः । भजतु तव मकरकुएडलपरिसर सेवीचितीं देव I।. It says thatit may reach the ears of Srikrsna who dwelt in the ocean-like Nandavraja. The word उज्ज्वलनीलमणि applies to the work and also to श्रीकृष्ण who is शभ्ार incarnate and who is described as घननील. उज्ज्वल: मन्नाररसः एव नीलमि: गहन ... प्रभवः also suggests that the work उन्ज्वलनीलमणि arose out of the previous work भक्तिर सामृतसिन्धु. जीवगोस्वामी in his com. on Intro .. verse 2 makes it clear that even when the उज्ज्वलनीलमणि is meant to expound शुङ्गार expli- citly in relation to airgew, it is not meant that is should be laid

RŪPAGOSVĀMIN 311

the nephew of रूपगोस्वामी (son of रूप's younger brother बल्लभ) and the भानन्दचन्द्रिका of विश्वनाथचक्रवर्तिन् composed at बृन्दावन in saka 1618. The first verse is : नामाकृष्टरसज्ञः शीलेनोद्दीपयन् सदानन्दम्। निज- रूपोत्सवदायी सनातनात्मा प्रभुजयति ।। (the word सनातन applies to श्रीकृष्ण as well as to सनातन the elder brother of रूप). The 2nd verse says that in the previous work (भक्तिरसामृतसिन्धु) भफिरस (which is the chief among rasas called शान्तप्रीतिप्रेयोवत्सलोज्ज्वल- नामसु) was briefly dealt with because of its esoteric character but is dealt with at length in the उज्ज्वल०. भक्तिरस has मधुरारति as the स्थायिभाव and is called मधुर when it reaches the position of aesthetic enjoyment through the विभावs &c. (वच््यमाणैर्विभावाषैः स्वाद्यतामधुरा रतिः। नीता भक्तिरसः प्रोक्तो मधुराख्यो मनीषिभिः ॥). भरत in his नाव्यशाख VI p. 73 (G.O.S. ed. VI after verse 50 pp. 301-2) says 'शृभ्गारो नाम रतिस्थायिभावप्रभव उज्ज्वलवेषात्मकः। यथा यत् किश्िल्लोके शुचि मेध्यं दर्शनीयं वा तच्छ कारेखानुमीयते (गोपमीयते)। यस्तावडुज्ज्वलवष: सशुक्गार- वानित्युच्यते । ... तदेवमेव गुर्वाचारसिद्धो हृद्योज्ज्वलवेषात्मकः शृङ्गारोरसः". The उज्ज्वलनीलमणि in स्थायिभावप्रकरण verses 54-55 (on p. 417 of 2nd ed.) states that six bhavas स्नेह, मान, प्रथथ, राग, अनुरांग, महाभाव are playful manifiestations of love (प्रेम) and compares them to the sugarcane stalks, the juice extracted from them, jaggery, sugar, white sugar and candied sugar, all of which are different stages of the products of sugarcane (बीजमितुः स च रसः स गुरः खएड एव सः । स शर्करा सिता सा च सा यथा स्यात्सितोपला। अतः प्रेमविलासाः स्युर्भावा: स्नेहादयस्तु षट् I।). Whatever is pure, holy, and attractive to the eye in the world is inferred to be (or compared to) Śrngara, which has as its chief element attractive and brilliant

bare anywhere and before anybody like other works 'पुरा संचेपेयो- दितत्वे हेतुरतिरहस्यत्वादिति निवृत्तानां लौकिकादुज्ज्वलाख्यरसात्तत्साम्यम् । ...... तथा भागवते ये केचित् तस्मिन् बहुमानिनोपि तात्पर्यालोचनाया न चतुरास्तरपि दुरूहोडयं रस इति तेभ्योऽपि गोप्य एव कार्यः किमुत विषयिम्य इति रहस्यमेवात्र मुख्यो हेतुरिति भावः। अत्र तु विस्तरेय वचने हेतुः रहस्यत्वादित्येव। कालदेशपात्रविशेष सम्बन्धेन रहस्यत्वं प्राप्येत्यर्थः। ल्यब्लोपे पञ्चमी स्याद्। यदा पृथगित्यनेनैव रहस्य इति व्यज्यते। तस्माद्यन्थान्तरवधत्र कुत्रचिन्नायं प्रकाशनीय इत्युपदिष्टम्।'. रूप says, quoting भागवत, that the husbands of the Vraja women thought. that their wives were by their sides and did not feel jealousy about Krsna 'न जातु ब्रजदेवीनां पतिमिः सह सक्गमः । तथाहि श्रीदशमे। नासू- यन्खलु कृष्णाय मोहितास्तस्य मायया। मन्यमाना: स्वपाश्वस्थान्स्वान्स्वान् दारान्त- जौकसः ॥' (I. 31 pp. 58-59). This last verse is भागवत 10th स्कन्ध, पूर्वार्ष, chap. 33.38.

312 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

appearance and attire. In this rasa, the आालम्बनविभावs are Krsna (as the विषय of मधुरारति) and his loves (वल्लभाs) who are the भाश्रय of मधुरारति; the qualities of Krsna (his charm, physi- cal and mental youth, agreeable speech &c.), his actions and his decorations are the exciting (उद्दीपनविभावs) circumstances; the well-known four kinds of hero (नायक viz. धीरोदात्त, धीरोद्धत्त, धीरललित, धीरप्रशान्त) have further two varieties पति (as of रुक्मिणी and सत्यभामा) and उपपति (as of the women of vraja); the four vari- eties are again either पूर्णतम, पूर्णतर and पूर्ण; each of these (पति and उपपति) is of four kinds viz. अनुकूल, दक्षिणा, शठ and धृष्ट; defi- nitions and illustrations of all these varieties, qualities, actions & c. (अनुकूलपति being राम and अनुकूल-उपपति being कृष् in relation to राधा); S0 नायकs are of 96 varieties; the nayaka's friends are five, viz. चेट, विट, विदूषक, पीठमर्द, प्रियनर्मसख; their definitions and examples1; the beloved of Hari is of two kinds, svakīyā and parakīyā; the first were 16108 wives of Hari residing in Dvaraka, out of these eight viz. रुक्मिणी, सत्या, जाम्बवती, भर्कनन्दिनी, शैष्या, भद्रा, कौशल्या, माद्री were the principal ones; parakiyas are of two kinds viz. kanya (maidens) and परोढा (married to ano- ther), that were mostly resident in Vraja; the parodhā nayikas were of three kinds, viz. साधनपरा, देवी, नित्यप्रिया; साधनपराS are again of two kinds यौथिक्य: and अयौथिक्य :; the first are those

1. रूपगोस्वामी says that what is called illicit and secret love and is ordinarily condemned is the highest pinnacle of śrgara and that the condemnation applies only to ordinary mortals and not to a completely perfect avatāra (Krsna) who took to an incarnation to give a taste of mystic love to his devo- tees 'अत्रैव परमोत्कर्षः शृक्गारस्य प्रतिष्ठितः। तथा च मुनिः । बद्ठु वार्यते यतः खलु यत्र प्रच्छन्नकामुकत्वं च । या च मिथो दुर्लभता सा परमा मन्मथस्य रतिः॥ लघुत्वमत्र यत्प्रोक्तं तत्त प्राकृतनायके। न कृष्णे रसनिर्यासस्वादार्थमवतारिखि॥ उज्ज्वल० I. 16-18 pp. 14-15. The भागवत (X. 33. 30-31) states 'धर्मव्यति- क्रमो दृष्ट ईश्वराणां च साहसम् । तेजीयसा न दोषाय वहनेः सर्वभुजो यथा ॥ नैतत्समाचरेज्जातु मनसापि हयानीश्वरः। विनश्यत्याचरन्मौढ्याधथा रुद्रोऽब्धिजं विषम् ।।'. The उज्ज्वलनीलमणि quoting श्रीमन्भागवत gives the following warning: वर्तितव्यं शमिच्छद्िभंक्तवन्न तुकृष्णवत्। इत्येवं भक्तिशाखत्ारणां तात्पर्यस्य विनिर्ययः ॥ रामाविवद्वतितव्यं न कचिद्रावणादिवत्। इत्येष मुक्तिधर्मादिपरार्णां नय इष्यते ।'. But this advice is, I am afraid, too much for common people. The words 'रामादिवद्वर्तितव्यं न रावणादिवदित्युपदेशं च' in the काव्यप्रकाश I (p.10) are probably taken from the भागवत.

RŪPAGOSVĀMIN 313

that work in a group; they are of two kinds, muni and upanisads; भयौथिक्य: were of two kinds, प्राचीन and नव; देवीs were those goddesses that were born on the earth along with oU; TTHT and चन्द्रावली were among नित्यप्रियाS; and enumeration of the gunas of Radha and their illustrations; five kinds of सखी; स्वकीया and परकीया are each of three kinds viz. मुग्धा, मध्या and प्रगल्भा; their definitions and illustrations; sub-divisions of these; all nāyikās are again of eight kinds viz. अमिसारिका, वासकसज्जा, उत्कगिठता, खिडता, विप्रलब्धा, कलहान्तरिता, प्रोषितपतिका, स्वाधीनभर्तका, their defini- tions and examples; further sub-divisions; in all 360 kinds of नायिका; दूतीs of two kinds स्वयंदूती and भाप्तदूती; their sub-divisions and characteristics; wets and their qualities and characteristics; the उद्दीपनविभावs, viz. the gunas (मानस, वाचिक, कायिक) of Hari and his priyas and their elucidation; their names, actions, decora- tions, things in contact with them (such as flute, song, nirmālya, basil plant), anubhūvas; 20 guņas due to sattva, bhāva, hāva, helã (three angaja), seven (sobhā, kānti &c.) that are natural and] without effort and ten that are svabhāvaja (līlā, vilāsa, &c.); the sāttvikabhāvas, stambha (due to fear, wonder, grief, anger), perspiration &c .; thirty-three vyabhīcāribhāvas, such as nirveda, glani &c .; explanation of srngara called nyrrrfa; firm रति is called प्रेमा, which has six aspects viz. स्नेह, मान, प्रयय, राग, अनुराग, भाव, just as from the same sugarcane one can get juice, गुड, खएड, शर्करा, सिता, सितोपला; subdivisions of प्रेमा; शृद्गार is of two kinds. विप्रलम्भ and सम्भोग; the latter is of two kinds, मुख्य and गौस and sub-divisions of these two. The उन्ज्वलनीलमणि is distinguished from many other works on Poetics in two ways, viz. it treats exhaustively of Bhaktirasa and all the illustrations relate to Krsna, his devotees and their moods and doings. Rūpagosvāmin also composed a work on dramaturgy called नाटकचन्द्रिका. At the beginning of his work he states that he followed Bharata and Rasasudhākara and rejected the dicta of the Sahityadarpana as they were opposed to those of Bharata. It is divided into eight sections. It contains the usual topics of the general characteristics of a drama, the Nāyaka, other topics of a drama such as nāndī, sandhis, patākā, vişkambhaka, bhāșās, vịttis and their adaptation to the several rasas. Most of the numerous examples are taken from Vaișnava works. For an analysis of the contents, vide Mitra's

314 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Notices, vol. IXNo. 3160, pp. 40-41. The पच्यावलि of रूप has been edited by Dr. De in the Dacca University Publications Series. A few words must be said about the personal history of रूपगोस्वामी and जीवगोस्वामी. सनातन, his younger brother रूप and जीव (son of the youngest brother वल्लभ or अनुपम) are the most prominent of the gosvamins of Vrndavana. Their family was originally a Karņāta brāhmana1 family that migrated to Bengal at the end of the 14th century. सनातन, रूप and जीव fell heart and soul in the bhakti movement of Caitanya, otherwise called Gauranga. रूप systematized the भक्तिरसशास्त्र in the भक्तिरस।मृतसिन्धु and उज्ज्वल नीलमणि, while जीव specially dealt with the metaphy- sics of the Caitanya movement. Vide Aufrecht's cat. I p. 533, Dr. De's 'Vaisnava faith and movement in Bengal' pp. 113- 114 for the works of Rupa and pp. 116-118 of the latter for the works of Jiva. Among the authors and works named in the उउज्वलनीलमि the following may be noted: उद्धवसन्देश (pp.115, 126, 181,291, &c.), कर्णामृत (p. 602), क्रमदीपिका (p. 425), गीतगो- विन्द (pp. 140, 199, 215 &c.), छन्दोमन्जरी, जगन्नाथवल्लभ (p.525, a प्राकृत verse), दशरूपक, दानकेलिकौमुदी (a drama pp. 198, 272,283 &c.), पश्मपुराय, पद्यावलि (his own work frequently quoted), भरत (quoted several times), भागवत (particularly 10th skandha frequently cited), मुक्ताचरित (p. 318), मुनि (i. e. भरत pp. 14, 40

1. M. T. Kennedy in his 'Caitanya movement' (Oxford Un. Press, 1925, pp. 45-46) states that when Caitanya set out for Brindavan he met at Rāmkeli two remarkable men, who were originally Maratha brahmanas of princely descent, whose ancestors had migrated to Bengal and who had adopted the faith of Islam and had risen to be high officials in the Muha- mmedan court at Gaur. They were at once drawn to Caitanya and became the followers of Caitanya who gave them the names of Sanatana and Rupa. These men played a lead- ing part in the Caitanya movement. Dr. De in 'E irly History of the Vaisnava faith &c.' p. 73 n. 2 scouts the idea that Sanatana and Rupa had embraced the faith of Islam an l states that there is no evidence for holding so. But the evidence to the contrary that he brings forward is not very satisfactory nor conclusive.

RŪPAGOSVĀMIN 315

&c.), रससुधाकर1 (pp. 282, 296 &c.), रुक्मिणीस्वयंवर (p.333), रुद्र2 (p. 54), ललितमाधव (a drama in 10 Acts, very frequently quo- ted), वामनपुराय (p. 65), विदग्धमाधव (a नाटक in 7 Acts printed in K. M. Series, most frequently quoted), विष्ुगुप्तसंहिता (p. 54), विष्णुपुराण (p. 352), सप्तशती, हंसदूत (p.232), इरिवंश. Asregards the dates of रूप and जीव there is not much difficulty. रूप's दानकेलिकीमुदी was written in 1495 A. D. The verse at the end of the विदग्धमाधवनाटक (in 7 Acts) states that it was composed in samvat 1589 (i.e.1532-3 A. D.) 'नन्दसिन्धु- रबायेन्दुरुख्ये संवत्सरे गते। विदग्धमाधवं नाम नाटकं गोकुले कृतम् ।। (K.M. ed.). Mitra (Notices, vol. IX No. 3159) notes that his उत्कलिकामन्जरी was composed in 1550 A.D. (शके 1471). भक्तिरसामृत- सिन्धु is expressly dated saka 1463 (1541-42A.D.). The उज्ज्वल० was composed after this. See Dr. Stein, Jammu Cat. p. 222. These dates show that e4 had at least 55 year's literary activity. Dr. De (in the work cited above p. 121) states that both सनातन and 4 were alive in 1554 A. D. and died in the same year at the interval of a few months. So the life of sy extended from about 1470 A. D. to 1554 A. D. There are two different traditions about the birth date of जीव, either saka 1435 (1513- 4 A. D.) or 1445 (1523-24 A. D.). The माधवमहोत्सव of जीव was composed in 1555 A. D. and his गोपालचम्पू bears the dates 1589 and 1592 A. D. Vide Dr. De's work cited above pp. 119-122 for the dates of सनातन, रूप and जीव. 37 The अलक्कारशेखर of केशवमिश्र. The work has been published in the K. M. serics. The work is divided into three parts, कारिकाs, वृत्ति and examples. The author himself tells us that the कारिकाs are the work of शौद्धोदनि 'अलक्कारविद्यासूत्रकारो भगवा-

1. The रससुधाकर is the same as the रसाखवसुधाकर of Singabhupala (Tri. ed.). The veise अलोलरनुमीयते० cited from रससुधाकर by उज्ज्वल (p. 282) occurs in रसायवसु० (I. p. 45) and the two verses दुरास दे० and वर्षासु तासु० on p.296 of उज्ज्वल० occur in रसार्यवसु. on pp. 45 and 47 respectively. Dr. De (HSP, vol. I. p.256) was in doubt whether रससुधाकर was रसायवसुधाकर. 2. The verse from रुद्र 'वामता दुर्लभत्वं च ...... परममायुधम्' quoted in उज्ज्वल० p. 54 occurs in the शृङ्गारतिलक (Pischel's ed.) II. 41, p. 52. 3. See Eggeling's Cat. vol. VII p. 1592 No. 4179 for a description of ललितमाचव.

316 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

च्छौदोदनिः परमकारुशिक: स्वशास्त्रे प्रवतयिष्यन्प्रथमं काव्यस्वरूपमाह (p. 2); 'अ्रतमेवान्यथाकारमच्राणि कियन्त्यपि। काव्यालक्वारविद्यार्या शौद्धोदनिरसूत्रयद्।। (p. 83). Whether शौद्धोदनि is the name of an author or whe- ther the कारिकाs were composed by some Buddhist writer and were subsequently ascribed to शौद्धोदनि (a name of भगवान् बुद्ध) cannot be determined. The work very largely draws upon the काव्यादर्श, काव्यमीमांसा, the ध्वन्यालोक, the काव्यप्रकाश, वाग्भटालक्कार, भोजराज and quotes श्रीपाद (an otherwise unknown author on alankāra) very frequently. The work is divided into 8 GeTs and 22 मरीचिs (rays) the subjects of which are-1, definition of काव्य as 'रसादिमद्धाक्य' and its hetu, प्रतिभा etc .; 2, three रीतिऽ (वैदर्भी, गौडी and मागधी), उक्ति and मुद्रा with their varieties; 3, the three functions of a word viz. शक्ति, लक्षया and व्यञ्ञना; 4, eight dosas of पद; 5, twelve dosas of वाक्य; 6, eight dosas of अर्थ; 7, the five gunas of शब्द, संत्षिप्तत्व, उदात्तत्व, प्रसाद, उच्ति and समाधि; 8, four gunas of sense, भाविकत्व, सुशब्दत्व, पर्यायोक्ति and सुधर्मिता; 9, in some cases the above doșas become gunas and are called atrfae- गुरs or are not faults; 10, eight अलक्कारs of शब्द, viz. चित्र, वक्रोकि, अनुप्रास, गूढ, श्लेष, प्रहेलिका, प्रश्नोत्तर and यमक; 11, only fourteen alanikaras of sense and no more viz. उपमा, रूपक, उत्प्रेक्षा, समासोकि: अपहन्तुति, समाहित, स्वभाव, विरोध, सार, दीपक, सहोक्ति, अन्यदेशत्व (i. e. अ्सङ्गति of मम्मट), विशेषोकि and विभावना are enumerated and ten varieties of उपमा are illustrated; 12, sub-divisions of रूपक; 13, other figures (such as उत्प्रेक्षा and समासोकि) defined and illustra- ted; the उपमानs of a damsel and of her complexion, hair, fore- head, eyebrows etc .; 14, how poets should describe the physi- cal characteristics of the heroes of their works; 15, words that convey HI4, conventions of poets; 16, the topics to be descri- bed such as king, queen, country, town, city, river etc. and the peculiar characteristics of each that should be dwelt upon; 17, the colours of various objects in nature; 18, words that convey numerals from one to thousand, certain tricks of words such as गतागत, संस्कृत-प्राकृतक्यता (i.e. भाषासम); 19, समस्यापूरय; 20, Ta is the soul of poetry, the nine rasas, the sub-divisions of नायक and नायिका, the different भावs; 21, the dosas of रस; 22, what letters are favourable to each rasa. The कारिकाs of शौद्धोदनि appear to have been composed after the 11th century. He defines kāvya as a sentence contai- ning rasas etc. (p. 2) and says that rasa is the soul of poetry (p. 6). On p. 83 शौद्धोदनि refers to महिमभद्ट the author of the

ALANKĀRAŚEKHARA 317

व्यक्तिविवेक and his treatment bears close resemblance to वाग्भटा- लक्कार (compare p. 27 with वाग्भटा० p.28). The अलक्कारशेखर mentions among others the following works and authors :- कविकल्पलता (p. 48, as following श्रीपाद), गोवर्धन (frequently quoted pp. 17, 29, 37, 43, 49 &c.), भार्गवसवस्व (p. 24), भोजराज (p. 7), महिमा (p.81, the verse अनौचित्यादृते which occurs in ध्व० p. 145 and also in व्यक्तिविवेक), राजशेखर (pp. 32, 67), श्रीपाद (frequently quoted, pp. 4, 5, 23, 27, 32, 72, 83 &c.), श्रीहर्ष (p.41). The author tells us that before the अलक्कारशेखर he composed seven works for the benefit of poets (3rd Intro. verse). Out of these he mentions two works अलक्कारसवस्व (pp, 9, 38) and काव्यरत्न (p. 72). The word वाक्यरत्ने (on p.12) seems to be a mistake for काव्यरत्ने. केशवमिश्र tells us in the Introduction and at the end that he wrote the अलक्वारशेखर at the instance of king माशिक्यचन्द्र son of धमचन्द्र This धर्मचन्द्र was son of रामचन्द्र, a scion of the family of सुशर्मा, who routed a Kabila (Afgan) king of Delhi. According to Cunningham (Arch. Survey of India vol. V. p. 160) माणिक्य- चन्द्र, king of Kangra, succeeded धर्मचन्द्र in 1563 A. D. and ruled for about ten years. Hence the अलक्कारशेखर was composed in the latter half of the 16th century. 38 अप्पय्यदीक्षित. This versatile and prolific writer, who is credited with the authorship of over one hundred works, contributed at least three works on Poetics. In the वृत्तिवार्तिक, which is divided into two परिच्छेदs as printed, he treats at length of the two functions of words, viz. अभिधा (of three sorts रूढि, योग and योगरूढि) and लक्षणा (first divided into शुद्धा and गौणी each of which is again sub-divided into निरूढ and फल and their sub-divisions). His second work कुवलयानन्द is an elementary treatise on अलक्कारs. It generally adopts the definitions and examples of the चन्द्रालोक 'येषां चन्द्रालोके दृश्यन्ते लच्ष्यलक्षणश्ोकाः । प्रायस्त एव तेषामितरेषां त्वभिनवा विरच्यन्ते॥' (verse 5) and he wrote the work by order of king वेक्टपति 'भ्रमुं कुवलयानन्दमकरोदप्पदीच्षितः। नियोगाद्वककट- पतेर्निरुपाधिकृपानिधे: ॥' In the कुवलयानन्द he adds his own corhments and cites examples from other authors also. To the hundred figures of the चन्द्रालोक, he adds 15 separate ones. In some editions of the कुवलयानन्द (e. g. Nir. edition of 1910) some शब्दा- लक्ारs are interpolated from चिरब्जीवभट्टाचार्य's काव्यविलास. His third work, the चित्रमीमांसा, is a more solid performance. His method is to give a kārikā at first and then discuss in prose the views

318 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS of others and to refute them where necessary. He first of all briefly treats the division of काव्य into ध्वनि, गुणीभूतव्यक्षय and चित्र, and says that, as शब्दचित्र is generaly void of charm, he will treats of भर्थचित्र alone. He then takes up उपमा and points out how twenty-two figures are based thereon. Unfortunately the printed edition (K. M. series) breaks off in the midst of भतिशयोक्ति (the figures treated of being उपमा, उपमेयोपमा, अनन्वय, स्मरख, रूपक, परिणाम, ससन्देह, भ्रान्तिमान्, उल्लेख, अपह्नुति, उत्प्रेक्षा, अतिरा- योक्ति) and a verse at the end says that the चित्रमीमांसा, though mutilated, causes delight like the digit of the moon or like Aruna 'अप्यर्धचित्रमीमांसा न मुदे कस्य मांसला। अनूरुरिव धर्माशोरधेन्दुरिब धूर्जट: ॥' The printed चित्रमीमांसाखएडन of जगन्नाथ goes only as far as अपह्नुति. That he contemplated writing on more figures follows from his words 'अधिकं निदर्शनालक्कारप्रकरणे चिन्तयिष्यते' (चित्र० p.131); while in the कुवलयानन्द (at end of श्लेष) he says '(एतद्वि- वेचनं तु चित्रमीमांसारयां द्रष्टव्यम्', on which वैधनाथ remarks 'यद्प्युत्प्रेक्षा- अ्रन्थानन्तरं चित्रमीमांसा न कापि दृश्यते'. This shows that we have now a little more of it than वैधनाथ could secure. It appears that Appayya wrote also a work called लक्षसरत्नावलि in which he defined technical dramatic words like नान्दी, सूत्रधार, पूर्वरक्, प्रस्तावना, Vide J. O. R. Modras, vol. IV.pp. 242-244. The name of the author is written in various ways, अप्पदी- चित, अप्पयदी० and अप्पय्यदीक्षित. For the form अप्पय, vide रसगआाधर p. 218. The third Intro. verse in the चित्रमीमांसाखएडन gives it as भप्पय्य (and the metre requires it to be so 'सूचमं विभाव्य मयका समुदीरितानामप्पय्यदीचितकृताविह दूषयानाम्।') and रसग० (p. 120) has that form also. The verse at the end of the कुवलयानन्द (अमु ... दीक्षितः) shows the form अप्पदीचित and रसग० (pp.209,226, 249, 254, &c.) has that form also. अप्पय्यदीक्षित is very severely criticized by जगनाथ and on the devoted head of the दीक्षित he heaps the choicest abuse (such as दीर्घश्रवस at रसग. p. 239, द्रविडपुशव p. 420). He was of the भारदाजगोत्र and a Tamil brāhmaņa and Śaiva. His position as an Advaitin devotee of far may be understood from the following verses at the be- ginning of his 'शिवादित्यमणिदी पिका "यब्यप्यद्वंत एव श्रुतिशिखरगिरामागमानां च निष्ठा। ... प्रत्नैराचार्यरत्नैरपि परिजगृहे शङ्करावैस्तदेव। तथाप्यनुग्रहादेव तरु- सेन्दुशिसामयेः । अद्वंतवासना पुंसामाविभवति नान्यथा॥ (Hultzsch's Report II. at p. 100). That he wrote one hundred works is stated by नीलकयठविजय (I. 44) composed in 1637 A. D. As अप्पय्यदीक्षित quoted the पकावली, the प्रतापरुदरयशोभूषण and the

APPAYYADĪKSITA 319

अलक्कारसवस्वसजीविनी, he is later than the 14th century. There is a great deal of controversy about the exact period of Appayya. The generally accepted dates are 1554 A. D. to 1626 A. D. Vide E. I. vol. XII. p. 340 (plate of Śri Rangaraya II dated saka 1499). It records that at the request of Śevappa Nāyaka, the first prince of the Nāyaka dynasty of Tanjore, the विजयनगर emperor श्रीरङदवराय granted the village of Arumolimangalam to the Madhva pontiff Vijayindratīrtha, who before he became a sannyäsin, was a friend of the cele- brated Appayya. On p. 345 the editors quote the following from the com. of शिवानन्दयति on the आत्मार्पसस्तुति of भप्पय्य- वीखातत्त्वश्ञसंख्यालसितकलिसमाभाक्प्रमादी च वर्षें कन्यामासे तु कृष्यप्रथमतिथियुते- प्युत्तरप्रोष्ठपादे। कन्यालभेऽद्रिकन्याप तिरमितदयासेवधिवैंदिकेषु श्रीगौयें प्राग् यथाह स्म समजनि विरिब्चीशपुर्या कलेशः ॥ लग्ने रवीन्दुसुतयोमंकरे च मान्यौ मीने शशिन्यथ वृषे रविजे च राही। चापे गुरौ क्षितिसुते मिथुने तुलायां शुक्रे शिखिन्यलिगते शुभलभ एवम् I. This gives the horoscope of अप्पय्य and states that he was born in afer 4654. The editors of the plates further note that acc. to the शिवलीलाणंवकाव्य of नीलकएठदीचित (grandson of अप्पय्य's younger brother Accan) अप्पय्य lived for 72 years and composed one hundred works (I. 6 कालेन शम्भुः किल तावतापि कला- श्वतुष्षष्टिमिता: प्रशिन्ये। द्वासप्तति प्राप्य समा: प्रबन्धाष्छतं व्यवादप्पयदीच्ितेन्द्रः ।।). This date is very seriously challenged by Mr. Y. Mahalinga Sastri (in J. O. R. Madras vol. III. pp. 140-160) who says that the horoscope set out above in two verses was forged by Appaya's biographers and that if we take into account the kings mentioned by scqey in his several works, viz. Chinna Timma, Chinna Bomma and Venkata, the proper dates of Appayya should be 1520 A. D. to 1593 A. D. He relies (ibid p. 141-149) on an inscription in the temple of Kālakantheśvara at Adaiyapalam, the birth-dlace and ancestral abode of Appayya, dated śaka 1504 (1582 A. D.), which mentions Appayya, son of Rangaraja and his patron Chinna Bomma and the fact that he wrote 100 works. This establishes, acc. to Mr. Sastri, that in 1582 A.D. Appayya must have been an old man. It is possible to argue that some one put up that inscription long after the death of Appayya, and may ask what guarantee there is that it was inscribed during Appayya's own life and, if it be said that a horoscope was forged, there is nothing to prevent an inscription being antedated when Appayya's fame had spread far and wide, If sjcyry was dead in 1593 as Mr,

320 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

Sastri contends, it becomes very difficult to explain several matters. We shall see later on that Jagannatha's literary activity lies between 1620-1665 A. D. He heaps personal abuse on Appayya, which can be explained more satisfactorily on the hypothesis of the two being contemporaries for some years, Appayya being much older than Jagannatha. This cannot be explained away by saying that Jagannatha hated all Dravidas. Besides नीलकएउदीक्षित wrote his नीलकगठविजयचम्पू in गतकलि 4738 i. e. 1637 A. D. Tradition says that when he was 12 years old he was blessed by the aged Appayya who was the elder brother of Accan, the grand-father of नीलकएठ. That makes the usually accepted dates of Appayya more probable. Besides, there is an Inscription of Venkata I dated saka 1523 i. e. 1601-2 A. D. (E. I. vol. IV. pp. 269-271). Chinna Bomma was prince of Velur (or Vellore) and his son Lingama Nāyaka was a contemporary of Venkata I. Vide E. I. vol. IV. p. 269 at p. 271. Therefore, it follows that Appayya first enjo- yed the patronage of Chinna Bomma and then of Venkata. I am not prepared to place implicit reliance on the inscription referred to by Mr. Sastri and would still stick to the generally accepted dates of 1554-1626 A. D. It is possible that Appayya may have been born a little earlier than 1554 A. D. But it is difficult to hold that he was born in 1520 A. D. and died in 1593 A. D. as Mr. Mahalinga Sastri, a descendant of Appayya himself, contends on the strength of the single inscription mentioned above. For an account of scqza's life, family, pedigree and works, vide Sanskrit Intro. to यादवाभ्युदय vol. II pp. XV ff. According to the remarks in चित्रमीमांसा (K.M. ed. p. 63) वसःस्थलाचार्य was his ancestor (सन्देहालक्कारध्वनिर्यथा श्रस्मत्कुल- कूटस्थ-वत्ःस्थलाचार्यकृते वरदराजवसन्तोत्सवे कांचित्कान्चनगौराङीं ... वक्षःस्थलम- वैकत ।). According to some, आचार्य (or आच्चान्) दीक्षित, grand- father of अप्पय्य was called वक्षःस्थलाचारय. Acc. to another account वक्ष:स्थल was the great-grand-father of भप्पन्य. Accan had from his 2nd wife several sons of whom TT was the eldest. His sons were भप्पय्य and आच्चान्. The यात्राप्रबन्ध of समरपुञ्वदीच्षित (II. 86) states that the author learnt under Appayya and that रङराजाध्वरि was patronized by king चिन्नोम (II. 95). Vide Sanskrit Intro. to asaregra pp. XXIII-XXVII for 54 works attributed to अप्पय्य; and Introduction to अप्पय्यदीक्षित's शिवाद्वतनिर्यय edited and translated by Prof. S. S. Suryanarayana Sastri

APPAYYADIKŞITA 321

(Madras University, 1929) pp. 9-15, where a list collected from several sources is given. Many of the works are lost. In Hultzsch's Report on South Indian Sanskrit mss. vol. II. pp. 90-100 an extract from the शिवादित्यमसिदीपिका of अप्पय्य is set out, wherein अप्पय्य speaks of आचार्यदीक्षित and रहराज as his grand- father and father respectively and the colophon states that he was urged to write the work by king चिन्नबोम्म. This last was the son of चिन्नवीर and father of लिक्गमनायक. These three chiefs are mentioned in the Vilāpāka grant of śaka 1523 (I. A. vol. XIII, p. 127 note 17 and E. I. vol. IV. p. 269). The inscrip- tions of चिन्नबोम्म of Velur are dated saka 1471 and 1488 (vide South Indian Ins. vol. I. p. 69 and p. 84). Venkata I of Pennakonda urged अप्पय्य to compose the कुवलयानन्द and the former's inscriptions range from śaka 1508 to 1535 (E. I. vol. III. p. 238 Table) i. e. 1586 to 1613 A. D. Dr. Raghavan (in Proceeding of the !0th Session of the All India O. Confe- rence pp. 176-180) shows that there were three persons named Appayya in the same family in three generations. This circumstance has naturally caused some confusion. 39 The रसगङ्गाघर of जगनाथ. This work together with the commentary called मर्मप्रकाश by नागेशभद्ट has been edited in the K. M. series. This is a standard work on poetics, particu- larly on alankaras. The TeTRTeT stands next only to the aTT- लोक and the काव्यप्रकाश in the field of Poetics. Though a modern writer he has a wonderful command over classical Sanskrit. He cites his own examples, as he proudly says in ₹T. p. 3. 'निर्माय नूतनमुदाहरखानुरूपं काव्यं मयात्र निहितं न परस्य किन्चित। कि सेव्यते सुमनसां मनसापि गन्धः कस्तूरिकाजननशक्तिभृता मृगेय ॥'. His verses are composed in an easy, flowing and graceful style and exhibit great poetic talent. His method is first to define a topic, then to discuss it and elucidate it by citing his own examples and to comment on the views of his predecessors. His prose is characterised by a lucid and vigorous style and displays great critical acumen. He is always independent in his views and boldly criticizes on occasions esteemed ancient writers, e. g. ध्वन्यालोक (for regarding the verse प्राप्तश्रीः as an example of रूपक- ध्वनि, p. 247.), मम्मट (pp. 5,229, 324), अलक्कारसर्वस्व (pp.251,269, 301, 342 &c.), साहित्यदर्पण (p.7). His criticism displays great sanity of judgment, maintains a high level of brilliant polemics and acuteness and is generally couched in courteous language

322 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

(except when dealing with the views of Appayya). The justice of his criticism has to be acknowledged in most cases. TaTY was a poet of great creative genius and also possessed the faculty of aesthetic appreciation in an eminent degree (i. e. he was a कवि as well as a सहृदय). Jagannatha was very proud and confident of his great command over classical Sanskrit. He could write verses that were full of pathos or joy as the mood of his mind dictated and he could make the sound an echo to the sense. At the end of the भामिनीविलास he says धुयँरपि माधुयैद्राक्षाक्ीरेत्तुमाक्षिकसुधानाम्। वन्धैव माधुरीयं पषिढतराजस्य कवितायाः ॥'. The work is a very bulky one and it is impossible to convey even a vague idea of its contents by a mere outline. It is the K. M. edition that is referred to here. In the first भानन he begins by defining kaupa as 'रमणीयार्थप्रतिपादकः शब्दः काव्यम्', examines the definitions of काव्य given by others, asserts that pratibha alone is the source of kāvya, divides ara into four varieties उत्तमोत्तम, उत्तम, मध्यम, भधम; explains rasas, bhavas and kindred topics; speaks of the different views about gunas being three or ten; explains भाव, रसाभास, भावोदय &c. The 2nd भानन treats of the divisions of ध्वनि; of संयोग, विप्रयोग and other deter- mining circumstances; discusses अमिधा and लक्षण and their varieties; syH7 and other figures of speech (70 in all). The work breaks off in the midst of the figure3 and the com. of नागेश who flourished only about 50 years after जगन्नाथ extends only up to that figure. It is not to be supposed that u passed away in the midst of the task of composing the aTfT because from the 2nd introductory verse to his चित्रमीमांसाखएडन it appears that he wrote the latter after the former 'ret चित्रमीमांसायां मयोदिताः। ये दोषास्तेत्र संच्षिप्य कथ्यन्ते विदुर्षा सुदे ॥'. In the चित्रमीमांसाखएडन (p. 12) he says 'विशेषस्तु उदाहरयालक्कारप्रकरये रसगज्ञा- धरादवसेयः'. Butin the extant रसगद्ञाधर there are no remarks on the figure T. The following are the well-known works of जगनाथ : (1) रसगङ्गाधर and (2) चित्रमीमांसाखएडन in Poetics; (3) मनोरमाकुचमदनं1 (or-मर्दिनी) in grammar against the प्रौढमनोरमा of 1. Jagannatha's temper wes roused by the fact that Bhattoji, a pupil of शेषश्रीकृष्ण, attacked his guru in his मनोरमा. Therefore, at the beginning of the मनोरमाकुचमर्दिनी Jagannatha pours the phials of his wrath on Bhattoji by calling the fatter gurudruh (traitor to his guru) and delivers his own diatribe against the Diksita in the somewhat indecent but striking

JAGANNĀTHA 323

मट्टोजिदीच्षित, which is a com. on the सि. कौ .; (4-8) five लहरिs (men- tioned in रसग. p. 109 called सुधा, अमृत about the river यमुना in 10 शाद लविक्रीडित verses in K.M. series, लक्षमी (41 verses), करुणा (60 verses in वियोगिनी and other metres1 in K.M. series), गक्ता or पीयूष (in 52 शिखरिणी verscs); (9) जगदाभरण (in praise of Dara Shukoh), (10) आसफविलास (about Nabob Asafkhan, who died in 1641 A. D.); (11) प्राणाभरण (in praise of प्राखनारायण, prince of कामरूप or कमता in Assam in 51 verses in different metres;2 (12) भामिनीविलास (in four समुल्लासs on अन्योक्ति, शृङ्गार, करुण and शान्ति); (13) यमुनावणनचम्पू (quoted in रसगङ्गाधर pp.19 and 128). The रसगङ्गाधर quotes verses from many of his other works such as from the गङ्गालहरि (समृद्धं सौभाग्यं० p. 243, समुत्पत्ति: p. 491), from the भामिनीविलास (दिगन्ते श्रयन्ते० p. 402, पुरा सरसि० p. 403). For detailed information about Jagannatha, his date, his poetry and literary criticism, his works and the like; vide Mr. V. A. Ramswami Sastri's contributions in Journal, Annamalai University, vol. II pp. 201-208, vol. III pp. 106-116, 229-244, vol. IV pp. 149-158, 262-274. These contributions were correct- ed and supplemented by the learned Pandit and issued as a separate work in 32 pages 'Jagannatha Pandit' in 1942 at Annamalingara. जगन्नाथ was a Tailanga brahmana of the भान्ध्रवेंगिनादि family. He was the son of पेरुभट्ट (or पेरमभट्ट)8 and learnt at the feet of his own father and also of शेषवीरेश्वर. पेरुमट्ट was the pupil of शानेन्द्रभित्त in भद्वृत, of महेन्द्र in न्याय and वैशेषिक, of खएडदेव in पूर्वमीमांसा at Benares, of वीरेश्वर surnamed शेष in grammar (Intro. verses 2 and 3 of रस०). It appears that the title of पएिडतराज was conferred name मनोरमाकुचमर्दिनी. Vide Calcutta Oriental Journal vol. III. No. 3 pp. 41-51 for a statement of जगन्नाथ's criticism of Bhattoji. 1. Some of these are found in the ामिनीविलास and the रसगश्ञा० (e.g. वाचा निर्मलया on p. 66). 2. प्रायनारायण was a feudatory of the Mogul Emperor and died in 1666 A. D. 3. At the end of his प्रायाभरण we have the following verse: तलकन्वयमझलालयमहालचमीदयालालित: श्रीमस्पेरमभट्टसूनुरनिशं विदल- लाटंतप:। सन्तुष्टः कमताधिपस्य कवितामाकयरयं तदर्णन श्रीमत्परिडतराज-परिडत- जगननाथो व्यधासीदिदम् ॥. In the रसगङ्गाधर (Intro. verses) the father is called drny. He probably migrated to Assam during the tumultuous times when there was fratricidal war between the sons of Shah Jahan.

324 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

upon जगनाथ by Emperor Shah Jahan. In the भामिनीविलास he states that he passed his youth under the Delhi emperor (दिल्लीवल्लमपासिपल्लवतले नीतं नवीनं वयः). He bewails over the death of Asaf (in the आसफविलास), probably the favourite Khan Khanan of Shah Jahan, who died in 1641 A. D. and praises Dara, the son of Shah Jahan, in his जगदाभरण. Vide the verses सुषेब वाणी (on. p. 166 of रस०) and युक्त तु याते (p. 457) for भासफ० and the verse भूमीनाथ शहाबदीन for Shah Jahan (p. 210). A ms. of the चित्रमीमांसाखयडन is dated samvat 1709 (i. e. 1652-53 A. D.). Therefore, both the रसगङ्गाधर and चित्रमीमांसाखएडन were composed before 1650 and after 1641 A. D. and they are the products of a mature mind. Therefore, the literary activity of rara lies between 1620 and 1665 A. D. The same date of Jagannatha can be arrived at from another point of view. जगन्नाथ wrote the मनोरमाकुचमर्दिनी for criticizing the प्रौढमनोरमा of Bhattoji Diksita on the सिद्धान्तकौमुदी. A ms. of the प्राढमनोरमा at the B.O.R. I. (No. 657 of 1883-84 of D.C. Collection) is dated samvat 1713 (i. e. 1656-7 A.D.) and a ms. of शब्दकौस्तुम is dated 1633 A.D. नृसिहाश्रम, teacher of भट्टोजि, composed his तत्त्वविवेक in 1547 A.D., while Bhattoji's pupil नीलकण्ठशुक्ल wrote his शब्दशोभा in 1637 A.D. Therefore, मट्टोजि's literary activity may be placed somewhere between 1580 and 1630 A.D. भट्टोजि must be held to be about one generation earlier then जगन्नाथ, as the former was a pupil of शेषकृष्ण, while पेरुभट्ट and जगन्नाथ were pupils of शेषवीरेश्वर, son of शेषकृष्ण. Vide Prof. P. K. Gode in Annals of the Venkatesh Oriental Institute at Tirupati, vol. I. part 2 pp. 117-127 and his paper on 'Varadaraja and his works' in P. V. Kane Festschrift pp. 188-199. The story about Jagannatha's liason with a yavana damsel called Lavangi (in such verses as यवनी नवनीत0.) appears to be a myth spread by those who were offended by the biting tongue (or rather pen) of Jagannatha. Similarly, the story that old Appayya met Jagannatha at Benares and addressed to him the verse (which occurs in the रसग p. 421 'कि निःशङ्ं शोषे ... जननी जागर्ति जाहनवी निकटे ।' is without any warrant, as अप्पय्य never left South India in his old age (Gode, vol. II pp. 460 ff). HTIT is a very learned author and wrote commentaries on several Sastras, his special forte being व्याकरण and धर्मशास. He is removed by about two generations from &TWT4, as the following

NĀGESABHAȚȚA 325

pedigrees will show, and flourished in the first quarter of the 18th century. A ms. of Nagesa's com. on the Rasamañjarī is dated samvat 1769 Māgha (i. e. February 1713 A. D.). Vide Eggeling's Cat. vol. III pp. 355-356 and H. of Dh. vol. I pp. 453-456. In Poetics itself he wrote commentaries on the following works: ममप्रकाश on रसगङ्गाघर, उद्योत on भट्टगोविन्द's प्रदीप on काव्यप्रकाश; उदाहरणदीपिका on मम्मट's काव्यप्रकाश; प्रकाश on रसमज्जरी of भानुदत्त; अलक्कारसुधा and विषमपदव्याख्यान- षटू पदानन्द on कुवलयानन्द; टीका on रसतरद्विी. (a) शेषश्रीकृष्य

शेषवीरेश्वर भट्टोजि (son and pupil) (pupil)

1 son 1 son पेरुमद्ट (pupil) (पुरुषोत्तम) चक्रपाषि wrote परमखण्डन जगन्नाथ (in reply to भट्टोजि's (son of पेरुभद्ट and pupil मनोरमा) of शेषवीरेश्वर) (b) लक्क्मीधर

भट्टोजि (son) रङ्गोजीभट्ट (son) and pupil of शेषवीरेश्वर कौएडभट्ट (son)

वीरेश्वर भानुजी alias रामाश्रम (son and pupil) (son)

*. हरिदीक्षित (son and pupil)

नागेश (pupil) For the aru family of Benares, vide I. A. for 1912 p. 245- 253. There is great divergence of views about the descendants of Bhattoji among scholars; but I believe that the pedigree given by me is correct as far as it goes. Jagannatha is the last great writer on Sanskrit Poetics. Therefore, it is proper to bring this part of the subject to a close at this stage.

PART II The origin and growth of Poetics

1. Early poetic efforts. It is extremely difficult to give an accurate definition of poetry and try to distinguish it from other forms of literature. But true poetry (leaving aside the question whether a work clothed in prose is poetry or not) is distinguished at least by three things, viz. by a certain peculiar diction, by its subject matter and by the spirit in which it approaches the handling of its themes. Judged from this stand-point, the most ancient monument of the Indo- Aryan languages, viz. the Rgveda, contains, though it is mainly a religious book of fervent prayers, a great deal of true poetry. Many of the hymns, pirticularly those address- ed to Ușas, exhibit fine specimens of poetry. For example, vide the following : अभ्रातेव पुंस एति प्रतीची गर्तारुगिव सनये धनानाम्। जायेव पत्य उशती सुवासा उषा इस्रेव नि रिणीते भप्सः ॥ऋ. I. 124.7. This verse contains four Upamas, the last two of which may occur in the poetry of any country. In 'दा सुपर्या सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिषस्वजाते। तयोरेक: पिप्पलं स्वाद्ृत्त्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति ।'1 (ऋ. I. 164. 20) there is a fine idea, which would be regarded as the figure अतिशयोक्ति of the first kind (निगीर्याध्यवसानं तु प्रकृतस्य परेण यद) by Sanskrit alankarikas. In 'द्वादशारं न हितज्जराय वर्वर्ति चक्रं परि धामृतस्य' (ऋ. 1. 164. 11), it may be said that the figure is व्यतिरेक. One may trace the desire for श्लेष in such Vedic passages as 'स्वसुर्जार: शृणोतु नः' (Rg. VI. 55. 5) and 'यत्रा सुपर्णा अमृतस्य' etc. (ऋ. I. 164. 21 explained in निरुक्त III. 12 in two ways).2 1. About this mantra the काव्यमी. of राजशेखर says "उपकार- कत्वादलक्कार: सप्तममकम्' इति यायावरीयः । ऋते च तत्स्वरूपपरिज्ञानाद्वदार्थानवगतिः। यथा-हा सुपर्णा ... अभिचाकशीति।" (p.3). The रसग. (p. 316) says 'इयं चातिशयोक्तिवेंदेपि दृश्यते यथा-द्वा सुपर्णा ... शीति।'. Another example of this kind of अतिशयोक्ति is चत्वारि शक्ञा त्रयो अस्य पादा द्वे शीर्षे सप्त इस्तासो अस्य। त्रिधा बद्धो वृपभो रोरवीति महोदेवो मत्यां आ विवेश॥ ऋ. IV. 58.3, explained in निरुक 13. 7 and in the महाभाष्य (vol. I. p.3); in w. X. 63. 10 (=वाज. सं. 21. 6) यश् or धुलोक is spoken of in terms of a नौका. 2. In the शतपथब्राह्मय wefind that there is a pun on the words हित (placed, beneficial) and वर्षं (year and rainy season)

EARLY POETIC EFFORTS 327

In Rg. X. 146. 1 (भरययान्यरएयान्यसी या प्रेव नश्यसि। कथा भ्रामं न पृच्छसि न त्वा भीरिव विदन्ती३ I।) there is उत्प्रेक्षा, which resembles the one in लिम्पतीव तमोक्ञानि० discussed by the काव्यादर्श (vide p.88 above) and in Rg. II. 35. 13 (सो अपा नपादनमिम्लातवर्योऽन्यस्येवेड तन्वा विवेष) also there is a fine उत्प्रेक्षा. Prof. Charu Deva Sastri in his valuable paper on 'Bhartrhari and the Vakyapadiya' (Proceedings, 5th All India O. Conference pp. 630-655) points out at p. 650 that Hrf in his महाभाष्यटीका states that one and the same object can be compared to itself (which is the figure 5q4) in the following कारिका 'दस्युहेन्द्र श्वेत्येतदैन्द्रे मन्त्रे प्रयुज्यते। अन्यत्र दृष्टकर्मेन्द्रो यथेत्यस्मिन् विवश्निते॥'. Prof. Charu Deva sets out the mantra as 'इन्द्र इव सुपस्तू यसे इन्द्र इव दस्युहा भव क्षेत्राशि सृज', but does not state whence it is taken. The means 'O Indra, you are praised like Indra,1 may you be killer of dasyus like Indra, create fields for us.' Dr. De (in H. S. P. vol. I. p. 341) says 'Undue emphasis appears to have been laid on the use of poetic figures in Vedic Literature by Kane in I. A. XLI, 1912, p. 12Cf.'. He is wrong. I put forward my thesis rather bricfly ard mcdestly. Therefore, I am obliged to elaborate it here. In the first place, reference must be made to the dialogues in the Rgveda, some of which are highly poetic and imrginative and all of which must be regarded as precursors of the later classical dramas. The following dia- logues may be referrcd to : Rg. III. 33 (Visvamitra and the rivers); X 10 (Yama and Yami), X. 108 (Sarar ā and Panis); I. 165 and 170 (Indra, Maruts ard Agastya); I. 179 (Agastya and Lopamudra and pupil); IV. 18 (Indra, Aditi and Vāma- deva); IV. 42 (Indra and Varuņa); VII. 33 (Vasiștha, his sons and Indra); VIII. 100 (Ncma Bhargava and Indra); X. 28 (Indra and wife of Vasukra); X. 51-53 (Gods and Agni); X. 86 (Indra, Indrāņī and Vrsākapi). Scma of these are obscure or enigmatic and one or two like X. 86 are almost unintelligible. Rg. X. 119 in a monologue (in which the poet fancies that Indra being intoxicated with Soma offerings muses to himself). Similarly, Rg. I. 24 is a soliloquy of in I. 3. 1. 25 and II. 2. 3. 7 (S. B. E. vol. 12 pp. 77, 315) respectively and on afeat (crowned queen, she-buffalo) in VI. 5. 3. 1 (S. B. E. vol. 41 p. 235). 1. This मन्त्र is found in मैत्रायणीसंहिता IV. 12. 73 as 'इन्द्र इव दस्युहा भवाप: केत्रायि संजय ।',

328 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Sunahsepa whose story is developed in the Ait. Br. Beautiful similes are found by the hundred in the Rg. Vide Prof. H. D. Velankar's exhaustive treatment of similes in the 4th and 5th Mardalas of the Rg. in J.B.B.R.A. S. vol. 14 pp. 1-47 and vol. 16 pp. 1-42, 'Figures of speech in the Rgveda' Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. 17 pp. 61-83 (translated from A. Bergaigne's Article) and pp. 259-288 by Mr. A. Venkatasubbiah; Abel Bergaigne's 'La Syntaxe des comparaisons Vediques' (1886) translated in Annals B.O.R. I. vol. XVI pp. 232-261 by Mr. A. Venkata- subbiah, 'Figures of speech in Rgveda' by Mr. P. S. Sastri in Annals B. O.R.I. vol. 28 pp. 34-64. The Rgvedic poets not only indulge in such figures of speech as Upamā, Atisayokti and Rupaka (as in Rg. III. 27. 15, IX. 64. 1 वृषा सोम:), but they appear to have had some ideas about a theory of poetics, as the following brief statement will show. They are fond of the repetition of the same letters or words which create an appear- ance of what is called anuprasa in later times, e.g. रक्षायो भ्ग्ने तव रक्षगेभी रारक्षय: (IV. 3.14), प्रतार्यग्ने प्रतरं न आयु: (IV. 12. 6), भब्जा गोजा ऋतजा अद्रिजा ऋतम् (IV. 40.5), वयमग्ने बनुयाम त्वोता वसूयवो (V. 3. 6) ; repetition of the same word at the beginning of several pādas in IV. 23. 3-5 or in several pādas as in Rg. IV. 40. 5 g#: शुचिषद् वसुरन्तरिक्षसद्धोता वेदिषदतिथिदरोशसत'; Rg. V. 27. 4) दददृचा सनिं यते ददन्मेधामृतायते) and V. 76. 2 दिवाभिपित्वेऽवसा गमिष्ठा प्रत्यवर्ति दाशुषे शंभविष्ठा); the last two seem to be efforts at यमक. The sage often says that he brings to the god a new and forceful verse, a pro- duct of his speech (प्र तव्य्सी नव्यसी धीतिमअये वाचो मति सहसः सूनवे भरे। Rg. I. 143. 1). An interesting verse is Rg. X. 71. 2 सक्तुमिव तित- उना पुनन्तो यत्र धीरा मनसा वाचमक्रत। अत्रा सखायः सख्यानि जानते भद्रैषां लक्ष्मीर्निहिताधि वाचि॥ 'When men of wisdom create by their intellect verse (lit. speech) after winnowing (words) as barley grains are sifted by means of a winnowing baskct, then men of equal knowledge understand (recognize) mcaning (contained in the verse) ; in their verses (speech) blessed glory is enshrined, (resides).1 This makes it clear that a distinction is here made between ordinary speech and poetic speech, that poets have to pick and choose their words and that poetry leads on to bliss and glory. Rg. X. 125 is a sublime hymn to Vak (put in the 1. This verse is explained in the Nirukta IV. 10 and in the ETHT (vol. I. p. 4) at the beginning. It is also quoted in the साहित्यमीमांसा (p.161). Vide above p. 271.

EARLY POETIC EFFORTS 329

mouth of Väk herself) wherein the power of speech is most effectively and picturesquely described. One half verse may be quoted here 'यं कामये तं तमुग्रं कृणोमि तं ब्रह्मायं तमृषि तं सुमेधाम् ॥' Rg. X. 71. 4 (उत त्वः पश्यन्न ददर्श वाचमुत त्वः शृरवन्न शृणोत्येनाम्। उतो त्वसम तन्वं विसस्रे जायेव पत्य उशती सुवासा: ।।) is another verse which is explained both in the Nir. I. 19 and in the माभाष्य (vol. I. p. 4) and which marks the difference between the man who does not understand the greatness of speech and him who looks more to the inner meaning of speech than to the nice words in which it may be clothed. The word 'kāvya' (poem) occurs several times in the Rgveda; e. g. III. I. 17 is भ देवानामभवः केतुरअे मन्द्रो विश्वानि काव्यानि विद्ान् । 'Agni ! thou art the banner of the gods and knowest all poems); vide also III. 1. 18 for 'अग्निर्विश्वानि काव्यानि विद्वान्; IV. 3.16 (nivacana kavaye kavyanya- samsisam); in Rg. VI. 11. 3 'मधु च्छन्दो भनति रेभ इष्टौ (the singer utters in the sacrifice a sweet verse); VIII. 3. 15 'उदुत्ये मधुमत्तमा गिर: स्तोमास ईरते' (those men send forth songs of praise, that are most sweet words); the word TTUT (a verse that is sung) also often occurs in the Rgveda; e. g. VIII. 6. 43 'तं गाथया पुराएया पुनानमभ्यनूषत' (with an ancient gatha they send forth a laud to- wards Soma that is being washed); vide also X. 85. 6. These passages show that poems with sweet words were highly valued in those very ancient times and, though no theory of Poetics could be stated to have been evolved, the germs of it were there. The ₹TaY4T. I. 2. 5. 16 emphasizes the same points of female be: uty as later classical Sinskrit poets do (एवमेव हि योषां प्रशंसन्ति पृथुश्रोणीर्विमृष्टान्तरांसा मध्ये संग्राह्ति). This much will suffice for the different aspects of Poetry in general. As regards dramas and dramatic representation the following points have to be noted. A dramatic representation has generally four aspects viz. the dialogue, songs, music and dance. All these elements were developed in Ved'c Literature. Dialogues have been already referred to. Then there were the serres (ques- tions and answers) as in वाज. सं. 23.9-12 and 45-62 explained in शतपथबराह्मय XIII. 2.6.9-17 and XIII .. 5.2.12-21(S.B.E. vol. 44 pp. 314-316 and pp. 388-90). Vide also a. #. VII 4. 18 and a. #T. III. 9. 5. In Vedic ritual there were several inci- dentes that partook of the nature of the drama. First, there is a dialogue between the Adhvaryu and the vendor of Soma (vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 1143 and notes). Then in the

330 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Mahavrata which is the penultimate day in a Sattra, there is a mock fight between a brāhmana and a sūdra for a white cir- cular skin that symbolizes the sun, and it is so arranged that it ends in a victory for the arya. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 1244. In the same rite there was beating of drums, chanting of hymns by the priests whose wives acted as choristers and played on several musical intruments, and servants and maids danced with water jars on their heads and sang songs in which cows were lauded (ibid. pp. 1244-45). Compare for this Tai. S. VII. 5. 10. In the Aśvamedha, after the horse was sacrificed, there was an exchange of obscene abuse between the hotr priest and the crowned queen and the brahma priest and the favourite wife of the king (vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 1234-35). In the Aśvamedha a brāhmaņa and a rājanya were engaged in play- ing on the lute everyday for one year and they sang threc songs each composed by themselves, the brähmana's songs saying1 'you donated this, you performed such and such a sacrifice,' while the gathas of the Rajanya stated 'you fought this war, you won this battle'. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 1231. The Sat. Br. refers to the Uttaramandrā tune of the Viņā. Several musical instruments are mentioned such as g-fr (Rg. I. 28. 5, VI. 47. 29, Vaj. S. 29. 55-56), गर्गर (Rg. VII. 69. 9), वाप (Rg. IX. 50. 1, IX. 97. 8, X 32. 4, Tai. S. VII. 5. 9. 2 वायः शततन्त्ु- भवति). Persons playing on वीखा, तूखव, दुन्दुभि and blowing a conch are mentioned in वाज. सं. 30. 19 and तै. ब्रा. III. 4. 13. Rg. I. 92. 4 compares Ușas to a female dancer (aa) that puts orna- ments on her body and bares her breast (अधि पेशांसि वपते नृतूरिवा- पोणुते वक्ष उस्रव बर्जहम् ।). Dancing is referred to in Rg. X. 94.4-5. The Vaj. S. (30.6) in its symbolical पुरुषमेध consigns the सूत to नृस्त and the शैलूष to गीत; compare तै. ब्रा. III. 4. 2 (where it is exactly the opposite viz. गीताय सूतं नृत्ताय शैलूषम्). The Ait. Ar. III. 2. 5 speaks of the several parts of a atur which was covered in a hairy skin cover. The कौषी. बा. 29. 5 says त्रिवृद्ध शिल्पं नृत्यं गीतं वादि- afafa. Therefore, it follows that even the earlier period of Vedic Literature knew dramatic spectacles of a religious character.

1. अयजतेत्यददादिति म्ाह्मयो गायति ... अयुध्यतेत्यमुं संग्राममजयदिति राजन्यो ... तिस्नोऽन्यो गाथा गायति तिस्रोऽन्यः । ... शतपथबरा. XIII 1.5.6 .; तस्यै प्रयाजेषु तायमानेषु ब्राह्मणो वीणागाथी दकियत उत्तरमन्द्रामुदाघ्नंस्तिस्त्रः स्वयं संभृता गाथा गायति ... । शतपथ XIII. 4. 2.8.

EARLY POETIC EFFORTS 331

Western scholars such as Schroeder, Windisch, Oldenberg, Pis- chel, Konow have evolved various theories about the origin of the Sanskrit drama, all of which are criticized by Prof. A. B. Keith in S. D. pp. 13-27. The Nātyasāstra of Bharata shows its consciousness that the classical Sanskrit drama has its roots deep down in the Vedic age when भरत states (in नाव्यशाख I. 17 Ch. ed. and in G.O. S. ed. also) that yIa (recitation and dialogue), गीत, अभिनय and रस were taken from the ऋग्वेद, सामवेद, यजुर्वेद and आथर्वशवेद respectively (vide p. 29 above). In the Baud. Gr. I. 4. 5 (Mysore ed.) and in the Hir. Gr. I. 24. 6 we come acrcss the following verse which refers to Cakravāka birds that are symbols of tender conjugal love and concord in classical Sanskrit 'चाक्रवाकं संवननं यन्नदीभ्य उदाहृतम्। यदित्ती देवगन्धवौं तेन संवनिनौ स्व: ।I' (the husband says this to the wife on the 4th night after monthly illness starts). Vide S. B. E. vol. 30 p. 198 for Hir. Gr. and H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 224 on सीमन्तोन्नयन for references to other गृद् sutras. The Upanisads also, though they are devoted to the pursuit of philosophical truth, contain highly poetic passages e. g. 'धनुगहीत्वौपनिषदं महासरं शरं द्यपासानिशितं संधयीत। आयम्य तद्भावगतेन चेतसा लच्षयं तदेवाक्षरं सोम्य विद्धि॥" मुएडकोपनि. II. 2.3. Similarly, the verse 'आत्मानं रथिनं विद्धि शरीरं रथमेव तु' (कठोपनिषद् I. 3.3) contains a good रूपक and the verses 'इन्द्रियेभ्यः परा हर्था अर्थभ्यश्ष परं मनः। ...... त्पुरुष: पर:।' contain the figure सार. Vide H. of Dh.vol. II. pp. 1231-1233 for the recitation of narratives called पारिप्लव for one year in aau and Sat. Br. XIII. 4. 3 (SBE. vol. 44 pp. 360-371). In the ea. AT. (VII. 18. 10=33. 6) the story of शुनःशेप is called शौनःशेपाख्यान, which the hotr priest was to recite to the king in the Rajasuya sacrifice. In ऐत. ब्रा. (III. 25. 1= 13. 1) there is mention of सौपर्णाख्यान. 2 Coming to later days, there is : mple evidence to show that centuries before the Christian era poctry of a high order had been composed. It is accepted almost by all scholars that the Mahabharata in its extant form cannot be placed later than the 2nd century A. D. and that a large portion of it may be at least as old as 500 B.C. Similarly, the {THrT has been assigned to the 4th century B. C. by some scholars (Dr. Keith in JRAS 1915 p. 320), while others (like Dr. Jacobi) would place it as far back as 600 B. C. These two epics contain highly poetical passages, Many passages are quoted from the HETaRa in the

332 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

ध्वन्यालोक (pp. 153 where the verse या निशा सर्वभूताना is quoted and p. 299 where 'भगवान् वासुदेवश्च कीत्यतेऽत्र सनातनः' भादिपर्व chap. I. 256 is quoted) and in the काव्यप्रकाश (4th उल्लास p. 169 the गृधगोमा- युसंवाद in शान्तिपव 153)1 and a few from the रामायण are mentioned (e. g. in ध्वo p. 76 रविसंक्रान्त० which is भरएय० 22. 13), The महा- भारत is more of a धमशास्त् than a काव्य, though, as the work itself asserts in no mood of vanity, it has inspired many poets ('rfa- हासोत्तमादस्माज्जायन्ते कविबुद्धयः' आादिपर्व 2. 385 and 'इदं कविवरः सवैराख्या- नमुपजीव्यते' आदि. 2 389). The रामायण is truly a kauya in its main purpose, its form and contents.2 It abounds in elaborate descriptions and flights of fancy. For example, the highly poetical description of the sea (हसन्तमिव फेनौधर्नत्यन्तमिव चोर्मिमिः) in the युद्धकाण्ड (4. 115 ff), the imaginative description of the sky in सुन्दरकाणड (57. 1-4) and the elaborate रूपक in अयोध्याकाएड (69. 28 ff), may be referred to in this connection. The दशरूप (I. 68)advises the authors of dramas to draw upon the रामायण and the बृहत्कथा for their plots. The quotation 'अकरो ददते मखिम्' in the निरुक (II. 2) seems to be taken from some secular poetic work. The sutra of Panini (अधिकृत्य कृते अ्रन्थे IV. 3. 87) and the following sūtra indicate the existence of secular works before Panini's day which may have been poctic. नमिसाधु on रुद्रट (II. 8) tells us that पाणिनि wrote a महाकाव्य called पातालविजय and then quotes one verse and a portion of another from that work. राजशेखर3 attributes the composition of the kauya जाम्बवतीजय to 1. गृधगोमायुसंवाद in शान्तिपर्व 153 verses 11, 12, 19, 65 (=cr. ed. chap. 149, verses 8, 9, 15, 60) are quoted in the काव्यप्रकाश as an example of प्रबन्धनिष्ठध्वनि. On 'या निशा' etc. the ध्व. rcmarks (p. 154) 'अनेन हि वाक्येन निशार्थो न जागरणार्थः कश्चिद्विवच्ितः कि तर्हि तत्वश्ञानावहि- तत्वमतत्त्वपराङमुखत्वं च मुनेः प्रतिपादत इति तिरस्कृतवाच्यस्यास्य व्यक्षकत्वम्'. 2. बालकाएड 2. 15 is the famous verse मा निषाद ... मोहितम्; 2. 18 is शोकार्तस्य प्रवृत्तो मे श्रोको भवतु नान्यथा; 40-41 'समाक्षरश्रतुरमिर्यः पादै- गीतो महर्षिया॥ सोनुव्याहरणाद्मरय: शोक: श्रोकत्वमागतः।. Thus the बालकाएड states the origin of the classical Sanskrit śloka and also contains the germs of the rasa theory. The रघुवंश (14. 70) श्रोकत्वमापद्यत यस्य शोक:) echoes the words of the बालकाण्ड and so docs ध्व. I. 5 p.31 'काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थस्तथा चादिकवेः पुरा। क्रौश्चद्वन्दववियोगोत्थः शोक: श्रोकत्वमागतः' and then the घ्वo (p. 32) quotes the verse 'मा निषाद०' 3. स्वस्ति पाशिनये तस्म यस्य रुद्रप्रसादतः । आरदौ व्याकरणं काव्यमनु जाम्बवतीजयः ॥ राजशेखर quoted in सूक्तिमु० p. 42. Vide कवीन्द्र० Intro. pp. 51-53 for collecting together all the verses attributed to

EARLY POETRY IN CLASSICAL SANSKRIT 333

the grammarian पाशिनि (Peterson's 4th Report LXXVI). The सवृत्ततिलक (III. 30) says that पाशिनि excelled in the composition of the उपजाति metre. Many verses ascribed to पािनि in the anthologies (vide Peterson's preface to सुभाषितावलि p. 58 out of which the verse उपोढरागेख० is ascribed to पािनि in सदुक्ति० p. 58, सूक्तिमु० p. 260 and शा्ङ० No. 3634 and occurs in the सवo p. 35, without name) and the verse ऐन्द्रं धनु: is ascribed to पाणिनि in सुभा. (No. 1815) and occurs in काव्या. सु. of वामन (IV. 3. 27) and व्यक्तिविवेक p. 75. A vartika on अधिकृत्य कृते अन्थे viz. लुबाख्यायिकाभ्यो बहुलम्) shows that the class of composition known as आख्यायिका existed long before पतञ्ञलि. The latter speaks of a kavya composed by वररुचि (यत्तेन कृतं न च तेन प्रोकं वाररुचं काव्यं जालूकाः श्रोका:' महाभाष्य vol. II. p. 315). On pp. 2-3 पतन्जलि refers to certain slokas called भ्राजs from which he quotes one verse 'यस्तु प्रयुंके' and explains it at length on which कय says that they were composed by कात्यायन. Vide काव्यमी. pp. 25-27. पतव्जलि, while commenting on the वार्तिक 'लुबाख्यायिकाभ्यो वहुलम्' mentions by name three works of the ख्यायिका class, viz. वासवदत्ता, सुमनोत्तरा2 and भैमरथी (महाभाष्य vol. II. p. 313; see also p. 284).

पाणिनि in the several anthologies. Two questions arise: (1) Whether Parini the poet is identical with Panini the gramma- rian and (2) whether the names पातालविजय (in नमिसाधु on रुद्रट II.8) and जाम्बवतीजय refer to the same work. On the first question cpinion is divided. I think that we should rather adopt the cautious attitude so finely put by Peterson in his Intro. to सुभा p. 58 (note). In H. I. Q. vol. 13 pp. 167-171 Mr. Krishnadeva Upadhyaya shows that the दुर्घटवृत्ति of शरणदेव composed in śaka 1095 (1173 A. D.) quotes three verses (not mentioned anywhere else, two of which are Upajātis and one अनुष्टभ) from the 2nd, 5th and 18th cantos respectively of the जाम्बवतीविजय. 1. राजशेखर quoted in the सूचि.मु. p. 43 says 'यथार्थता कथं नाम्ि मा भूदररुचेरिह। व्यधत् कष्ठाभरणं य: सदा रोहयप्रिय:॥'. Vide Peterson's Intro. to सुभा. pp. 108-109 for verses attributed to वररुचि in the anthologies. 2. For the story of सुमन, a rich merchant of Rajagrha, and his wife उत्तरा, vide 'Poona Orientalist' vol.7 pp.197-200. पतञ्जलि mentions the word सौमनोत्तरिक: (one who studies the भाख्यायिका सुमनोत्तरा) in vol. II. p. 284 on पागिनि IV. 2.60

334 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

He refers to two works dealing with the death of Kamsa and the humiliation of Bali and dramatic representations of these themes (vol. II. p. 34 and p. 36).1 In another passage he makes a reference to the wives of actors 'व्यन्जनानि पुनर्नटभार्यावद्भवन्ति। नटानां स्रनिरियो रकं गता यो यः पृच्छति कस्य यूयं कस्य यूयमिति तं तं तव तवेत्याङुः' (vol. III. p. 7). The महाभाष्य contains many quotations from the works of poets that went before it, some of which possess poetic charm, e.g. 'असि द्वितीयोनुससार पाएडवम्' and 'सक्कषसद्वितीयस्य बलं कृष्णस्य बर्धताम्' (vol. I. p. 426); जधान कंसं किल वासुदव: (vol. II.p. 119); जनादनस्त्वात्मचतुर्थ एव (vol. III. p. 143): प्रियां मयूरः प्रतिनर्नतीति and यद्व्त्वं नरवर नर्नतीषि हृष्टः: (vol. III. p. 338); एति जीवन्तमानन्द: (vol. I. p. 277); वरतनु संप्रवदन्ति कुक्कुटा:2 (vol. I. p.283). The verse8 एति etc. occurs in the युद्धकाएड (129. 2 where it is called लौकिकीगाथा). On the sutra रसादिभ्यक्ष (पा. V.2.95) the Mahabhasya gives the example रसिको नटः (vol. II. p.394), thereby indicating that there were even then in the air some ideas about the relation of rasas to actors. In the days of the महाभाष्य also the face of a charming young woman was compared to the moon, since he cites the example चन्द्रमुखी देवदत्ता (vol. I. p. 397) and remarks that though the moon has many good points what is conveyed here is प्रियदर्शनता. On 'उपमानानि सामान्यवचनैः पा. II. 1. 55 we have 'चन्द्रमुखी देवद्तेति वहवश्चन्द्रे गुया या चासौ प्रियदर्शनता सा गम्यते (महा-

1. महाभाष्य says 'इह तु कथं वर्तमानकालता कंसं घातयति बलिं बन्धयतीति चिरहते कंसे चिरबद्धे च बलौ। अत्रापि युक्ता। कथम्। ये तावदेते शोभनिका नामैते प्रत्यव्षं कंसं घातयन्ति प्रत्यक्षं च बलि बन्धयन्तीति। चित्रेषु कथम् । ... ग्रन्थिकेषु कथम्। यत्र शब्दगडुमात्रं लच्षयते। तेऽपि तेषासुत्पत्तिप्रभृत्या विनाशादृद्वीर्व्याचक्षायाः सतो पुद्धिविषयान् प्रकाशयन्ति' । vol. II. p. 36. This refers to three separate matters. शोभनिक (Explained by कैयट as कंसाधनुकारियां नटाना व्याख्यानौपाध्याया:) represent the killing of कंस; pictures paint these incidents and thirdly poets compose works describing their actions. पतजञलि Says that some of the actors have their faces coloured red and others black. 2. In भौचित्यविचारचर्चा (कारिका 24) तेमेन्द्र quotes as कुमारदास's the verse 'अयि विजहीहि दृढोपगूहनं त्यज नवसक्मभीर वल्लभम्। अरुणकरोद्रम एष वतते वरतनु संप्रवदन्ति कुक्कुटा: ॥', where the महाभाष्य quotation is taken up as if for समस्यापूरय. The verse अयि विजहीहि occurs as an example of शब्दालक्कारगति under सर. क. II. 26. p. 151. 3. Vide I. A. vol. 14 pp. 326 ff and Indische Studien vol. XII pp. 293-496.

EARLY POETRY IN OLASSICAL SANSKRIT 335

भाष्य). The महाभाष्य also says 'यदारम्भका रकं गच्छन्ति नटस्य श्रोष्यामः अ्रन्थिकस्य श्रोष्यामः' (vol. I. p. 329 on 'भाख्यातोपयोगे' पा. I. 4. 29).1 This example clearly shows that yaonfer here refers to actors who deliver dramatic dialogues on the stage (₹#), and not to any shows concerned with pantomimes. On 4. II. 4. 77 (vol. I. p.495,) the महाभाष्य cites 'भरगासीन्नटः' showing thereby that a ae also sang. Why the same mraning should not be taken in the case of Panini's sutra 'पाराशर्यशिलालिभ्यां भिन्ुनटसूत्रयोः (IV. 3. 110) is not clear to me. Western scholars like Keith obstina- tely and persistently refuse to hold that the Natasūtra referred to by Pānini is some work on actors and dramaturgy (vide 'Sanskrit Drama' pp. 31, 291) but that all that Panini meant are rules on pantomimes. No works dealing with pantomimes alone have been discovered so far. In I. H. Q. vol. 17 pp. 196-206 Dr. Wijesekera cites evi- dence from ancient Buddhist works for the early existence of drama. At. p. 197 he quotes a passage from the mafurrigu (IV. p. 306) wherein a नटगाम (the leader of natas) asks the Blessed One 'योऽसो नटो रंगमज्के समज्जमज्के सच्चालिकेन जनं हासेति रमेति &c.' (that nata who on the stage or in an arena makes people laugh and delights them by a mixture of truth and falsehood). On p. 200 he quotes from the Dialogues of Buddha a passage where e, गीत, वादित, प्रेक्षा, आख्यान and शोभानगरक are mentioned. The preceding brief discussion shows that from at least 500 B. C. to 100 B. C. a great deal of poetical material of a secular character had been accumulated in classical Sanskrit. This must have naturally led to speculations about the functions and objects of poetry, the classification of different kinds of poetry and literary works like आख्यायिकs, the enunciation of rules about the standard form of certain classes of composition, in short, to attempts, more or less crude, to establish a theory of Poetics and literary criticism. From this time forward the two processes, viz. com- position of secular poetry and the elaboration of rules, must have proceeded hand in hand. 3. Early beginnirgs of Poetics. Epigraphic records of the 2nd century A.D. and onwards show that before that period a theory of Poetics had bcen evolved. Vide on this part of the

1. उपयोग means नियमपूर्वकविधास्वीकार :. In such a case the आाख्याता (i. e. बस) is put in the ablative as in उपाध्यायादषीते.

336 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

subject and in general for the development of Poetics my articles in I. A. for 1912 pp. 124-128 and pp. 201-208 and on the epi- graphic material in Buhler's essay 'Die Indische Inschriften etc.' (translated by Prof. Ghate in I. A. for 1913 pp. 29, 137, 172, 188, 230, 243). In 'seven Brahmi Inscriptions from Mathura' E. I. vol. 24 pp. 199 ff. Prof. Lüders says that in one of them occurs a verse in the भुजङविजृम्भित metre and that therefore it must be conceded that Kavya poetry was fully developed before 1st century B.C. The Inscription of रुद्रदामन at Junagad (dated 150 A.D.) sheds very great light on the stage Poetics had reach- ed by that time. Vide ASWI vol. II p. 128 and E. I. vol. VIII. p. 36 for the inscription. The preserved portion contains only two verbs, it is written in prose with long compounds, it is full of alliteration and other tricks with words. A brief quotation will convey an idea of the nature of the inscription: सर्वक्षत्राविष्कृत- वीरशब्दजातोत्सेकाविधेयानां यौधेयानां प्रसत्योत्साद केन ... शब्दार्थगान्धर्वन्यायाद्याना विद्यानां महतीनां पारखधारणविज्ञानप्रयोगावाप्तविपुलकीर्तिना ... स्फुटलघुमघुरचित्र- कान्तशब्दसमयोदारालङकृतगद्यपद्य ... यमधिगतमहाक्षत्रपनाम्ना नरेन्द्रकन्यास्वयंव- रानेकमाल्यप्राप्त दाम्ना महाक्षत्रपेय रुद्रदाम्ना (P. 44). This shows that in or before the second century A. D. araa had been divided into n4 and qu, that some of the gunas that figure in later works had been already named (vide स्फुट,1 मधुर, कान्त, उदार, which correspond to प्रसाद, माधुर्य, कान्ति and उदारता of the काव्या- दर्श), both गंध and पद्य were required to be अलङकृत (that is endowed with figures of speech). The नाट्यशाख 17. 102, 106, 107 (K. M. ed. 16. 103, 107-108 and GOS. ed. 16. 104, 110, 112), define माधुर्य, उदात्त, कान्त. The composer of this inscription was evidently trying to come up to the standard of a good poet laid down in the works on Poetics of his day and there- fore this inscription represents at least a mediocre attempt at what a kavya was in those days required to be. The Nasik Inscription of Siri Pulumayi, which is somewhat earlier than that of marHa, though in Prakrit, exhibits the same traits (Bombay Gazetteer vol. 16 p. 550 and E. I. vol. 8 p. 60 No. 2). In the first two centuries of the Christian era both 1. कौटिल्य II. 10 p. 71 (शासनाधिकर) says अर्थक्रमः, सम्बन्धः, परिपूर्णता माधुर्यमौदार्य स्पष्टत्वमिति लेखसम्पत and defines the last three as 'सुखोपनीतचार्वर्थशब्दामिधानं माधुर्यम्। अग्राम्यशब्दाभिधानमौदार्यम्। प्रणीत- शब्दप्रयोग: स्पष्टत्वमिति'. Compare वामन's काव्या. स. III. 2.11, 13, 14 of which भग्राम्यत्वमुदारता is very close to कौ.

EARLY BEGINNINGS OF POETICS 337

Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions were engraved and followed the same pattern of literary style. The Ayodhya Sunga Inscription of धन (देवor भूति), who was the sixth from Senapati Puşyamitra is in Sanskrit (E. I. vol. 20 p. 54) and the Inscri- ption of रुद्रदामन् has been cited above already. The Inscription of Khāravela (referred to above on p. 19 and n 3) is in Prakrit, shows all the traits of the Ins. of रुद्रदामन् and mentions गन्धर्ववेद, नट, गीत, वादित्र and उत्सवसमाज. A quotation from it and one from the Nasik Ins. in the 19th year of Siri Pulumāyi are given below.1 It will be noticed that they are full of allitera- tion, the language is forcible and sonorous and therc are long compounds, which were the essence of prose according to some- what later works like the काव्यादश (शजः समासभूयस्त्वमेतद्रधस्य जीवि- a | I. 80) which dictum was probably based on older prose works now lost that were imitated by the writers of the early inscriptions in Sanskrit and Prakrit. Vide for other compara- tively old Sanskrit Inscriptions, Dr. R. C. Majumdar's 'Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East' (vol. 1, book III. p. 1, the Vo-Chanh Rock Inscription from Champa in Sanskrit of the 2nd or 3rd century A. D. containing two वसन्ततिलका verses), I. H. Q. vol. 16 p. 484 (Dr. G. Coedés), vol. 17 pp. 107-110 (Dr. D. C. Sarkar for same as to date); the Pikira grant of Pallava king सिंह्वमन्, son of युवमहाराज विष्युगोप and grandson of महाराजस्कन्दवर्मन् II in Sanskrit prose with long compounds. An inscription of the 4th century A. D. contains a panegyric of the great Emperor समुद्रगुप्त by हरिषेय (vide Flect's Gupta Inscriptions, No. I p.8). The prose of this प्रशस्ति rivals the style of Bana. This प्रशस्ति tells us that 'the title कविराज has been applied to agaga on account of the composition of many kāvyas that were the source of inspiration to learned men'. A

1. महाराजेन ... पसथसुभलखनेन चतुरन्तलुठितगुखोपहितेन कलिङ्गाधिपतिना सिरिखारवेलेन ... ततो लेखरूपगण नाववहारविधिविसारदेन सवविजावदातेन नववसानि योवराजं पसासितं ...... सवपासएडपूजको सवदेवायतनसंखारकारको अरपतिहतच किवाहि- निबलो, चकधुरगतचको ... राजा खारवेलसिरि। E. I. vol. 20 at pp. 79-80; Nasik Ins. No. 2 in Bombay Gazetteer vol. 16 at p. 550 and E. I. vol. 8 at p. 60 'राजरनो गोतमितपुतस द्विमवतमदरपवतसमसारस ... सवराज- लोकमडल पतिग हीतसासनस ... दिवसकर विवोधितकमल विभलस दिसवदनस ... पटिपुखचद- मडलससिरीक पियदसनस ... सुविभत तिवगदेसकालस पोरजननिविसेससुखदुखस ... सकय- वनपल्हवनिसूदनस धमोपचितकरविनियोगकरस &c.'

338 HISTORY OF SANKSRIT POETICS

brief quotation will be helpful: 'कृपणदीनानाथातुरजनोद्धरएसमन्त्रदीक्षा- धुपगतमनसः समिद्धस्य वित्रहवतो लोकानुग्रहस्य धनदवरुणेन्द्रान्तकसमस्य स्वमुजबलवि- जिता नेक नर पतिविभव प्रत्यपणनित्यव्यापृतायुक्तपुरुषस्य निशितवि दग्धमतिगान्धवललतै- ब्रीडितत्रिदशप तिगुरुतुम्बुरुनारदादेविद्वज्जनोपजीव्याने ककाव्यक्रियाभि: प्रतिष्ठितकवि- राजशब्दस्य etc.' These inscriptions therefore show that long before the 4th century, Poetics had made a good deal of progress. There are other indications of great antiquity that point in the same direction. The निघएट (III. 13) collects twelve phrases from the Rgveda and calls them 34HT (such as इदमिव, इदं यथा, अभिन, तदद्). The निरुक्त, while commenting on this part of the निघएट cites a scientific definition of उपमा from गार्ग्य, a predecessor of यास्क, and remarks that in the Rgveda a superior object is sometimes compared with an inferior one (though the general rule is that the JTHIa is superior to or more well-known than the उपमेय) अथात उपमा यदतत्तत्सदृशमिति गार्ग्यस्तदासा कर्म ज्यायसा वा गुरेन प्रख्याततमेन वा कनीयांसं वाप्रख्यातं वोपमिमीतेऽथापि कनीयसा ज्यायांसम्' (III. 13). The निरुक्त then cites Rg. X. 4.6 (तनूत्यजेव तस्करा वनग &c., where the arms are compared to desperate thieves) and Rg. X. 40. 2 (कुह स्विद्दोषा कुह वस्तोरश्चिना &c., where the Asvins are compared to the levir having intercourse with his brother's widow). " foreshadows the later distinction between पूर्uा and लुप्ता simile in the words 'लुप्तोपमान्यर्थोपमानीत्याचच्षते' (निरुक III. 18). A complete Upama has four constituent elements, उपमान, उपमेय (or उपमित), the common property (सामान्य) and the word expressive of the relation (such as इव, तुल्य). Long before Panini these technical words had become fixed in the language. The followsng sūtras will make this clear : 'उपमानानि सामान्यवचनः' and 'उपमितं व्याघ्रादिभिः सामान्याप्रयोगे' (पा. II. 1. 55-56); तुल्याथैरतुलोपमाभ्यां तृतीयान्यतरस्याम्' पा. II. 3. 72; 'उपमानादाचारे' पा. III. 1. 10 (क्यच स्याद) ; 'तेन तुल्यं क्रिया चेद्रतिः। तत्र तस्येव' पा. V. 1. 115-16. Panini refers to the Natasutras composed by Silalin and कृशाश्व ('पाराशर्यशिलालिभ्यां भिन्षुनटसूत्रयोः' and 'कर्मन्द- कृशाश्वादिनिः' IV. 3. 110-111). There is nothing left to show what these contained, but if they were to deserve the high- sounding designation of a sutra, it is not unlikely that they gave (however crudely) instruction as to what the business of an actor was, how he could work upon the emotions of the audience (i. e. in short some theory of rasa). The Vedānta- sutras name two alanikaras viz. उपमा and रूपक (अत एव चोपमा सूर्यकादिवद' III. 2. 18 and 'आनुमानिकमप्येकेषां शरीररूपक विन्यस्तगृहीतेदश-

EARLY BEGINNINGS OF POETRY 339

यति च' I. 4. 1). The बुद्धचरित of अश्ववोष (not later than 3rd century, as it was translated into Chinese about 414-421 A. D. and probably of the 1st or 2nd century A. D.) was composed at a time when some theory of poetics had already been in vogue. Each canto has at the end a verse or verses in a different metre. The author is very much after alliteration (I. 14, 15; V. 26), employs such a frightful jingle as हरितुरगतु- रक्षवत्तरङ्ः (V.87) and is very fond of यथासंख्य (V. 42 and IX. 16). The बुद्धचरित III. 51 employs the word रसान्तरम्. Similar remarks apply to Aśvaghosa's another Mahākāvya, the Saundarananda. In X. 2 there is अनुप्रासं and in X.11 there is यमक 'चलत्कदम्बे हिमवन्नितम्बे तरौ प्रलम्बे चमरो ललम्बे ।'. Compare नाट्यशाख 17. 84 (हली बली लली &.); the same verse is K.M. ed. 16.85 and GOS. vol. II chap. 16. 84 p. 330. Prof. H. Lüders published in 1911 fragments of a drama of Aśvaghosa called सारिपुत्रप्रकरण which had nine Acts. That shows that ancient dramas on which the rules of the नाट्यशाख were most probably based were lost or forgotten when later dramas like those of भास and कालिदास took the field. Sabhaparva 11. 36 speaks of नाटकS 'नाटका विविधा काव्याः कथाख्यायिककारिकाः' अश्वघोष uses the technical words हाव and भाव (भावज्ञानेन हावेन चातुर्याद्रूपसम्पदा । बुद्ध० IV. 12). Vide नाट्य० 24. 8-10 for भाव and हाव. नाट्यशास्त्र (GOS. ed. vol. III.) chap.22. 6-8 are: देहात्मकं भवेत्सत्वं सत्त्वा- डाव: समुत्थितः । भावात्समुत्थितो हावो हावाद्ेला समुत्थिता॥ वागङ्मुखरागेश्ष सत्त्वेनाभिनयेन च । कवेरन्त्गतं भावं भावयन्भाव उच्यते ॥I. It was shown above (p. 47) that the नाट्यशास्त्र must have been composed not later than 300 A. D. It contains a full exposi- tion of the rasa theory, of dramaturgy and of four figures of speech and gunas. कालिदास is fond of अनुप्रास and employs यमक in रघुवंश IX. Bharavi (who is mentioned in the Aihole Inscription) cannot be placed later than about 580-590 A.D. and in the 15th sarga of Kiratarjuniya exemplifies such faeys as गोसूत्रिका (verse 12), सर्वतोभद्र (25), एकाक्षर (verse 14 in which the only consonant that occurs is ), different kinds of Hes (verses 35, 37, 52), a verse with three applications (45). 1. In the 15th sarga of the किरातार्जुनीय we have एकाक्रपाद in verse 5, एकाक्षर in all padas in verse 14, सर्वतोभद्र and various kinds of qwes and verse 45 has three meanings. It has been shown above (pp. 119-20) that भारवि flourished about 580-590 A. D. at the latest.

340 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Subandhu in his वासवदत्ता alludes in various places to topics of Poetics. He boasts of his skill in weaving a web of puns on each syllable (प्रत्यक्षर-श्लेषमयप्रवन्धविन्यासवै दग्ध्यनिधिर्निबन्धम्.), speaks of वक्रोकि, of the soul of poctry, of the composition of an ex- cellent poet in which the expletives and fe do not occur and which is divided into long sections and contains Vaktra metre ('अग्रहेयापि काव्यजीवशेन' pp. 113-114 of Hall's ed., 'सत्कविकाव्यबन्ध इवानवबद्धतुहिनिपातः' p. 134, 'दीर्घोच्छ वासरचना कुलं सुश्लेषवक्त्रघटनापट सत्कवि- वचनमिव' p.184). He speaks of शृङ्धलाबन्ध, उत्प्रेक्षा and आक्षेप (p.136) and on p. 41 we have a मालादीपक 'यस्य समरभुवि भुजदण्डेन कोदएडं कोदएडेन शरा ... आसादितम्' and यमक on p. 53 and pp. 203-14. In the Intro. to Harsacarita by the present author (pp. 11-12, 1918 A. D.) it was held that Subandhu was probably earlier than Bana. He still sticks to that view. In P. O. vol. XI pp. 29ff. it is shown that जिनभद्र in विशेषावश्यकभाष्य refers to वासवदत्ता and तरङगवती and that according to an ancient ms. that work of जिनभद् was finished at Valabhi in s aka 531 (609A.D.) when king Sīlāditya was reigning. It is most probable that faaua is referr- ing to the वासवदत्ता of सुबन्धु. If so, सुबन्धु cannot be later than the last quarter of the 6th century A. D. aTu speiks of such puzzles as अक्षर च्युतक, मात्राच्युतक, बिन्दुमती, प्रहेलिका &c .; he knew the diffc- rence made between कथा and आख्यायिका (उच्छवासान्तेप्यखिन्नास्ते येषा वक्त्रे सरस्वती। कथमार्यायिकाकारा०, हर्पचरित Intro. verse 10)1, he speaks of श्लेष, उत्प्रेक्षा, उपमा, दीपक, जाति (हरन्ति कं नोज्ज्वलदीपकोपमैः & c.in कादम्बरी) and श्लेषप्रायमुदीच्येपु ... उत्प्रेता दाक्िसात्येषु गौडेष्वरक्रडम्बरः।। in the हषचरित), he extols a prince as the source or fountain of the ambrosial rasas of kavyas ('आगमः काव्यामृतरसानाम्' कादम्बरी 1st para). Thus by 600 A. D., we find that numerous figures

1. Vide p. 107 above for Bana's words saying that the कादम्बरी was a कथा and हर्षचरित was an आख्यायिका. It is strange that Dr. De (in H. S. P. vol. I. p. 67) remarks 'Bāņa designates his Harsacarita as a Kathā and his Kādambarī as Ākhyayika.' There is either a slip of the pen here or Dr. De has altogether forgotten the last Intro. verse of the कादम्बरी 'द्विजेन ... थिया निबद्धेयमतिदयी कथा' and Bana's son's words 'याते दिवं पितरि तद्वचसैव सार्ध विच्छेदमाप भुवि यस्तु कथाप्रबन्धः । and verse 6 'चिप्ता कथानुघटनाय मयापि वाखी. The 19th Intro. verse to the हर्षचरित is 'तथापि नृपतेर्भक्त्या ... करोम्याखयायिकाम्भोधौ जिह्वाप्लवनचापलम् ।।'. Nothing could be clearer than this.

EARLY BEGINNINGS OF POETICES 341

had been defined, rules had been laid down for the guidance of poets and various classes of composition such as ur and आाख्यायिका had distinctive forms. Works dealing with Poetics are extant that were composed about the time of (or a little later than) Bana (such as those of दयडी and भामह). 4. The name of the sastra. The earlier works on Poetics are generally designated Kāvyālankāra, e.g. the works of भामह, वामन and रुद्रट. These works were so called probably because alankāras played the most prominent part in the treat- ment of poetics in them (following the maxim प्राधान्येन व्यपदेशा भवन्ति). वामन in his काव्या. सू. tells us that the word अलक्कार is used in two senses, viz. (I) a thing of beauty and (II) a figure of speech (अलङक्रियते अनेन). According to him it follows that a work on Poetics is called काव्यालक्कार because it points out and explains the things of beauty in a kāuya, which make us prize the latter 'काव्यं ग्राहमलक्कारात्। सौन्दर्यमलक्वारः। काव्या. सू. I. 1. 1-2 (वृत्ति-अलङ्कृतिलक्गारः। करव्युत्पत्या पुनरलक्कारशब्दोयमुपमादिषु वतते।). The कामधेनु remarks : योयमलक्गारः काव्यग्रहरहेतुत्वेन उपन्यस्यते तद्व्युत्पादकत्वा- च्छास्नमपि अलक्कारनाम्ना व्यपदिश्यत इति शास्त्रस्यालक्कारत्वेन प्रसिद्धि: प्रतिष्ठिता स्यादिति सूचयितुमयं विन्यास: कृतः काव्यं ग्राह्मलक्कारादिति. This is more or less scholastic. Even in those early works that are not desig- nated as अलक्कार, figures of speech loom very large as in the काव्या- aa of Dandin, three fourths of which is taken up by the expla- nation and elucidation of figures of sperch (of sabda and artha). The काव्यादर्श says 'यथासम्थ्यमस्माभिः क्रियते काव्यलक्षयम् ।" (I.2). The aव. (pp.11 and 13) speaks of writers on Poetics as काव्यलक्षण- विधायिन: Though in I. 1 भामह calls his work काव्यालक्कार, at the end (VI. 64) he says 'अवलोक्य मतानि सत्कवीनामवगम्य स्वधिया च काव्यलक्ष्म ।.' The s्वo also (in I. 3) speaks of काव्यलक्मविधायिभि: (as having explained Upama and other figures of expressed sense). An- other name for Poetics is sahitya. This word seems to have been used in early works in three different but allied senses, though in modern times it is generally employed for Poetics. In the verse साहित्यसक्गीतकलाविदीन: the word साहित्य appears to have been used in the sense of काव्य. In the verse साहित्यपाथोनिधिमन्थनोत्थं कर्णामृतं रक्षत हे कवीन्द्रा: (बिहण's विक्रमाककदवचरित I.11), it will be notic- ed that साहित्य means 'litcrature in general' and kauya is said to arise like nectar from the ocean of साहित्य (i.e. काव्य is the quintessence of साहित्य). प्रतीहारेन्दुराज eulogising his teacher मुकुल and his proficiency in the मीमांसा and other sastras speaks of

342 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

him as 'साहित्यश्रीमुरारे: Here obviously the word साहित्य stands for साहित्यशाख्त्र (as in the case of मीमांसा, व्याकरण and तर्क that precede the word साहित्यश्रीमुरारे:). मुकुल in the explanation of the karika पदवाक्यप्रमाशेषु तदेतत्प्रतिबिम्बितम् । यो योजयति साहित्ये तस्य वाखी प्रसीदति ।।' अभिधावृत्ति० p. 22) remarks 'व्याकरमीमांसातर्कसाहित्यात्म केषु चतुर्षु शास्त्रेवपयोगात्'. राजशेखर (काव्यमी. p. 4) says 'पञ्चमी साहित्यविद्येति यायावरीयः । सा हि चतसृखामपि विद्ाना निष्यन्दः ।' मङ्गक says 'विना न साहित्यविदाSपरत्र गुखः कर्थञ्चित्प्रथते कवीनाम्।' श्रीकएठचरित II. 12). These passages establish that sometime before 900 A.D. (when राजशेखर flourished) the word साहित्य came to be used in the sense of 'the science of Poetics'. How much earlier it was employed in that sense it is difficult to say. The word साहित्य seems to be derived from सहित (meaning 'together'). When poctry came to be defined as 'शब्दार्थौं सहितौ काव्यं,' the science of poetic criti- sism that propounded this definition was naturally called साहित्य राजशेखर gives this etymology "शब्दार्थयोर्यथावत्सहभावेन विद्या साहित्यविद्या' (काव्यमी. P. 5). Similarly, the व्यक्तिविवेकटीका (p. 36) remarks 'न च काव्ये शास्त्रादिवदर्थप्रतीत्यर्थ शब्दमात्रं प्रयुज्यते सहितयोः शब्दार्थयोस्तत्र प्रयो- गाव। साहित्यं तुल्यकक्षत्वेनान्यूनातिरिकत्व म्।'.भामह says 'शब्दार्थो सहितौ काव्यं' (I. 16) and the वक्रोक्तिजीवित (I. 8 and 17 quoted above on p. 227) does the same. The शिशुपालवध says 'शब्दार्थो सत्कविरिव द्वयं विद्ानपेक्षते' (1I. 86). In order to constitute real काव्य, the साहित्य of शब्द and अर्थ is required to possess peculiar charm. This will be discussed later. Therefore the use of the word साहित्य arose probably after the 7th or 8th century A. D. In J. O. R., Madras, vol. IX. pp. 128-134, in 'Some concepts of Alankāra- sastra' pp. 264-267 Dr. Raghavan puts forward the theory that, before the days of दएडी and भामह, क्रियाकल्प was the name of Sanskrit Poetics. He relies upon the list of 64 कलs mentioned in वात्स्यायन's कामसूत्र and upon the words in the रामायण, उत्तरकाण्ड chap. 94. 7 (क्रियाकल्पविदश्चव तथा काव्यविदो जनान्). There is absolutely no proof that the chapter 94 is a genuine part of the रामायण, but Dr. Raghavan holds without hardly any obje- ctive evidence that that chapter is genuine or an old part of the epic. Granting for argument that the उत्तरकाएड passage is genuine, it does not prove that the sastra was called क्रियाकल्प. काव्यविद् by itself might mean 'he who knows the science of Poetics'; compare साहित्यविदा quoted above. So क्रियाकल्पविदः may have to be construed otherwise. Further, in an appropriate context क्रिया may mean काव्यक्रिया and क्रियाकल्प may mean the

THE NAME OF THE SASTRA 343

procedure of how a काव्य was to be composed and not the whole शास of Poetics. The word कल्प apart from its technical meaning of 'srauta sacrifices' (as in कल्पसूत्र) simply means 'procedure'. The word क्रिया by itself means also rites on and after death as in विष्णुपुराण III. 13. 34 (पूर्वाः क्रिया मध्यमाश्च तथा चैवोत्तरा: क्रिया: ।). There are many works called क्रियापद्धति which deal only with rites on death and after death (e. g. D. C. ms. No. 118 of 1879-80, 207 of 1884-87, 156 of 18 80-81, 99 of 1884- 86). If क्रिया by itself (apart from the context) meant(before भामह and दएडी) काव्य, why was it necessary to say काव्यक्रियाभि: in समुद्रगुप्तप्रशस्ति quoted above and in ना्यशास्त्र 22. 23 (मया काव्यक्रिया- हेतो: प्रक्िप्ता द्रहिणाश्या) ? This verse occurs in K. M. ed. 20, 23 and in GOS. ed. 20. 24 vol. III. p.90 where अ. भा. explains 'काव्यस्य क्रिया काव्यरूपतापादनं तदेव हेतुः ततः' In the कामसूत्र I. 3. 16 sixty-four kalās are enumerated which maidens had to learn secretly (अभ्यासप्रयोज्यांश्च चातुःषष्टिकान्योगान् कन्या रहस्येकाकिन्यभ्यसेत्। कामसूत्र I. 3. 14) and which were to be learnt by वेश्याs also (काम. I.3.20). In that list occur the following 'संपाठ्यं मानसी काव्यकरिया, अभिधानकोष: छन्दोज्ञानम्, क्रियाकल्पः, छलितकयोगा:' It would be noticed that unmarried girls and courtezans were to learn along with गीत, वाद्य, नृत्य, आलेख्य the kalas mentioned above which would suffice for their own education and for attracting worthy husbands or lovers. I do not know whether in any serious work on Aesthetics in Sanskrit साहित्यशार has been or would be called a कला. All that is meant in the कामसूत्र is that the unmarried girls were to be given some guidance in compos- ing (probably amorous) poetic pieces. As the word काव्यक्रिया is very near, it mentions simply क्रियाकल्प and (not काव्यक्रियाकल्प). कालिदास himself employs क्रिया elsewhere in the sense of 'rite' (कुतो धमक्रियाविघ्रः) and 'intellectual attainments' as in 'शिष्टा क्रिया कस्यचिद्' in मालविका० I. In the सौन्दरनन्द I. 55 we read 'समाजैरु- त्सवैर्दाय: क्रिकयाविधिभिरेव च। अलंचकुरलंवीर्यास्ते जगद्ाम तत्पुरम् ॥' It is not possible to hold here that the city was decked with काव्यालक्गार- शारड, but here क्रियाविधि means the performance of religious rites. Dr. Raghavan relies on ललितविस्तर p. 156 of Lefman's edition where the word क्रियाकल्प occurs. But he begs the whole question there. In the ललितविस्तर passage1 (B. I. ed.) 1. ललितविस्तर pp. 178-179 'लिपिमुद्रा-गणना ... अकक्रीडायां काव्य- व्याकरणे अ्रन्थरचिते रूपे रूपकमयि ... वीखायां वाधनृत्ये गीतपठिते ... लास्ये नाट्ये ...

344 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

about 90 matters in which बोधिसत्त्व became proficient are enumerated. In the context where faenaaq is sandwiched bet- ween Vedangas and several other lores, क्रियाकल्प can only mean श्राद्धकल्प, particularly when the word यशञकल्प precedes. Dr. Raghavan himself points out that the काव्यादर्श employs the word क्रियाविधि (in I. 9). Then, as Dandin refers to what former writers did for the व्युत्पत्ति of people, why does Dr. Raghavan not say that क्रियाविवि was the name of the शास्त्र ? For reasons of space I do not pursue this matter much further. I do not accept the new name for the { which he propounds as used in olden times. It has further to be noted that five great com- mentators of the भागवतपुराण X. 45.36 have the reading (in the list of 64 कलाS) क्रिय।विकल्प instead of क्रियाकल्प. Thus the whole edifice of क्रियाकल्प being the ancient name of the science of Poetics is raised on rather slippery foundations, viz. a doubtful reading क्रियाकल्प. श्रीधर expressaly states that his enumeration is based on शैवतन्त्र (and not on the कामसूत्र). The kalas have been variously given from ancient times. The ara itself (I. 3.17) states that पान्चाल (बाभ्रव्य) proclaimed another set of 64 kalas. The कामसूत्र states (I. 3. 17-18) 'पाऊ्वालिकी च चतुःषष्टि- रपरा। तस्या: प्रयोगाननन्ववेत्य सांप्रयोगिके वच्यामः ।'. Here the meaning of aer is different, as it means 'different modes of sexual enjoyment'. सांप्रयोगिक is the 2nd अधिकरण of कामसूत्र.Vide 'तदान्ध्रीषु प्रायेगेति संवेशनप्रकारा बाभ्रवीयाः' II. 6 21. कामसूत्र I. 1. 10 mentions a work of पान्चाल बाभ्रव्य in 7 अधिकरणs on कामशाख. Vide I. H. Q. vol. VIII pp. 542-548 for different lists of kalās (Prof. Chinta- haran Chakravarti), I. H. Q. vol. V. pp. 88 ff (Dr. Acharya), J.R. A. S. 1914 p.355, the कलाविलास of क्षेमेन्द्र who furnishes two different lists in the 4th and 10th (verse 40) cantos. The ना्यशार appears to presuppose 64 kalas (34. 44, 35.60).In the वासवदत्ता (p. 140 of Hall's ed.) there is a reference to 64 कलाS. 5 The topics of the अलक्कारशास्त्र. The next question is to consider the problems with which the science of Poetics grapples. In part I when describing the contents of several works these topics have been more or less indicated as regards each individual work. Here all these topics will be brought निर्घएटौ निगमे पुराये इतिहासे वेदे व्याकरये निरुक्ते शिक्षार्यां छन्दसि यज्ञकल्पे ज्योतिषि सांख्ये योगे क्रियाकल्पे वशेषिके वैशिके अर्थविद्यार्यां बार्हस्पत्ये' &c.

THE TOPICS OF THE SASTRA 345

together and their conncction with each other will be briefly pointed out. The first problem of Poetics is to declare what poetry can do for us and for the poet also (i.e. to enumerate the प्रयोजनs of काव्य). Then the sastra has to consider the essential qualities that constitute the equipment of a poet (i. e. arorg has to be considered). A definition of kāvya is attempted. In defining a kāvya, refcrence is generally made to śabda and artha and one has also to say what constitutes the soul or the essence of kavya (which makes ary what it is). It is here (about the soul of poetry) that the greatest divergence of view prevails. As śabda and artha are necessary for kāvya, the various powers of word and its relation to artha have to be discussed. This leads to the topic of the three वृत्तिs, अभिधा, लक्षया and aTs and their sub-divisions and the three kinds of artha, वाच्य, लच्ष्य and व्यक्ष्य. The critic has to give the several divisions of kāvya from different stand-points, viz. into Tu, qu and fax (according to the external form), into the best, mediocre and inferior kvya according to the predominance or otherwise of the most essential things in a kāvya, into ay and or, into na, siaa etc. (according to the language employed) and so on. The division into ara and goy opens up the vast field of dramaturgy. Certain gunas must always be present. As to their number (3, 10, 24 etc.) great difference of opinion prevails. As allied to this subject of gunas, the various dictions (rītis) have to be considered. A kāvya must be free from blemishes and ther fore the dosas of pada, vākya, artha, rasa etc. have to be discussed. Lastly, certain embellishments of kāvya (either of sabda, artha or of both) are dealt with. Certain works on Poetics go beyond this and lay down practical rules (as to the conventions to be observed by poets) and give information of an encyclopaedic character (e. g. about geography, about flora and fauna etc.). It is by no means to be supposed that all or even many works on Poetics attempt the treatment of all these topics. The works on Poetics fall into several groups. (1) Some like the साहित्यदर्पण and the प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण traverse the whole field of Poetics (including dramaturgy). (II) Most of the well- known works on Poetics confine themselves to the topics indi- cated above except dramaturgy e.g. the काव्यादश, the काव्यालक्कार- सूत्र of वामन, काव्यालक्कारs of भामह, रुद्रट and वाग्भट, the काव्यप्रकाश,

346 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

TETSTaT etc. In the present book also it has not been possible for reasons of space to include a full account of the works on dramaturgy except in a few cascs (where the rasa theory is concerned). (III) Some works treat of only dramaturgy and the theory of rasa, such as the नाट्यशास्त्र, the दशरूपक. (IV) Many works are concerned with alankaras alone e. g. अलक्गारसार- संग्रह, अलक्कारसर्वस्व, कुवलयानन्द, चित्रमीमांसा. (V) A few are concern- ed with the exposition of somc special theory of poetics, viz. the ध्वन्यालोक on the ध्वनि theory, the वक्रोक्तिजीवित, व्यक्तिविवेक. (VI) Some works deal only with the powers of words, viz. अभिधा etc. such as the अभिधावृत्तिमातृका, वृत्तिवार्तिक, शब्दव्यापारविचार (VII) A few deal only with the theory of rasa (without treating of dramaturgy) such as the शृङ्गारतिलक, रसतरङ्गिणी. (VIII) Several dilate upon only some special matters such as the रसमअरी (wherc नायिकाs and their sub-divisions and other kindred topics are discussed). The यशस्तिलक vol. 1 p. 479 (3rd आश्वास verse 274, Nir. ed.) quotes 'त्रिमूलकं द्विधोत्थानं पन्चशाखं चतुश्छदम्। योऽगं वेत्ति नवच्छायं दशभूमि स काव्यकृत् I।'. त्रिमूलकं-लोको वेदोध्यात्मं (compare ववक्तिविवेक on p. 7 and p. 35 n 2 above); द्विघोत्थानं refers to शब्दार्थों, पञ्चशाखं to five वृत्तिs, परुषा, उपनागरिका, ग्राम्या &c .; चतुश्छदं refers to four रीतिs; अगं=वृक्षं; नवच्छायं=नवरसपूर्ण दशभूर्मि दशगुसकम्. The eq. p. 278 quotes a verse to the effect that a good poet presents without any hindrance at his own will things that are without cetana as acetana and vice versa (भावानचेतनानपि चेतनवच्चेतनानचेतनवत्। व्यवहारयति यथेष्टं सुकविः काव्ये स्वतन्त्रतया ।।). The अभिपुराण makes a profound observation that poets are rare and that even among poets 'sakti' (imagination) is rarer still (नरत्वं दुरलभं लोके विद्या तत्र सुदुरलभ।। कवित्वं दुलभं तत्र शक्तिस्तत्र सुदुलभा॥ अरस्नि० chap. 337.3-4) 6 The purpose of Poetry (काव्यप्रयोजन). Poetry is an art and its immediate purpose and aim are the giving of delight, of aesthetic pleasure. This has been recognised by Sanskrit critics from very ancient times. The नाट्यशाखत्र says that the dramatic art was promulgated by Bharata as a pleasure-giving device for all people 'करोड नीयकमिच्छामो दृश्यं श्रव्यं च यद्मवेत्' and 'वेदविधयेतिहासानामाख्यानपरिकल्पनम्। विनोदजननं लोके नाव्यमेतद्भविष्यति ॥'नाय्य. I. l1 and 116-7(=K. M.ed.I.Il and 120 and GOS. vol. I. pp. 9 and 45, chap. I. 11 and 123); 'तथापि प्रीतिरेव प्रधानं ... प्राधान्येनानन्द एवोक्तः' लोचन p.14 and प्रीत्यात्मा च रसस्त-

TOPICS OF ALAŃKĀRASĀSTRA 347

देव नार्ट्यं नाव्य एव च वेद इत्यस्मदुपाध्यायः' लोचन p.114; 'सकलप्रयोजन- मौलिभूतं समनन्तरमेव रसास्वादनसमुद्भूतं विगलितवेधान्तरमानन्दं' काव्यप्र. I. Several other purposes that are served by poetry are enume- rated by the works on Poetics. Some of them are benefits derived by the poet himself, while others are reaped by the reader. They are (from the reader's point of view); I delight, solace; II instruction in knowledge of religion, morality and philosophy; III. proficiency in the arts and ways of the world. To the poet also poetry brings fame and wealth. The RRTTE says that to minds that are afflicted by the sorrows and worries of this world, नाट्य would bring relief and solace 'दुःखा- र्ताना श्रमार्तानां शोकार्तानां तपस्विनाम्। विश्रामजननं लोके नाट्यमेतद्द्विप्यति ।' (1.111-12). भामह says 'धर्मार्थकाममोक्षेषु वचक्षरायं कलासु च। प्रीति करोति कोति च साधुकाव्यनिबन्धनम् II' I. 2; सर. क. I. 2 निर्दोषं गुणवत्काव्यमल- काररलङ्कृतम्। रसाम्वितं कवि: कुर्वन् कीति प्रीति च विन्दति; वामन says 'काव्यं सद्दृष्टादृष्टार्थ प्रोतिकीतिहेतुत्वात्' I. 1. 5; 'काव्यं यशसेर्थकृते व्यवहारविदे शिवेतरक्षतये। सधः परनिर्वृतये कान्तासंमिततयोपदेशयुजे ॥' काव्यप्र. I; this mentions 6 purposcs viz. famc, wealth, knowledge of the ways of the world, removal of ills, highest delight, sweet instruction. Delight of a high spiritual order is the chief end of poetry. Instruction, moralizing, cleverness in arts are only by-pro- ducts, secondary results of poetry. The Daśarūpaka (I. 6) ridicules भामह and others who speak of व्युत्पत्ति or knowledge of yauras as the purpose of poetry. Similarly, the view of भामह (V. 3 quoted on p. 76) saying that Poetry is like a dose of honey inducing persons to take a bitter medicine has a parallel in western theorics of Aesthetics that explained that poetry was 'the pleasant taste which hid the Aloes and Rhubarb of wholesome things' as Prof. E. F. Carritt says in his 'the Theory of Beauty' p. 43 (5th ed. of 1949). That Aesthetics would influence life (though indirectly) is emphasized by Mammata in the words 'रामादिवद्वर्तितव्यं &c. हेमचन्द्र (p. 2) accepts only three of these 'काव्यमानन्दाय यशसे कान्ता- तुल्यतयोपदेशाय ' and says that one may or may not get wealth from aroy and the other purposes can be secured by other means; vide रुद्रट I. 4, 8-13, 21 and XII. 1 'ननु काव्येन क्रियते सरसा- नामवगमश्चतुर्वगें। लघु मृदु च नीरसेभ्यस्ते हि त्रस्यन्ति शास्त्रेभ्यः I'. Poetry however, does not (or should not) dircctly teach religion, philosophy or morality, but only indirectly and impliedly as said by मम्मट 'कान्तेव सरसतापादनेन।भिमुखीकृत्य रामादिवद्वर्तितव्यं न रावण-

348 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

दिवदित्युपदेशं ... करोतीति'. Vide my notes on साहित्यद० p.4. Most of the works on Poetics more or less ccho the words quoted above. Vide उज्ज्वलनीलमषि pp. 55-56 quoting भागवत X 'वर्तितव्यं शमिच्छ- दधिर्भक्तवन्न तु कृष्णवत । धत्येवं भक्तिशास्त्रायां तात्पर्यस्य विनिशायः। रामादिवद् वर्तितव्यं न कचिद्रावणादिवत्।'. The word प्रीति (among प्रयोजनs) men- tioned by भामह, वामन, सर क. may be construed with the poet also. The poet finds supreme delight in creating an artistic poem. The words सध: परनिर्वृतये of मम्मट (immediate higher and delightful experience) are more definite and appropriate. Even an early writer like Asvaghosa states that whatever else he included in his work other then relevant to the subject of Moks1 was included bec iuse of the rules of poetics in the same way as a bitter medicine is mixed with honcy in order that it may bepleasant to drink (Saundaranandi 18.63 यन्मोक्षात्कृतमन्य- दत्र हि मया तत्काव्यधर्मात्कृतं पातुं तिक्तमिवौषधं मधुयुतं हृदं कथ स्यादिति). 7 The equipment of the poet (काव्यहेतु). Most of the writers on Poetics lay down that the things essential to the making of a true poct are three, प्रतिभा (Imgination), व्युत्पचति: (culture) and अभ्यास (constant prictice). नैसर्गिकी च प्रतिभा श्रुतं च बडु निर्मलम्। अमन्दश्वाभियोगोस्या: कारसं काव्यसम्पदः ॥' काव्यादर्श I. 103; 'काव्यं तु जायते जातु कस्यचित्प्रतिभावतः। ... शब्दाभिधेये विशाय कृत्वा तद्विदुपास- नाम्। विलोक्यान्यनिबन्धांश् कार्य: काव्यक्रियादरः।' भामह I. 5 and 10; 'त्रितयमिदं व्याप्रियते शक्तिर्व्युत्पत्तिरभ्यासः ॥' रुद्रट I. 14; 'शक्तिनिपुता लोकशास्त्र- काव्याधवेक्षयात्। काव्यशशिकयाभ्यास इति हेतुस्तदुद्द्वे ।।' काव्यप्र. I. 8; vide also एकावली J.12; वाग्भटालक्कार I. 3 ;- अलक्कगारशेखर (p. 4). There were other writers who reg irded pratibha as the sole equipment required for the making of a genuine poet. राजशेखर SIys 'सा (शक्तिः) केवलं काव्ये हेतुरिति यायावरीयः' (p. 11); 'प्रतिभैव च कवीनां काव्य- करणकारखम्। व्युत्पत्त्यम्यासी तस्या एव संस्कारकारकौ न तु काव्यहेतू' अलक्कारतिलक of वाग्भट (p.2): तस्य च 'कारणं कविगता केव्रला प्रतिभा' रसगक्गाधर p.8. प्रतिभा is that power whereby the poet sees the subjects of his poem as steeped in beauty and gives to his readers in apt language a vivid picture of the beauty he has seen. It is a power where- by the poet not only calls up in his reader's heart the impre- ssions of faded experiences, but whereby he presents ever new, wonderful and charming combinations and relations of things never before experienced or thought by the ordinary man. A poet is one who is a seer, a prophet, who sees visions and possesses the additional gift of conveying to others less fortunate through the medium of language the visions he has

THE EQUIPMENT OF THE POET 349

or the dreams he dreams. The following definitions of प्रतिभा will make this clear. 'प्रज्ञा नवनवोन्मेषशालिनी प्रतिभा मता ... वर्णनानिपुणः कविः' भट्टतौत in काव्यकौतुक (vide p. 221 above); 'प्रतिभा अपूर्ववस्तु- निर्मायक्षमा प्रशा तस्या विशेषो रसावेशव शदसौन्दर्यकाव्यनिर्माणकमत्वं' and शक्ि: प्रतिभानं वर्णनीय वस्तुविषयनूतनोल्लेखशालित्वम्' लोचन pp. 34 and 164: अपारे काव्यसंसारे कविरेव प्रजापतिः । यथास्मै रोचते विश्वं तथेदं परिवतते ॥' (ध्व. P. 278); प्रसन्नपदनव्यार्थयुक्त्युद्वोधविधायिनी। स्फुरन्ती सत्कवेवुद्धि: प्रतिभा सर्वतोमुखी॥' वाग्भटालङ्वार I. 4; vide also वामन's वृत्ति on I. 3. 16 'कवित्वबीजं प्रतिभा- नम्'; रुद्रट I. 15-16; the prakrit verse अतहट्टिए1 वि तहसंठिए व्व हिशअम्मि जा सिवेसेइ। अत्थविसेसे सा जअ विकडकविगोशरा वाखी॥' quoted in ध्व. P.296; राजशेखर p.11 and भट्टतौत (p. 221 above) refer to this two- fold gift of the poet, of seeing visions of striking beauty (विचित्र ... AeT) and of conveying to others through appropriate language the visions he secs. Generally most great poets in Sanskrit did not endeavour to state explicitly any moral purpose as the aim of their works. They were more concerned with a happy cnding to their dramas and with creating an atmosphere of ideas and bliss by their poems than with explicitly stated moral endings or ends. Their dominant mood was delight and they exhibitcd it mostly on the plane of normal relations, passions, affections and even prejudices of men and women. For restrictions of space I cannot go deeper into the nature of sfaT.2 It means 'that mental faculty which presents ever fresh flashes or coruscations of ideas' (with उनमेष) or 'ever fresh

1. (छाया) अतथास्थितानपि तथासंस्थितानिव हृदये या निवेशयति । अर्थ- विशेषान् सा जयति विकटकविगोचरा वाणी ॥. The idca is : वाणीप्रसादादेव कवि- गोचरो वर्णनीयार्थो विकटो निःसीमा संपद्ते। 2. It is usual to translate प्रतिभा by 'imagination'. It is better to translate प्रतिभा as (inborn) 'creative faculty'. I. A. Richards defines 'Imagination' (on p. 242) basing his remarks on Cole- ridge as follows : That synthetic and magic power reveals itself in the balance or reconcilation of opposite or discordant qualities, the sense of novelty and freshness with old and familiar objects, a more than usuil state of emotion with more than usual order. But that word has six meanings, according to R. A. Richards' 'Principles of Literary criticism (ed. of 1925 pp. 239-243, chap. XXXII). Coleridge made a distinc- tion between 'Imagination' and 'Fancy'. Others do not make that distinction.

350 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

delineations or pictures of the matters to be described' (with उल्लेख). In defining प्रतिभा (or प्रतिभान) or शक्ति the word प्रश्ञा is used. A distinction is made between स्मृति, मति and प्रशा; e. g. त्रिधा च सा (बुद्धिः) स्मृतिः मतिः प्रज्ञेति। श्रतिक्रान्तत्यार्थस्य स्मर्त्री स्मृतिः वर्तमानस्य मन्त्री मतिः अनागतस्य प्रजात्री प्रशा सा त्रिप्रकारापि कवीनामुपकत्री।' काव्यमी. p.10. The संप्रदायप्रकाशिनी (on काव्यप्र., Tri. ed.) gives the follo- wing sloka 'स्मृतिर्व्यतीतविपया मतिरागामिगोचरा। बुद्धिस्तात्कालिकी शेया प्रश्ा त्रैकालिकी मता ।' (p. 13). Pratibha is said to be सहजा (natural) and उत्पादा (cultivated) by रुद्रट (I. 16) and उत्पादा and औपाधिकी (due to external agencies like mantras, the grace of God) by हेमचन्द्र (काव्यानु. p. 4-5). Old writers like Dandin held that pratibha (in a poet) was natural (नैसर्गिकी च प्रतिभा, quoted on p. 348). Rudrata (I. 16), Hemachandra (p. 4) and others say that व्युत्पत्ति and अभ्यास polish, brighten and sharpen pratibha. The ध्वo (p. 169) makes it clear that if a poet has शक्ति (i. e. प्रतिभा), it conceals the defects that may arise from lack of व्युत्पत्ति, but if a poet is deficient in प्रतिभा and has only व्युत्पत्ति, the defects in his composition are noticed at once (अरव्युत्पत्तिकृतो दोष: शक्त्या संहियते कवेः। यस्त्वशक्तिकृतो दोषः स भटित्यवभासते ॥ ध्व. P. 169). The important qucstion is : how does a man become possessed of प्रतिभा ? It appears thit early writers held that प्रतिभा was the outcome of samskaras (impressions) made on the soul in countless births (e. g. काव्यादर्श I. 104 न विद्यते यद्यपि पूर्व- वासना; काव्यमी. I. p. 12 'जन्मान्तर संस्कारापेकिणी सहजा'; वामन I. 3. 16 वृत्ति 'कवित्वबीजं जन्मान्तरासंस्कारगतविशेष: कश्चित्; भ. भा. vol. I. p. 346 कवे: वर्णनानिपुसस्य यः अन्तर्गतोऽनादिप्राक्तनसंस्कारप्रतिभानमयः &c.). The रसगभ्गाधर (pp.8-9) does not accept the theory that प्रतिभा is invariably due to अदृष्ट. The काव्यमी. (pp. 12-14) brings out this idea by stating that pratibha is of two kinds viz. कारयित्री (creative) and भावयित्री (appreciative): पृथगेव हि कवित्वाद्जावकत्वं भावकत्वाच्च कवित्वं । स्वरूपभेदाद्विषयभेदाच्च। काव्यमी. p.14. The काव्यमी. p. 11) distinguishes between शक्ति and व्युत्पत्ति and states that शक्ति alone is the cause of poetry. शक्तिकृते प्रतिभाव्युत्पत्तिकमयी। शक्तस्य प्रतिभाति शकश्र व्युत्पधते। या शब्दग्राममर्थसार्थमलक्कारतन्त्रमुक्तिमार्गमन्यदपि तथाविधमधिहृदयं प्रतिभासयति सा प्रतिभा। अप्रतिभस्य पदार्थसाथँः परोक इव। प्रतिभावतः पुनरपश्यतोऽपि प्रत्यक्ष इव ।'. रुद्रट I. 15 says: मनसि सदा सुसमा- धिनि विस्फुरणमनेकधाभिधेयस्य। अरक्लिष्टानि पदानि च विभान्ति यस्यामसौ शककः॥' (Sakti is that whereby in a mind that is free from distractions subjects of description always flash and words that are perspic- ous shine forth). The लोचन on ध्व. I. 6 (saying that Sarasvati

THE EQUIPMENT OF THE POET 351

manifests in great poets special imagination which is uncommon) remarks that the speciality of a great poet's imagination consists in the ability to produce poetry that is endowed with beauty and clarity due to the onrush of emotional thrill in the heart. Vide Annals B. O. R. I. vol. V for M. M. Gopinath Kaviraja's learned article on 'the doctrine of Pratibha in Indian Philosophy', I. H. Q. vol. 13 pp. 58-84 on 'Imagination in Indian Poetics' (by Prof. T. N. Shrikantayya). It has to be remembered that even the reader of the best poetry must have a modicum of imagination and culture in order to enjoy aesthetically the poet's outpourings, as said in 'नायकस्य कवे: श्रोतुः समानोनुभवस्ततः' (लोचन cited above on p. 220) or 'न जायते तदास्वादो विना रत्यादिवासनाम्' साहित्यदर्पण III. 9. ageufa dose not present much difficulty. There is theore- tically no subject which the poet may not handle and therefore a certain modicum of culture is necessary for him if he is to appeal to the hearts of his contemporaries and to future genera- tions. The नाट्यशास says 'न तज्जानं' 21, 122 quoted above on p. 35 n2; 'छन्दोव्याकर णकलालोकस्थितिपदपदार्थविज्ञानाद्। युक्तायुक्तविवेको व्यु- त्पत्तिरियं समासेन ।I' रुद्रट I. 18, हेमचन्द्र p. 5 'लोकशास्त्रकाव्येषु निपुखता व्युत्पत्तिः'. काव्यमी. 5th chap. which contains very useful infor- mation about शात्तरकवि, काव्यकवि and उभयकवि and their sub-divisions (p.17) states ten stages of कवित्व (p. 19). The सुवृत्ततिलक of चेमेन्द्र (K. M. ed.) has another division of Literature in general : शास्त्रं काव्यं शास्त्रकाव्यं काव्यशास्त्रं च भेदतः । काव्यं विशिष्टशब्दार्थसाहित्यसद- लङ्कृति। शास्त्रकाव्यं चतुवगप्रायं सर्वोपदेशकृत्। तत्र केवलशास्त्रेपि केचित्काव्यं प्रयुअते॥ 2-4. An example of शास्त्रकाव्य is भट्टिकाव्य. The Pali texts also have such divisions of poets. The Anguttara Nikāya speaks of four kinds of kavi viz. चिन्ताकवि, सुतकवि (श्रुतकवि), अत्थकवि and पटिभानकवि (vol. II. p. 230 of Pali Texts Society's ed.) and the commentary मनोरथपूरखी (vol. III. p. 211) explains 'यो चिन्तेत्वा काव्यं करोति स चिन्ताकवि नाम यो सुत्वा करोति अयं सुतकवि नाम यो एकमत्थं निस्साय करोति अयं अत्थकवि। यो तं खं येव बंगीसथेरो विथ अत्तनो पटिभानेन करोति अयं पटिभानकवि नाम'. The साहित्यमीमांसा (Tri. ed.) mentions four ingredients in the making of a poet viz. श्रम, नियोग, क्लेश, प्रतिभा (vide p. 281 above for quotation). On this subject of 'the making of the Sanskrit poet' vide Dr. Thomas in Bhandarkar Commemoration vol. pp. 375-376 and Prof. Kalicharan Shastri on 'Requisites of a poet' in

352 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

Journal of Dept. of Letters, Cal. Un., vol. XXVI pp. 1-31. A true poet's work cannot be described in nobler or more sublime language than what the ध्वन्यालोक' says about it, viz. that the poet is a Creator in the boundless world of poetry, that the Universe appears to assume that form which he is pleased to give to it, that whatevcr rasa (either love or pathos or heroism) he puts into his poem the world becomcs immersed therein and that if he himself becomes devoid of rasa then all follow suit. The Vyaktiviveka also employs equally sublime language about the poet's pratibha, which, he says, is the intellect of the poet that has become absorbed in selecting words and sense appro- priate to the rasa he wants to evolve, that (q5T) rises after touching for a moment the Real Essence (viz. the Highest Spirit) and that pratibha is the third eye of the Divine (Siva), whereby the poet perceives the shape of things, past, present and future. 8 The definition of poetry (काव्यलक्षण). Numcrous definitions of kāvya have been offered by several writers; many of these definitions are affected by the author's view about the essence of poetry. Some of the definitions are no more than mere descriptions. The definitions of a few writers, particu- larly early ones, treat mo and e as equally prominent, while others give more prominence to ra; some give a definition of aroa which is more difficult than the thing to be defined (such as that of विश्वनाथ 'वाक्यं रसात्मकं काव्यं'). An attempt will be made to group together some of these definitions. The following lay equel emphasis on शब्द and अर्थ 'शब्दार्थौं सहितौ काव्यं' (भामह I. 16; vide also I. 11 and 13 for काव्य being निर्दोष and सालक्कार); 'ननु शब्दार्थों काव्यं' रुद्रट III. 1; 'शब्दार्थो सहितौ वक्र०' वक्रोक्ति- जीवित (p. 227 above); 'तददोषौ शब्दार्थीं सगुणावनलङ्कृती पुनः क्वापि' मम्मट; गुणालक्कारसहितौ शब्दार्थीं दोषवर्जितौ । ... काव्यं काव्यविदो विदुः॥ प्रताप- रुद्रीय०; 'शब्दार्थौ निर्दोषौ सगुणौ प्रायः सालक्वारी काव्यम्' काव्यानुo of वाग्भट p. 14; 'अदोषौ सगुणौ सालद्वारी च शब्दार्थो काव्यम्' हेमचन्द्र p. 16; vide वामन'S वृत्ति on I. 1. I. Other writers lay more emphasis on शब्द. 'तैः शरीरं च काव्यानामलङ्काराश्ष दर्शिताः । शरीरं तावदिष्टार्थव्यवच्छिन्ना पदावली॥' 1. अपारे काव्यसंसारे कविरेव प्रजापतिः। यथास्मै रोचते विश्वं तथेदं परि- वतते॥ श्रृङ्गारी चेत्कवि: काव्ये जातं रसमयं जगत्। स एव वीतरागश्चेन्नीरसं सर्वमेव तत्। ध्व. p. 278, quoted on p. 183 n3 above; रसानुगुखशब्दार्थचिन्ता- स्तिमितचेतसः । क्षणं स्वरूपस्पर्शोत्था प्रश्ञैव प्रतिभा कवेः ॥ सा हि चक्तुभगवतस्तृतीय- मिति गीयते। येन साक्षात्करोत्येष भावांस्त्रैकाल्यवर्तिनः ॥ व्यक्तिविवेक p.108.

THE DEFINITION OF POETRY 353

काव्यादश I. 10; रष्टार्थव्यवच्छिन्ा पदावली। काव्यं स्फुटदलक्वारं गुणवद्दोषवर्जि- तम् ।।' अगिपुराय 336. 6-7; 'रमणीयार्थप्रतिपादकः शब्द: काव्यम्' रसगग्ना (p. 4) ; vide also चन्द्रालोक (I. 7). On the whole Jagannatha's definition is preferable, as it avoids all reference to debatable points and sa. I p. 8 also gives a similar definition in one place viz. 'सहृदयहृदयाह्वादिशब्दार्थमयत्वमेव काव्यलक्षणम्'. These latter defini- tions emphasize one of the aspects of poetry, viz. that, though poetry may employ the words of the current language, it differs from the everyday speech of people in the choice of words, in the diction that it employs which is chosen with an eye to beauty. But these definitions are very defective in one respect. If, as Dandin says, words are the body of poetry, it may be asked (to continue that metaphor) : 'what is the soul of Poetry ?' To this question various answers have been given by several schools.1 The # school of aRa made t the soul of poetry (dramatic), while the school of भानन्दवर्धन (called the safa school) extends the conception underlying the rasa theory and lays down that ajra sense is the soul of

1. Some scholars object to the use of the word 'schools'. Their argument is: all extant writers were aware of ra, Tw, ftfa, MEIT and were not opposed to rasa or guņa or alankāra. But this is not a correct statement of the position. There are four or five elements in high poetry. Bharata, Dandin, Bhamaha, Vamana, and others knew all this. But the question is; what is the soul or essence of poetry (applying metaphorically to poetry the image of body, limbs and soul) ? Here it is quite clear that the authors differ as to the soul of Poetry e.g. Vamana says 'rītirātmā kāvyasya', Dhvanikāra says 'kāvyasyātmā dhvaniriti' and vide also his remarks quoted on p. 166 above. The Vakroktijīvitakāra denies the independent existence of ध्वनि or व्यंग्य as the soul of poetry and includes the latter under its all-embracing Vakrokti. In each of these the emphasis is on a different matter. The case is analogous to that of the Vedānta schools of Sankara, Bhāskara, Rāmānuja, Madhva and Vallabha. All these admit the authority of the Upanişads and Vedantasūtra and also admit the existence of Brahma, Jīva and the world but they differ on the relation of these to each other. Therefore, they are treated as different schools. The same holds good as to the different schools of Sanskrit Poetics.

354 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

poetry. Some of the definitions dominated by the rasa school and ध्वनि school are 'आस्वादजीवातुः पदसन्दर्भः काव्यम्' चएडीदास in काव्यप्रकाशदीपिका (p.13); काव्यं रसादिमद्दाक्यं श्रुतं सुखविशेषकृत्' शौद्धोदनि in अलक्वारशेखर (p.2); 'वाक्यं रसात्मकं काव्यं' साहित्यदर्पण; निर्दोषं गुणवत्काव्यमलक्कार रलङ्कृतम्। रसान्वितं कवि: कुर्वन्कीति प्रीति च विन्दति ॥' सर- स्वती०. On account of the limitaions of space imposed in this work it is impossible to refer to the criticisms passed on these definitions. Vide my notes to साहित्यदप pp. 5-30 for some of them. In order to understand the relative positions of रस, ध्वनि, गुख, अलक्कार, रीति in the theory of Poetics, the diffcrent schools or rather theories must be enumerated and their doctrines briefly stated. The principal theories in chronological order of the extant works are those of rasa, of alankāra, of rīti, of dhvani, of vakrokti. Vide ध्वन्यालोक pp. 5-12 where the author refers to three schools, one totally denying the existence of धवनि, the 2nd saying that what is called ध्वनि is included under भक्ति (i.e. उपचार or लक्षया) and the third asserting that eafer is not capable of scientific treat- ment but can only be experienced by the mind of the man of literary taste (सहृदयहृदयसंवेध). In the first class (ध्वन्यभाववादिनः) again three sub-schools are pointed out slightly differing from each other(vide लोचन p.4).समुद्रबन्ध speaks of five schools in a some- what different manner 'इह विशिष्टौ शब्दार्थों काव्यम्। तयोश्च वैशिष्टयं धर्ममुखेन व्यापारमुखेन व्यङ्गयमुखेन वेति त्रयः पताः। आदयेप्यलक्कारतो गुखतो वेति द्वैविध्यम्। द्वितीयेपि भखितिवैचित्रयेण भोगकृत्वेन वेति द्वैविध्यम्। इति पत्तम पन्ञेष्वाध उद्धटादिभि- रक्गीकृतः, द्वितीयो वामनेन, तृतीयो वक्रोक्तिजीवितकारेख, चतुर्थो भट्टनायकेन, पक्जम मानन्दवर्धनेन ।' (p.4). It is to be noted here that समुद्रबन्ध does not mention the rasa theory of भरत; while भट्टनायक is really an adherent of the rasa school, though his method of explaining it is peculiar (vide pp. 221-23). He did not follow the ध्वनिकार in his treatment of the function; of words as explained above. Besides these, the view of महिमभट्ट that all ध्वनि is included under अनुमान stands by itself, brt as he had no followers, he need not be considered as the founder of a school. The वक्रोक्ति- जीवितकार also had hardly any followers and there was no school and further the meaning of वक्रोकि has changed from time to time. जयरथ in his विमर्शिनी quotes two verses (p.9) in which twelve different theories opposed to the dhvani theory are enu- merited 'तात्परयंशक्तिरभिधा लक्षणानुमिती दविधा। अर्थापत्तिः कचित्तन्त्रं समासोक्त्या- धलङकृतिः ॥ रसस्य कार्यता भोगो व्यापारान्तरबाधनम्। द्वादशेत्थं ध्वनेरस्य स्थिता विश्र- तिपच्तय:॥'. But he points out that, as said in the ध्वनिकारिका (काव्य-

THE RASA SCHOOL 355

स्यात्मा etc.), three theories opposed to that of ध्वनि are principal. Vide Prof. Sovani's learned paper in the Bhandarkar Com. vol. pp. 383 ff on the 'pre-dhvani schools of alankāra'. It may not be strictly accurate to employ the word school for the several yes (theories) about what constitutes the soul of kāvya. But, since that word has been frequently employed by many of those who have written on the subject of Sanskrit poetics and since even as early as Rājaśekhara's Kāvyamīmāmsā the views of Vāma- niyas (the followers of or school of Vamana) and of Audbha- tas are mentioned (vide pp. 14, 20 for वामनीया: and pp. 22, 44 for aet:), the word 'school' may still be retained for the theories of rasa, alankāra and dhvani. The A. B. (GOS. vol. I. p. 266) also refers to the views of Audbhatas on Nātyaśāstra VI. 10. Vide 'definition of poetry or Kāvya' in JOR (Madras vol. III. pp. 85-100, 170-180, 199-223, 331-348 and vol. IV. 45-56 by Pandit D. T. Tatacharya. 9 The Rasa School. So far as the extant litereture goes, the earliest exponent of this school is the Nātysastra of Bharata. But is should not be supposed that speculations about rasa were not put forward before the Nātysāstra. It has already been shown that many verses called 'anuvamsya' and several Ārya verses had been composed before the current ao took shape and were incorporated in the extant Nātyaśāstra (vide p. 17 above). The Nātyaśāstra was composed with an eye to dramatic representation and it has been seen (p. 210) that kāvya and nātya are regarded as synonyms (chap. 16. 169, 17. 5 &c.). The T# theory is set down at great length in the अभिनवभारती (GOS vol. I. pp. 274-295 and to a lesser extent in ध्व. and लोचन pp. 54-72 and pp. 182 ff. अभिनवगुप्त who was himself a great critic and poct and who comments both on the ध्वन्यालोक and the नाट्यशासत्र says (on नाट्यरसा: स्मृताः in नाट्य० VI. G.O.S.p.291): नाट्यात्समुदायरूपाद्रसाः, यदि वा नाट्यमेव रसा:। रसस- मुदायो हि नाट्यम्। न नाट्य एव च रसा: काव्येपि. The rest of the passage is quoted on p. 219 above and अभिनव proceeds 'काव्यं तावन्मुख्यतो दशरूपकात्मकमेव। ... तत्र ये स्वभावतो निर्मलमुकुरहृदयास्त एव संसारोचितक्रोधमोह्दाभिलाषपरवशमनसो न भवन्ति तेषां तथाविधदशरूपकाकर्यनसमये साधारणरसनात्मकचर्वसग्राह्यो रससन्चयो नाट्यलक्षयः स्फुट एव। ये त्वतथाभूतास्तेषा प्रत्यक्षोचिततथाविधचर्वसालाभाय नटादिप्रकिया स्वगतकरोधशोकादिस क्कूटहृदयग्रन्थिमअ- नाय गीतादिप्रक्रिया च मुनिना विरचिता। सर्वानुग्राइकं दि शास्त्रमिति न्यायातेन नाव्य एव रसा न लोके इत्यर्थः। काव्यं च नाव्यमेव।' vol. I. p. 292.

356 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Ta primarily means 'taste' or 'flavour' or 'savour', or 'relish' but metaphorically it means 'the emotional experience of beauty in poetry and drama'. Mammata speaks of the poet's work as 'hladaikamayi' (comprising pleasure or delight alone). It thus emphasizes the effect of poetry on the reader. Sanskrit writers also were aware of the fact that literature can be divided into two classes as De Quincey said viz. 'literature of knowledge' and 'literature of power'. The former teaches while the latter moves. The two kinds may be often mixed up in the same work but it is possible to keep them entirely separate. Literary criticism, whether in Sanskrit works or else- where, is mainly concerned with works of the second of the two classes mentioned above. No question of being right or wrong arises as regards the 2nd class of literature, which mainly comprises Poetry, Drama and Fiction. There is a distinction between intuitive consiousness and consiousness arrived at by reasoning. o (on p. 253) makes the position clear that no question of being right or wrong arises as to the suggested sense of poetry 'काव्यविषये च व्यज्ञयप्रतीतीनां सत्यासत्यनिरुपण- स्याप्रयोजकत्वमेवेति तत्र प्रमाखान्तरव्यापारपरीक्षा उपहासायैव संपधते'. The relation of rasas to poetry in general was not systematically dealt with till the Dhvanyaloka was composed. But it would not be correct to say that writers on Poetics were not at all cognisant of the employment of or importance of rasas. The Kavyadarsa I. 62 says 'कामं सर्वोप्यलक्कारो रसमर्थें निषिश्चति। तथाप्यग्राम्य- तैवैनं भारं वहति भूयसा ।'. In II. 280-292 the काव्यादर्श describes how the figure Tua4 is dependent on one of the eight rasas and they further show that Dandin was quite aware of the diffe- rence between स्थायिभाव and रस. Vide काव्यादर्श I. 51, 64 also. Bhamaha III. 6 (रसवद् दर्शितस्पष्टश्क्ारादिरसं यथा।) shows that he was aware of rasas, but did not treat them as the most essen- tial element in poetry. He says in I. 21 that a mahākāvya should be endowed with rasas (युक्त लोकस्वभावेन रसश्च विविधः पृथक्). वामन also says 'दीप्तरसत्वं कान्ति:।' III. 2. 24. Both Dandin (I. 31) and Bhamaha (I. 24) leave out of account dramas (which they regard as a kind of kāvya) and refer the curious reader to other works for rules about them. It appears that in ancient times poems and dramas ordinarily were looked upon as separ.ite compartments. Writers on Poetics did not at first include a treatment of rasas in their works. az is the first extant

THE RASA SCHOOL 357

writer to treat of rasa in a work called काव्यालक्कार. The शिशुपाल- 14.50 (composed about a hundred years before tz) speaks of rasas in connection with dramas.1 Even in Bharata's Nāțyaśāstra, rasa is not the principal subject treated of, but it is dealt with therein because of its relation to dramatic representation. The business of the drama was to evolve rasa in the spectator by means of the four kinds of abhinaya.2 The TE says that without rasa nothing can be done in drama (नदि रसादृते कश्चिदर्थः प्रवर्तते। नाय्यशास्र G. O.S. vol. I. p. 274) and the w. NT. remarks that one rasa runs like a thread in a drama- tic representation (एक एव तावत्परमार्थतो रसः सूत्रस्थानीयत्वेन रूपके प्रति- भाति । अ. भा. vol. I. p. 273). In the नाट्यशासत the largest portion is devoted to matters specially concerning the dramatist and the actor, while the analysis of the emotional effect desired to be produced and actually produced on the audience is dealt with mainly in chapters 6 and 7. It may be noted here that according to the apararater p. 1 (quoted on p. 1 above) Bharata dealt with rūpakas and Nandikeśvara with rasas. But the present Nātyaśastra deals with both these subjects and no ancient work of Nandikeśvara on rasas has come down to us. In my last edition I said that the theory of rasa has a semi- physiological and semi-psychological basis and that it tries to explain how human feelings and emotions are worked upon and roused by drama and poetry. But I did not go into the psychological basis. I should like here to indicate briefly the psychological aspect of the theory. I have neither the time nor space nor ability to discuss the varying views of modern Psychologists. Psychologists are not agreed on many points. I shall set out very briefly what psychologists like MacDougall say. In 'The Energies of men'

1. स्वादयन्रसमनेकसंस्कृतप्राकृतरकृतपात्रसक्करः । भावशुद्धिविहितैर्मुंदं जनो नाटकैरिव बभार भोजनः ॥ शिशुपालवध 14. 50. 2. The four kinds of अभिनय are आङ्गिक (concerning the movements of the head, face, the hands and other limbs of the body, described in chap. 8-13 of the Nātyasastra), arfa (in chapters 15-22, dealing with metres, laksınas, figures of speech, plot, the vrttis), TaT (dress, ornaments &c. in chap. 23), erfeas (horripilation, tears, bhava, hava &c. in chap. 24).

358 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

(1932) chap. VII pp. 97-98 he sets out a long list of eighteen innate propensities of human beings. Dr. R. J. S. McDowall in 'Sane Psychology' (1944) shortens MacDougall's list to fourteen instincts and sets them out together with their atten- dant emotions as follows (pp. 20-21). Instinct. Attendant cmotion. (1) Escape from danger Fear (2) Combat Anger (3) Repugnance Disgust (4) Parental protection Parental fecling of the young (5) Curiosity Adventure (6) Self-assertion Superiority (7) Self-abasement Subjection (8) Cry of distress Helplessness (9) Sex Sexual desire (10) Herd Loneliness (11) Food seeking Appetite (12) Hoarding Fceling of ownership (13) Construction Feeling of creativeness (14) Laughter Amusement We shall now turn to the analysis Bharata and his followers make about the effect produced on the minds of the spectators when they see a drama. It should be remembered that they had only a limited objective before them and were not concerned with any perfect or all-round system of psychology concerning man from his primitive stagc or from childhood onwards. They knew that the representa- tion of a drama appealed only to two senses, viz. the eye and the ear (क्रीडनीयकमिच्छामो दृश्यं श्रव्यं च यद्ध्वेत्। नाट्य. I. 11). This was the physiological bisis. Among those arts that appeal through the eye are included dancing (G4) and acting, ornaments, painting; the arts of hearing include oratory and repetition of poetic stanzas (YIT), singing and music in general. They knew that a dramatic representation gave delight to the audience even when in the drama presented there were some sad episodes. In ordinary life pity and fear do not give rise to pleasure or repose but the pity and fear felt by the re- presentation on the stage of a tragic event differ in their effects. They therefore described and analysed the nature of

THE RASA SCHOOL 359

the aesthetic pleasure derived and relished by appreciative men and women. Acsthetic pleasure or delight is one (rasa is really one) 1; but as in the case of speech, where senses are derived from sentences and sentences are split up into words and letters, so they held that the pleasurable feeling, experience (संवेदन or अनुभूति) or effect could be distinguished as of eight sorts viz. relating to sex (srngāra), hāsya2 &c. It would not be proper to say that the rasa theorists held that all men had only eight or nine instincts and that, as compared to the findings of modern psychologists, they were wrong in recognizing शोक and one or two others as fundamental, innate or basic propensities. Their theory was that as the effect of the representation of a drama the audience went through an experience that was packed full of delight, that there was no question of pain in that experience, that the experience appeared various owing to the impressions of love, sorrow and other propensities lying dormant in the mind, which were roused by the several kinds of abhinaya. The अ. भा. says 'अस्मन्मते तु संवेदनमेवानन्दघनमास्वाद्यते तत्र का दुःखाशङ्का केवलं तस्यैव चित्रताकरये रतिशोकादिवासनाव्यापारस्तदुद्वोधने चाभिनयादिव्यापारः ।' (vol. I. p. 293 on VI. 37).3 The poetic theory at its best was that

1. The अभिनवभारती compares रस to स्फोट. 'तेन रस एव नाट्यं यस्य व्युत्पत्ति: फलमित्युच्यते। तथा च रसादृते इत्यत्र (नाट्यशास्त्र ६, ३४) एकवचनोप- पत्तिः। ततश् मुख्यभ्तान्महारसात्स्फोटदृशीवासत्यानि वा, अन्विताभिधान- दृशीवोपायात्मकानि सत्यानि वा, अभिहितान्वयदृशीव तत्समुदायरूपायि वा रसान्तरायि भागाभिनिवेशदृष्टानि रूप्यन्ते ।' on VI. 16, vol. I. p. 269. 2. The भावप्रकाशन II. p. 46 says that रस is सामाजिकाश्रय and that aesthetic relish is of eight kinds. 'यतोऽष्टवा मनोवृत्तिः सभ्यानां नाट्यकमणि। अ्रष्टावेवानुभूयन्ते तासूक्ास्तै रसाः पृथक् ॥ सामाजिकस्तु रस्यन्ते यस्मात्तस्माद्रसा: स्मृता: ॥. Vide also pp. 58-59 of भावप्रकाशन particularly 'वर्षिताः स्थायिनो भावा नायकादिसमाश्रयाः । अनुकारतया नाट्ये कियमाया नटादिषु। रसतां प्रतिपद्यन्ते सामाजिकमनःसु ते । संस्कारः प्राक्तनस्तश्च रस्यन्ते यचतो रसा:॥'. The दशरूप (IV. 38-39) says the same thing. The लोचन (p. 23) says that in order that suggested sense (or rasa) may be relished there must be co-operation between the speaker (poet or dramatist) and the hearer 'वक्तृप्रतिपत्तप्रतिभासहकारित्वं हि अस्माभिर्धयोतनस्य प्रायत्वेनोक्तम्'. 3. There was no unanimity on this point. The नाट्यदर्पय (pp. 158-159) elaborates the theory that rasa has a touch of

360 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

nothing was ugly in the world and that everything was beauti- ful when the dramatist or poet by his imaginative creation and the spectator or reader by imaginative centemplation expresses or visualises to himself the idealised circumstances delineated in the drama or poem. This is explicitly stated by the नाट्यशास्त्र 21. 122 in the words न तज्ज्ञानं &c quoted in note 2 on p. 35 and by भामह in V. 4. There are several works that expound the theory of rasa realization such as the नाट्यशास VI-VII with the commentary of अभिनव०, the सरस्वतीकएठाभरय V, शुक्गारप्रकाश, दशरूप, शुभ्गारतिलक, भावप्रकाशन, रसतरङिी. It is not possible to describe in detail what all these works say and to mark out the points of difference among some of them. Bharata's text being the earliest one I shall rely on that text and the अभिनवभारती there- on and briefly set forth the several interpretations of that sūtra. The pivot round which the whole rasa system revolves sorrow in it. The श. प्र. also said 'रसा हि सुखदुःखावस्थारूपाः' (Dr. Raghavan's 'Number of rasas' p. 155). Most writers, however, hold that all relishing of rasa due to dramatic representation is pleasurable. It is no doubt true that when an actor is seen weeping on the stage some at least among the audience find their eyes moist. The साहित्यदपण III. 8 explains 'अश्रुपाताद- यस्तदद्द्गुतत्वाच्चेतसो मताः'. The लोचन (on p. 18) puts the doctrine as follows 'यस्तु स्वप्नेपि न स्वशब्दवाच्यो न लौकिकव्यवहारपतितः, किंतु शब्दसमप्यमाय हृदयसंवादसुन्दर-विभावानुभावसमुदित-प्राङनिविष्टरत्यादिवासनानुराग- सकुमारस्वसंविदानन्दचर्वणव्यापाररसनीयरूपो रसः ।'. Vide also श्र. मा. vol. I.p. 290 'सामाजिकानां हि हषैकफलं नाट्यं न शोकादिफलम्।'. The नाट्यदर्पण passage is: स्थायी भाव: श्रितोत्कर्षो विभावव्यभिचारिभिः । स्पष्टानुभावनिश्चेय: सुखदुःखात्मको रस :... यत्पुनः सर्वरसानां सुखात्मकत्वमुच्यते तत्प्रतीतबाधितम्। pp. 158-159. Some of the works say that when one is relishing rasa all other cognitions disappear from the mind for the moment and the state of aesthetic enjoyment is like ब्रह्मानन्द, which state lasts as long as fanas and the other bhavas continue to operate. Compare काव्यप्रकाश IV. p. 92 'सामाजिकानां वासनात्मतया स्थितः स्थायी रत्यादिक :. चर्व्यमाणकताप्राणो विभावादिजीवितावधिः ... पुर इव परिस्फुरन् ... अन्यत्सर्वमिव तिरोदधद् ब्रह्मास्वादमिवान्भावयन् अलौकिकचमत्कार- कारी शुक्ारादिको रसः' Compare साहित्यदर्पण III. 2-3 for similar words. As regards there being a mixture of pain in rasa, the साहित्यदर्पय remarks III. 4-5 'करुणादावपि रसे जायते यत्परं सुखम्। सचेत- सामनुभवः प्रमाणं तत्र केवलम्। किं च तेषु यदा दुःखं न कोपि स्याचदुन्मुखः।'.

THE RASA SCHOOL 361

is the passage 'विभावानुभावव्यमिचारिसंयोगाद्रसनिष्पत्तिः' (नाव्यशास VI.p. 274 G. O. S.). Two matters have to be noted in relation to this sutra : (1) the word wufa does not occur in it and (2) it is somewhat vague, particularly as to the import of the two words संयोग and निष्पत्ति. There are four interpretations of this sutra respectively made by लोल्लट, शङ्कुक, नायक and अभिनवगुप्त and the रसगङ्गाघर (p. 28) speaks of eight varying interpretations. The original works of लोल्लट, शङ्कुक and नायक are not yet found and we have to rely upon the summaries of their doctrines furnished by their adverse critics such as अभिनवगुप्त and मम्मट. These four views are respectively labelled उत्पत्तिवाद, अनुमि तिवाद, भक्तिवाद and अभिव्यक्तिवाद (of अमिनव०, मम्मट and most others). Before briefly stating the interpretations of these ancient writers, we must first understand the ideas underlying the technical words employed in the rasasūtra. There are certain permanent and dominant propensities or basic moods in the minds of all theatre-going people or readers of poetry which are ordinarily dormant, but when appropriate stimuli such as dialogues, songs, acting and music in case of drama, and mere words in the case of a poem are employed, they are roused and evolve a pleasurable state of the mind of the spectator or reader. These permanent moods are called rarfa- Ta. Bharata (VII. vol. I pp. 350-351) illustrates why these moods are called स्थायि. Though a king and his servants are all posscssed of similar limbs and physical endowments, one man is called the king and others wait upon him, so one mood is called स्थायि and others associated with it are called विभाव, अ्रनुभाव and व्यभिचारि and the स्थायिभाव so accompanied attains the position of रस (the aesthetic pleasure or relish). 'यथा नरेन्द्रो बहुजनपरिवारोपि सन्स एव नाम लभते नान्य: सुमहानपि पुरुषः । तथा विभावानुभाव- व्यभिचारिपरिवृतः स्थायी भावो रसनाम लभते। भवति चात्र श्रोकः । यथा नराणां नृपतिः शिष्यार्णां च यथा गुरुः। एवं दि सर्वभावानां भाव: स्थायी महानिद्द ॥' नाय्यशाख K. M. ed. chap. VII. 8 and G. O. S. ed., VII. pp. 350-51. The द शरूप (IV. 34) deseribes स्थायिभाव from another stand-point, viz. स्थायिभाव is like the ocean which may be now and then disturbed by other भावs but always retains its own position; so स्थायिभाव is that dominant mood which is not broken up altogether by other bhavas and makes the other bhāvas subordinate to itself. The permanent or dominant moods that may be aroused by

362 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

a dramatic representation and brought to a state of pleasurable relish are eight रति (love), हास (gaiety or laughter), शोक, क्रोध, उत्साह (energy or vigour), भय, जुगुप्सा (repugnance) and विस्मय. Some add a ninth स्थायिभाव viz. शम. The resultant aesthetic enjoyment and pleasure are called rasa. Bharata (VI. vol. I. pp. 288-291) explains why this aesthetic pleasure is called rasa. Just as persons who partake of food prepared with many condiments (such as jaggery, curds, cardamom, camphor, marica) taste many flavours and feel pleasure and dclight, so spectators relish स्थायिभावs suggested by various bhavas, acting, recitation &c. and enjoy delight and therefore are called a- रसs. The word रस in ordinary life has many senses viz. mercury, sweetness and other flavours (मधुराम्ललवसकटकषायतिक- भेदाव्), essence, strong liking, decoction, exuded juice, one of the bodily dhatus (अ.भा. vol. I. p. 289), but in काव्य and नाट्य it has another meaning derived by metapher from the idea of tasting or relishing (रसनाद्रसत्वमेषां मधुरादीनामिवोक्तमाचा्यैः। रुद्रट XII. 4). विभावानुभावसात्त्विकव्यभिचारिभावरुपनीयमानः परिपूर्ण: स्थायिभावो रस्यमानो रसः। रसतर. VI. The रसतरङ्गिणी says 'चरमसमयपर्यन्तस्थायित्वादस्य स्थायित्वव्यपदेशः'. अनुभाव is defined as अनुभावो विकारस्तु भावसंसूचना- त्मक:। दशरूप IV. 3, on which धनिक says 'स्थायिभावाननुभावयन्तः सामा- जिकान् सभ्रविक्षेपकटाचषादयो रसपोषकारियोऽनुभावाः' Eight of the अनुभावs are called सात्त्विकभावऽ : 'पृथग्भावा भवन्त्येतेऽनुभावत्वेपि सात्विकाः । सत्त्वादेव समुत्पत्तेस्तच्व तद्भावभावनम्। स्तम्भप्रलयरोमाश्चाः स्वेदो वैवएर्यवेपथू। अश्र वैस्वर्यमि- त्यष्टौ स्तम्भोस्मिन् निष्क्रियाङ्गता। प्रलयो नष्टसंज्ञत्वं शेषा: सुव्यक्तलचयाः॥ RIST IV. 4-6. There is a difference of opinion as to why they are called सात्त्विक. Acc. to दशरूप, सत्व means a 'sympathetic heart' and सात्त्विक means 'सर्वेन निर्वृत्त' ; vide साहित्यदर्पण III. 134 for a similar view; but the रसतर० IV says सत्वं जीवशरीरं तस्य धर्मा: सात्त्विकाः । इत्थं च शरीरभावाः स्तम्भादयः सात्विका भावा इत्यभिधीयन्ते ।. About the भावs which are 49 (as noted below) नाट्यशास्त्र says: नानाभिनयसम्बद्धान्भावयन्ति रसानिमान्। यस्मात्तस्मादमी भावा विशेया नाट्ययोक्तृभि:। न भावहीनोस्ति रसो न भावो रसवर्जितः । परस्परकृता सिद्धिस्तयोरभिनये भवेद्। व्यअ्नौषधिसंयोगो यथान्नं स्वादुतां नयेत। एवं भावा रसाश्चैव भावयन्ति परस्परम् ॥ 6. 34, 36-37. It should be noted that the word rurfa does not occur in the sutra. Love manifests itself in relation to a man and woman i. e. it depends upon these and when the mood of love is to be roused it is furthered by such exciting causes as moonrise, spring, flowers, bower &c. These two viz. the fundamental determining elements of love (man and woman)

THE RASA SCHOOL 363

and the exciting elements are called fauras1 (the former being called आलम्बनवि० and the latter उद्दीपनवि०). Such external manifestations as movements of the eye and eye-brows, glances, smiling face convey the working of the emotion of love and hence are called अनुभावs. There are many fleeting or secondary mcods that are common to several dominant moods and serve the purpose of completely manifesting the permanent mood, such as निर्वेद (despondency), ग्लानि (ennui or fatigue), ₹TET. These may help to completely manifest the permanent moods of रति and शोक. These are called सक्चारि or व्यभिचारि भावs. They are 33 and भरत in vol. I pp. 356 ff.des- cribes them at length (विविधमाभिमुख्येन रसेषु चरन्तीति व्यभिचारियः). The dominant moods रति, हास, शोक, when fully roused by means of appropriate विभावs, अनुभावऽ, व्यभिचारिभावs attain to the condition of शृङ्गार, हास्य and करुण rasas. It is to be noted that the drumatist does not put down any labels that in a particular composition there is शृङ्गार or करुण. He simply refers to the appropriate विभावs (hero and heroine and exciting circumstan- ces), the ensuants (such as glances) and the accessory moods and leaves the spectator or reader to enjoy the aesthetic pleasure resulting from such description. It is therefore that 1 The नाट्यशास्त्र (VI. vol. I pp. 347-348) explains विभाव as विज्ञान and says that विभाव is nothiug but कारण or निमित्त or हेतु. The विभावs are so called because many matters (viz. स्थायिभावS and व्यभिचारिभावs that depend upon अभिनय of two kinds viz. वाचिक and आङ्गिक) are specially understood from them (वागाद- योऽभिनया येषा स्थायिव्यभिचारियां ते वागाधभिनयसहिता विभाव्यन्ते विशिष्टतया ज्ञायन्ते यैस्ते विभावाः। अ. भा.). For अनुभाव, vide दशरूप IV. 3 quoted above. The भावs are 49 viz. 8 स्थायिभावs, 33 व्यभिचारिभावs and cight सात्त्विकभावs. The last are स्तम्भ (immobility due to fear, anger &c.), स्वेद, रोमाक्ज, स्वरभङ्, वेपथु, वैवएर्य, अश्रु, प्रलय. प्रलय means 'सुखदुःखाभ्यां चेष्टाज्ञाननिराकृतिः' साहित्यदर्पण III. 139) i. c. loss of activity and consciousness due to happiness or sorrow. It may be noted that विभावs and अनुभावs (other than सात्त्विक Tas) are not included among the 49 bhavas and that even those that are called स्थायिभावs may become व्यभिचारिभावs under certain circumstances e. g. when शङ्ञार is the predominant रस, रति is स्थायिभाव and if हास is described as an incident in that composition it becomes सञ्चारिभाव, though हास is enumerated as one of the स्थायिभावs.

364 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POITICS

thr rasas are said to be only suggested (and not expressed). Conversely, even if an author expressly said that there was aaRt or aou rasa in a particular piece, still there would be no aesthetic enjoyment of that rasa in case the appropriate ele- ments were wanting. Rasa is out of the ordinary, can be understood only by waays and the only proof of its existence is the चर्वंणा or भास्वाद which a सहृदय has. For a detailed des- cription of the rasa theory in all its parts, vide नाव्यशास्त्र (VI and VII chap.), दशरूप (4th prakasa), साहित्यदपण (III) and Rasatarangini. The eight rasas are शृद्गार, हास्य, करुण, रौद्र, वीर, भयानक, बीमत्स, and भद्भुत (vide नाय्य. VI. 15, pp. 268-269, G.O.S. ed. and K. M. ed. VI. 16). Some added a ninth rasa (RTIFT). We may apply the theory of rasa to the ādikāvya viz. Rāmāyaņa. It is narrated in the Bālakānda that the sage Valmīki saw a hunter killing one out of a pair of amorous kraunca birds. The parting of the loving pair by violent means, the fall and death of the female bird are the vibhāvas of karuna-rasa and the lamentation and piercing cry of anguish uttered by the surviving male partner are the anubhāvas of karuna; these powerfully moved the dormant mood of sympathy and pathos in Valmiki's heart, for a moment it beat in unison with the sorrow of the bird (तन्मयीभाव) and there was an overflow of that powerful feeling in the form of the measured verse 'मा निषाद प्रतिष्ठा त्वमगमः शाश्वतीः समाः'. It should not be thought that the sage was plunged into grief («1a) in the popular sense. The word शोक in रघुवंश XIV. 70 and ध्व0 quoted above (on p. 332 n. 2) is used in the dramatic sense (viz. as the स्थायिभाव)1. The sage was not occupied with his own

1. The words of the ध्व० 'काव्यस्य स एवार्थः सारभूतः संनिहितसह- चरीविरहकातरक्रौन्चाक्रन्दजनितशोक एव क्लोकतया परिणतः' (p.32) and of the लोचन क्रौश्चदन्द्ववियोगेन सहचरीहननोव्भूतेन साहचर्यध्वंसनेनोत्थित: (p. 317) create a serious difficulty. All editions of the ₹IHITU make the hunter kill the male bird and it is the female that laments. The sa. and arar had, it is clear, a reading before them which made the female die by the arrow. Not only so, the काव्यमी. of राजशेखर (p. 7) reads 'निषादनिहतसहचरीकं क्रौन्वयुवानं करुणक्रेक्कारया गिरा क्रन्दन्तमुद्दीद्त्य' &c. and supports the above interpretation of the sTo given by me. The late M. M. Prof. Kuppuswami in his उपलोचन on कौमुदी explains 'निहतः सहचरीविरहकातरः क्रौन्चः' &c. But

THE RASA SCHOOL 365

sorrow felt for the poor bird, but with the whole objective episode that stirred his heart and that led to the outburst (viz. मा निषाद प्र०). The situation as idealized by the sage's vision due to his sensitive nature and imagination gave rise to the poetic outburst, when the poet is completely full of the trans- cendental (alaukika) mental experience of an emotional idealized situation, then poetry gushes out from him, as the Locana p.32 puts it (यावत्पूर्णों न चैतेन तावन्नैववमिति). Not every reader of a poem can appreciate or experience the emotional appeal of that poem. The reader also must possess sufficient mental equipment and visualize in his own mind the situation as expresse d by the poet. This is what is meant by Tota quoted from the Locana at p.220 above (नायकस्य कवेः श्रोतुः समानोनुभवस्ततः). The poet cannot communicate to every reader the emotional situation depicted in the poem. He can only awaken in the this is not satisfactory. The word in ध्वo is संनिहित and not निहत; besides the लोचन has 'सहचरोहनन'. Supposing that निहत is the correct reading, we expect सहचरीविरहकातरनिहतक्रौन्च, as he must have been araT before he was shot when the male gave out a cry in the pangs of death. Why should the aa male be ०विरहकातर after being निहृत ? Further, the verse is indi- cative of Rama's life. When सीता was carried away by रावय, she was as if dead to him and it is ₹TH that laments (as भवभूति Says अपि ग्रावा रोदिति about राम's condition). So क्रौन्वीइनन corresponds with सीतापहरय and क्रौचाक्रन्द with Rama's lamenta- tions. And the काव्यमी. is quite clear. Recently Prof. G.H.Bhatt (in J.O.I., Baroda, vol. IX part 2 pp. 148-151) contributes a paper on this episode and prefers to read निहतसह चरीविरहकातर- क्रौञ्चाक्रन्दजनित: in सव and explains the composition in a peculiar way viz. निहतश्च सहचरीविरहकातरश्च निहृत ...... कातरः स चासी क्रौन्चश्च क्रौष्च्या: भक्रन्दश्च & c. This is a strange way of dissolving the compound. This interpretation gives a topsyturvy order. The क्रौन्च must have been first कातर and then killed and so we expect सहचरीविरहकातरनिहत & c. Prof. Bhatt connects the भाक्रन्द with the सहचरी. The straightforward and usual construction would be to connect भाक्रन्द with क्रौञ्च that immediatly precedes. The reference he makes to preceding verses does not impress me. When once the theory wasespoused that it was the male that was killed, then suitable verses could have been easily interpolated.

366 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

man of taste (sahrdaya) an emotional state similar to what he depicts in the poem. There must be a close correspondence between the poet's impulses conveyed by his choice of words and possible impulses in the reader. Numerous books and papers have been written on the theory of rasa. I can do nothing more than mention some of the most prominent ones. Vide Dr. De in HSP vol. II pp. 21-32, 135-174 and in 'the theory of Rasa' in Mookerjee Silver Jubilee commemoration volume III pp. 207-253; Dr. A. Sankaran in 'Theories of Rasa and Dhvani', particularly pp. 15-17, 91-117; Dr. Raghavan on 'Śrngāraprakāśa' vol. I part 2 pp. 418-542; 'Indian Aesthetics' by Dr. K. C. Pandey (1950); 'a criticai survey of Indian Aesthetics' Journal of Ganganath Jha Institute vol. III pp. 379-426; 'Psychological Basis of Alankara Literature' by Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya in Mookerjee Silver Jubilee C. volume III pp. 661-682; 'Rasa doctrine' by Mr. P. S. Naidu in Journal of Annamalai University vol. X pp. 1-12; 'Psychology of Beauty' by Dr. B. L. Atreya in J. of Benares H. Un. vol. VI pp. 43-55; 'Concept of sthayibhava' by Prof. Wadekar in Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. 24 pp. 207-214; 'Psychology of Rasa theory' by Prof. K. N. Watve in Annals of B. O. R. I. Silver Jubilee vol. 26 pp. 669-677; 'Philosophy of Aesthetic pleasure' by Pancapagesa Sastri, Annamalai University, 1940; 'Rasa cult in the Caitanyacaritam!ta' in Asutosh Mookerjee S. J. vol. III Orientalia part 3 pp. 368-388; 'Cornerstone of Rasa idealogy' by Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya in Pro. of All India O. Con., 13th Session pp. 253-267; 'The Ālankarikas and the scmantics of suggestion' by N. Bala Subrahmanya in Journal of Mysore University, vol. XVI No. 1; 'Psychologic studies in Rasa' by Dr. Rakesa Gupta (Aligarh, 1950); 'Art Experience' by Prof. M. Hiriyanna in volume of comparative studies presented to Dr. Radhakrishnan on his 60th birthday pp. 176-188; 'Aesthetic experience according to Abhinavagupta' by Raniero Gnoli, Rome, 1956; 'The critical and comparative study of Indian Aesth tics' J. G. J. R. I. vol. XV parts 3 and 4 pp. 187- 132 by Shri H. L. Sharma; 'Comparative Aesthetics' vol. I on 'Indian Aesthetics' 2nd edition (1959) by Dr. K. C. Pandey. Important questions arise about miH and about the number of rasas. Dr. Raghavan dealt with these two topics

THE RASA SCHOOL 367

in J. O. R., Madras, vol. X pp. 1-10, 97-114, 240-250 and vol. XI pp. 12-21, 77-115, 269-284 and in a separate book 'Number of Rasas' (1940) in which are included his contri- butions in the J.O.R. Madras. Vide pp. 12-13 above where this question about TFTH is discussed. From the Vikramorvasīya II. 18 and the काव्यादर्श II. 392 and the text of भरत (VI. 15-16) it follows that there were originally only eight rasas. As 342 (IV. 5) and the विष्ुधर्मोत्तरपुराख (p.68 above) mention nine rasas it follows that &TFTH was certainly included from about the 7th century. The भावप्रकाशन p. 47 states that it was वासुकि who first recognized शान्तरस. Some hold that शान्त may be a रस in poetry but not in dramas; vide दशरूप IV 35 (शममपि केचित्प्राङ्क: पुष्टिर्ना ट्येषु नैतस्य) and भावप्रकाशन p. 47 (नाटकादिनिबन्धे तु तपश्चरणवस्तुनि। अभिनेतुमशक्यत्वात्तद्वाक्यार्थपदार्थयोः। सामाजिकानां मनसि रसः शान्तो न जायते॥). The reasons why it was said that {TFa should not be recognized in a drama were many. One can hardly say that any big audience can be influenced to relish शान्तरस. The very atmosphere of dramatic representation with its songs, music and make-up is rather antagonistic to the development of a mood of TH (tranquility and self-effacement). In a mere poem Santarasa may be evolved by reading it in a quiet and secluded spot. The ध्व० (4th उदयोत pp.298-300) after a lengthy examination shows that in the Mhabharata शान्तरस is intended to be the most predominant and aau is the most predominant rasa in the TIHTTU. It is not impossible to perform on the stage a drama such as the प्रबोधचन्द्रोदय but the audience may be sparse. If नाट्य is defined (by दशरूप I. 7) as अवस्थानुकृतिः (imitative representation of various conditions), there is no theoretical reason why santarasa cannot be represented on the stage by clever actors with appropriate settings. Abhinava- gupta went to the other extreme and propounded the view that शान्त was the greatest रस because of its relation to मोच, the highest goal of human life, and because all poetic pleasure is अलौकिक and like ब्रह्मास्वाद. Vide भ्र. भा. vol. I. p. 340 'सर्वरसाना शान्तप्राय एवास्वाद:'. Acc. to अभिनव and धनजय, शम is the स्थायिभाव of शान्त, वैराग्य and संसारभीरूता are विभावs, मोक्षशाख्त्रचिन्ता is अनुभाव, निर्वेद, मति, धृति, स्मृति are व्यभिचारिभाव. Acc. to मम्मट (IV 35. निर्वेदस्थायिभावोस्ति शान्तोपि नवमो रसः) and सक्गीतरत्नाकर the स्थायिभाव of शान्त is निर्वेद, while others put forward जुगुप्सा or उत्साह as the स्थायिभाव (सक्गीतर. verse 1374). On pp. 92-106 of his work 'The

368 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

number of rasas' Dr. Raghavan furnishes a corrected text of the section on शान्तरस from the भभिनवभारती. Vide p. 207 above for the view of the चन्द्रिका on शान्त viz. आधिकारिकत्वेन शान्तो रसो न निषदव्य :. We saw above that रुद्रट mentions a 10th रस called प्रेयान्. The भ. भा. (vol. I pp. 341-42) states that other rasas were put forward by some viz. स्नेह (भार्द्रता as स्थायिभाव), लौल्य and भक्ति and explains that स्नेह is nothing but रति and उत्साह, लौल्य would be included under हास or रति and भक्ति under रति. As देवादिविषयरति was called भाव (रसिर्देवादिविषया व्यभिचारी तथाजितः । भाव: प्रोक्त :- काव्यप्र. IV. 35) and not शङ्गार, others put forward भक्ति as a separate रस. The सङ्गीतरत्नाकर (verses 1370-71, VII. p. 815) says : the नट is like a vessel (पात्र) in which some liquid is kept. As the vessel does not taste the liquid, so the actor does not relish the rasa that is being evolved and further states that some put foreward भक्ति (श्रद्धा as स्थायिभाव), स्नेह and लौल्य as three rasas; but it rejects these. The ध्वन्यालोक1 says that शान्त and शृङ्गार both pervade the drama called नागानन्द, that तृष्याक्षयसुख is the स्थायिभाव of शान्त, quotes a verse from the Mahabharata in support and remarks that even granting for argument that all men have not the experience of तृष्णाक्षयसुख that does not matter. The Locana refers to the words of the नाट्यशास्त्र that in & are shown sometimes drama, sport, wealth and also sama sometimes (तलोक्यस्यास्य सर्वस्य नाट्यं भावानुकीतनम् । क्वचिद्धर्म: क्वचित्क्रीडा क्वचिदर्थ: क्वचिच्छमः ॥ I. 104). It further says that sama is suggested, though all may not like it. But, this last is not the test. Śrngara also may not be liked by some people such as those who are वीतराग (who have subdued all passions) but this does not mean that {Rr is not a rasa. Some said that if sama is held to be the sthayibhava of santa, then, as the actor does not possess that quality of sama, śānta cannot be a rasa in natya. The reply of the सङ्गीतरत्नाकर is quoted below.

1. शान्तश्व तृष्णाक्षयसुखस्य यः परिपोषस्तल्लचणो रसः प्रतीयते। तथा चोक्तम्। पच्च कामसुखं लोके यच्च दिव्यं महत्सुखम्। तृष्णाक्षयसुखस्यैते नार्हतः षोडर्शी कलाम्।। यदि नाम सर्वजनानुभवगोचरता तस्य नास्ति नैतावतासावलोकसामान्यमहानुभाव- चित्तवृत्तिविशेषवत् प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्यः । ध्व. (III. pp. 219-220). The verse यच० is शान्तिपर्व 175. 35=वायुपुराय 93. 101. 2. शाम्तस्य शमसाध्यत्वान्नटे च तदसम्भवात्। भ्रष्टावेव रसा नाट्येष्विति केचिदचू- चुदन्। तदचार यत: कंचिश्च रसं स्वदते नटः। सामाजिकास्तु लिहते रसान् पात्रं नटो मतः॥ संगीतरत्नाकर VII. p. 815 verses 1370-71. The words

THE RASA SCHOOL 369

The actor does not himself relish what the spectator is to relish. When the actor pretends to feel fear or anger, he does not feel those sentiments in reality. We saw above (p. 248) that Bhoja developed in the Śṛngāraprakāsa the theory (adumbrated in S. K. A.) that rasa is only one, that poetry is beautiful because of its pre- sence, that the one rasa may be called śrngara and is identified with अभिमान and अहङ्कार, that it pervades the soul of man owing to the impressions made on the soul in many births and that it is the one cause from which spring many good characteristics of the soul (रसोभिमानोहद्कार: शद्गार इति गीयते। योर्थस्तस्यान्वयात् काव्यं कमनीयत्वमश्नुते॥ विशिष्टादृष्टजन्मायं जन्मिनामन्तरात्मस। आत्मसम्यग्गुणोद्भूतेरेको हेतु: प्रकाशते॥ सर. क. V. 1-2). What Bhoja means by &TFTT being identificd with WEER is practically the same as holding that rasa realization is भानन्दमय and त्रह्मास्वाद- HeaT. When Bhoja says that srngara is the only rasa he gives a different and philosophic significance to that word from what it ordinarily has viz. the love of man and woman. He keeps the two meanings apart. Those who want to under- stand Bhoja's point of view should read pp. 435-513 of Dr. Raghavan's work on the Śrngāraprakāśa (vol. I part 2). Vide 'Number of rasas' by Dr. Raghavan pp. 92-106 (=Abhi- navabhāratī vol. I. pp. 333-342) for a corrected text of A. B. on शान्तरस. There were some writers who held that adbhuta (wonder- ful) was the only rasa. The साहित्यदर्पण (III. 2-3) states that his great-great-grand-father Nārāyana held that camatkāra or vismaya was the essence of rasa and quotes what yfru says in his work (vide p. 289 n. 3). Dr. De in his paper (on 'the theory of Rasa' contributed to the Sir Asutosh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee vol. III (pp. 240-253) gave the text of Abhinavagupta's commentary on the rasasutra in chap. VI of the RIT (corresponding to vol. I pp. 274-288). It is in these pages that the views of लोल्लट, राङकुक, नायक and अभिनवगुप्त are set out at length. It is impossible in the space that I can afford to expound in detail

भष्टावेव ... नटः are quoted by जगन्नाथ (रसग. p. 30), who accepts शान्त as 9th रस. The भ. भा. (vol. I. p. 292) says 'नटे तहि किमास्वाद- नोपायः। अत एव पात्रमित्युच्यते। नहि पात्रे मधास्वादोपि तदुपायकः ।'

370 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the views of these writers and the objections raised against them. I shall briefly indicate the special characteristics of the theory of early writers on the question of rasa realization. The important questions are : 'where does rasa reside',1 'what the nature of rasa is' and 'how it is evolved and realized'. Briefly put, Lollata's view is as follows: Rasa in the primary sense belongs to the hero, Rāma etc. (i. e. Rāma loves Sītā and the dramatist describes this love in appropriate words). The spectator ascribes to the actor, on account of the latter's clever acting, the same mental attitude that belonged to Rama and the spectator's apprehension of imputed love in the actor brings to him delight. This is the meaning of the words विभावा ... रसनिष्पत्तिः This view does not treat of rasa as a matter of the spectator's aesthetic appreciation of the inner meaning of the representation. All that Lollata means is that the spectator is delighted by the fact that the actor cleverly represents by his acting that he is Rāma himself, feels the same love that the historic or legendary person (Rama) felt towards the heroine. The spectator is charmed by this. The view of Lollata is not very clearly expressed by faa or by मम्मट (तेन स्थाय्येव विभावानुभावादिभिरुपचितो रसः। स्थायी भवत्यनुपचितः। स चोभयोरपि मुख्यया वृन्या रामादावनुकार्येऽनुकतरि च नटे रामादिरूपतानुसन्धान- बलादिति। अ. भा. vol. I p. 274; रसस्वरूप एव तावद्विप्रतिपत्तयः प्रतिवादिनाम्। तथा हि पूर्वावस्थायां यः स्थायी स एव व्यभिचारिसम्पातादिना प्राप्तपरिपोषोऽनुकायगत एव रसः। लोचन p. 83; नटे तु तुल्यरूपतानुसन्धानवशादारोप्यमाण: सामाजिकाना चमत्कारहेतुः । प्रदीप p. 74 on काव्यप्र. 4. 5-6). Here real रस (शङ्गार) is produced in ₹TH and therefore this view is called erufoare. ₹Te3i thinks that rasa is a matter of inference. The actor who has been well trained in the art of gesticulation cleverly simulates the actions of real heroes and the spectator appre- hends for the moment the actor as non-different from the real hero and infers love (of Rama etc.) from the अनुभावs, व्यभिचारि- aTras presented by the actor and mentally contemplates such love and relishes it. Here rasa is no doubt spoken of in rela-

1. It should be noted that as said by Tota (p. 211 above) the original hero, the dramatist or the poet who composes his work and the spectator or reader pass through the same ex- perience. The actor is only simulating but some writers say that there is nothing to prevent the actor also from relishiag rasa.

THE RASA SCHOOL 371

tion to the spectator; but it is said to be a matter of inference due to clever imitation (भनुकरगरूपो रसः). It would be noticed that Sankuka speaks of rasa from the standpoint of the spectator. It is his view that rasa is inferred by the spectator. The स्थायिभाव in the original hero is inferred to exist in the actor (though not actually existing in him) on account of vibhavas cleverly represented by him in his acting, so as to give rise to the notion that the actor experiences feelings identical with those of the hero and makes the spectator forget for the time being the difference between the actors and the characters they represent. This inferred mood possesses peculiar charm entirely different from ordinary perceptions and inferences. Hence the realisation of rasa by the spectator is a logical inference. This view is elaborated and criticized in several pages of the अभिनवभारती (vol. I pp. 274-278). Numerous objections are raised against it. But the important one is that it is direct apprehension that produces strikingness and not mere inference (एतदप्यहृदयग्राहि यतः प्रत्यक्षमेव ज्ञानं सचमत्कारम्, नानु- मित्यादिरिति लोकप्रसिद्धिमवधूयान्यथा कल्पने मानाभावः। प्रदीप p. 77 on काव्यप्र. IV. 4-5). For the view of भट्टनायक, vide above pp. 212- 213. भट्टनायक denies that rasa is a matter of inference; nor does he accept the view that rasa is manifested as something relished by the spectator. He looks upon THRa4 as in the same category with परब्रह्मसाक्षात्कार. As परब्रक्ष is आानन्दमय, so is the apprehension of rasa. He held that besides abhidha there were two more powers of word viz. भावकत्वव्यापार and भोग or भोगीकृति. By the first the vibhāvas like Rāma and Sīta are represented to the audience or reader stripped of their individual aspects (साधारणी- करण or साधारणगुययोग) and the sentiment of love is aroused in the mind and then the audience or reader enjoys a thrill which is आनन्दमय, is different from ordinary experience (अनुभव) or recollection (स्मृति) and is like परब्रह्मास्वाद. The अ. भा. (नाव्यशास्त्र vol. I pp.278-279) remarks :. 'तस्मात्काव्ये दोषाभावगखालक्कारमयत्वलव्षेन, नाट्ये चतुर्विधाभिनयरूपेण, निबिडनिजमोइसक्टतानिवारणकारिया विभावाबिसा- धारणीकरणात्मना अभिघातो द्वितीयेनशेन भावकत्वव्यापारेय भाव्यमानो रसोऽनु- भवस्मृत्यादिविलक्षरेन रजस्तमोऽनुवेधवैचित्र्यबलाद्हृदि विस्तारविकासलक्षेन संत्वोद्रेक- प्रकाशानन्दमयनिजसंविद्विश्रान्तिविलक्षणेन परब्रह्मास्वादसविधेन भोगेन परं भुज्यत rfa l'. It appears from the Locana that Nayaka accepted that Rasa was the soul of poetry or drama and that it was j. 'रस। स च काव्यव्यापारैकगोचरो रसध्वनिरिति। स च ध्वनिरेवेति स एव मुख्यतया-

372 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

स्मेति।' (लोचन p. 18) and 'रसस्य शब्दवाज्यत्वं तेनापि नोपगतमिति व्यक्यत्वमेव' (लोचन p.23). He differed from the ध्वनि school in two respects, viz. that ra realisation cannot be described and analysed and that T# is the only suggested sense as the soul of poetry and not वस्तु or भलक्कार as the ध्वन्यालोक admitted (on p. 18). भभिनवगुप्त holds the view that rasa is भभिव्यक्त (and not कार्य or श्ञाप्य).1 He does not accept the two functions of भट्टनायक (other than भभिधा). He thinks that love and other moods are dormant in the minds of spectators, are roused by the stimulus of fauras etc. and reach the state of rasa. Vide काव्यप्रकाश (IV) for a detailed statement of these views and लोचन (pp.30, 68-70). भरत's view that रस is the soul of poetry was accepted by रुद्रभट्ट in the शृद्गार- तिलक, even by the अभिपुराख (वाग्वैदग्व्यप्रधानेपि रस पवात्र जीवितम्, chap. 336.33), काव्यमी० p.6 (रस आत्मा), by मम्मट and रुय्यक, by शौद्धोदनि (अलक्कारस्तु शोभाये रस आत्मा परे मनः ।' मलक्गारशेखर p. 6) and a host of other writers. अभिनवगप्त says that rasa becomes abhivyakta by the power of vyañjana and one has rasa realization (rasapratīti) which can be analysed and described. He gives up the भावकत्व (or साधारणीकरण) of Nayaka and does not speak of भोग but रसप्रतीति or रसास्वाद or रसचवखा. It may be noted that Bharata states (VI p. 71) 'नानाभावाभिनय व्यञ्जितान् वागअसत्वोपेतान् स्थायिभावाना- स्वादयन्ति सुमनसः प्रेक्षका: तस्मान्नाट्यरसा इति व्याख्याताः ।' and again 'एवमेते काव्यरसाभिव्यक्तिहेतव एकोनपञ्चाशद्दावाः प्रत्यवगन्तव्याः। एम्यश्र सामान्यगुण- योगेन रसा निष्पधन्ते'. भट्टनायक presupposes (नाव्य. vol. I, p.80G.O.S.) two व्यापारs viz. भावकत्व (i. e. साधारखोकरण) and भोजकत्व. The principal objections against Näyaka's view are two viz. there is no evidence to prove that the two sTuRs are required over and above abhidha and what is called bhukti as transcending all knowledge is really nothing but a kind of experience and the latter ultimately ends in the theory of abhivyakti. 10 The alankara school. The word alankāra" has had a chequered career. The inscription of Rudradaman cited 1. Vide लोचन p. 69 'अतश्ववात्राभिव्यजनमेव न तु ज्ञापनम्, प्रमाण- व्यापारवत् नाप्युतपादनम्। हेतुव्यापारवद। ननु यदि नेयं श्ाप्तिन वा निष्पत्तिः, तहि किमेतव्। ... भतश्व रसोयमलौकिकः । 2. साधारणीकरणं चैतदेव यत्सीतादिविरोषायां कामिनीत्वादिसामान्येनोप- स्थिति:। प्रदीप p. 78. 3. The word भलस्कृति occurs even in the Rgveda in the form अरकंकृति. 'का ते अस्त्थरद्कृतिः सूकः कदा नूनं ते मधवन् दारोम'। ऋ. VII. 29. 3 ..

THE ALANKARA SCHOOL 373

above shows that in the 2nd centnry A. D. literary nu and पथ were required to be अलक्कृत. In the नाव्यशास्त्र (chap. 17. 1-5) there is an enumeration of 36 agus (in two recensions) with which the kāvya to be employed in nātya was to be endowed. These laksanas gradually faded out and some of them like ig and ar were accepted as figures of speech by certain old alankārikas like Dardin. The definition of the very first laksania called भूषण or विभूषय is 'अलक्कारंर्गुणश्चंव बङ्डमिः समलठ्कृतम्। भूषगैरिव चित्रार्थैस्तन्भषणामिति स्मृतम् ॥(नाव्यशास्त्र 17. 6, G. O. S. vol. II p. 350). This shows that the laksana qw includ- ed both भलंकारs and गुus. The Natyasastra 17. 43 (=K. M. ed. 16. 43 and G.O.S. 16. 40 vol. II. ) p.321 speaks of उपमा, रूपक, दीपक and यमक as four भलक्कारs of नाटक. Vamana uses the word alankara in two senses when he says 'काव्यं ग्राध्यमलक्काराव्। सौन्दयमलद्कारः।' काव्या. सू. I. 1. 1-2. Here अलक्कार means 'a thing of beauty.' He also explains that alankāra applies to figures of speech because they beautify kavya. Similarly, Dandin appears to use the word alankāra in a wide sense also as shown below. The foremost representatives of this school are ar and

1. Vämana here asserts that poetry is one of the fine arts which have the expression of beauty' as their goal. Contro- versies have raged round the questions: what are the characteristics of beauty, whether it is objective or subjective, whether the artist (including the poet) as creating beauty must preach morality or whether his province is different from a preacher of morality. I avoid the temptation of going into these questions. The world of Beauty is remote or at least different from the worlds of morality and Truth. Poetry as a department of Fine Arts does not directly aim at inculcating morality nor at ultimate Truth. The poet's duty as a poet is to be true to his own self and to art and to express the visions he sees as best as he can. He may indirectly convey moral ideas by means of his dramas. The sao (III. p. 224) contains the following instructive remarks: 'शृङ्गाररसाऊरुन्मुखीकृताः सन्तो हि विनेया: सुखं विनयोपदेशं गृहुन्ति। सदाचारोपदेशरूपा दि नायकादिगोष्ठी विनेयजनहि- तार्थमेव मुनिभिरवतारिता।'. Vide 'Psychology of Beauty' by Dr. B. L. Atreya in Journal of Benares H. Un. vol. VI pp. 43-55. माघ describes रमणीयता as 'क्षणे चे यन्नवतामुपति तदेव रूपं रमणीयतायाः।' IV. 17.

374 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

उन्दट; दएडी, रुद्रट and प्रतीहारेन्दुराज may also be held to belong to this school. It is not to be supposed that they were unaware of the theory of rasa. Vide p. 341 above. उद्धट defines रसवत् as - (IV), in which he refers to the technical terms स्थायिभाव, विभाव, सञ्चारि (or व्यभिचारि) भाव and in the next verse names the nine rasas. दएडी also defines रसवत् and ऊजस्वि and says 'मधुरं रसवद्वाचि वस्तुन्यपि रसस्थिति: ।' (I. 51). He is quite aware of the eight rasas and their स्थायिभावS 'इह त्वष्टरसायत्ता रसवत्ता स्मृता गिराम्' (1I. 292); 'प्राकू प्रीतिदर्शिता सेयं रतिः शक्गारता गता' (II. 281): vide also काव्या० II. 283, 285, 287. रुद्रट says 'तस्मात्तत्कतव्यं यत्नेन महीयसा रसैर्युक्तम्' (XII. 2). These writers were well aware of the existence of rasa, but they had not found out how to apply the theory to kāvya in general. To them alankāras seemed to be the most important part in kāvyas, so much so that they made rasas subordinate to alankaras and defined such figures as रसवत्. भामह and दएडी hardly mnade any distinction between अलक्कारs and gunas. Both भामह and दएडी regard भाविक as a guna (भाविकत्वमिति प्राङ्ड: प्रबन्धविषयं गुरं' III. 52 and काव्यादर्श II. 364); while दएडी regards the ten Tus as alankaras when the word is used in a wide sense (काव्यशोभाकरान् धर्मानलक्कारान् प्रचक्षते। ... काश्चिन्मार्गविभागार्य- मुक्ता: प्रागप्यलङूक्रियाः।' II. 1 and 3). दएडी in काव्यादर्श II. 367 states that the (64) angas of the sandhis in a drama, the (16) angas of vrttis and the (36) laksanas described in another tradition (viz. dramaturgy in the नाट्यशास्त्र) are all looked upon by him as alankaras (यच्च सन्ध्यङ्गवृत्त्यङ्गलक्षणद्यागमान्तरे। व्यावर्णितमिदं चेष्टमलक्वारतयव नः ॥). The अलं. स. (p.3 and p. 9) says 'इह तावद्ग्ाम- होद्दटप्रभृतयश्चिरन्तनालक्कारकारा: प्रतीयमानमर्थ वाच्योपस्कारक तयालक्वारपक्षनिचिप्तं मन्यन्ते। ... उद्भ्टादिभिस्तु गुणालङ्काराणां प्रायशः साम्यमेव सूचितम् । .. तवेव- मलकूरा एव काव्ये प्रधानमिति प्राच्यानां मतम्।'. The तरल says 'भभाव एव ध्वनेरिति भामहप्रभृतयो मन्यन्ते' (p. 24). This may lead one to think that भामह is ध्वन्यभाववादिन्. But this is not entirely correct. भामह, दएडी and others were no doubt not aware of the theory that प्रतीयमान sense is the soul of poetry and they do not employ the words. ध्वनि and गुणीभूतव्यक्ञय in their works. But they do refer to प्रतीयमान sense. In their definitions of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, समासोक्ति, भाच्तेप, they included a good deal of प्रतीयमान sense (i. e. गुणीभूतव्यंग्य of ध्वन्यालोक) e. g. यत्रोक्ते गम्यतेन्योर्थस्तत्समानविशेषयः। सा समासोकि:' (भामह II. 79). All the rest of ध्वनि they would have

THE ALANKARA SCHOOL 375

included under the figure पर्यायोकत. जगनाथ remarks with great force and truth: "व्वनिकारात्प्राचीनैर्भामहोद्भटप्रभृतिभिः स्वग्रन्थेषु कुन्नापि ध्वनि- गुखीभूतव्यक्कयादिशब्दा न प्रयुका इत्येतावतैव तैर्ध्वन्यादयो न स्वीक्रियन्त इत्याधु-

कियन्तोऽपि गुणीभू तव्यक्थमेदास्तैरपि निरूपिताः। अपरश्च सर्वोपि व्यक्रयप्रपनन्वः पर्यायो- ककुची निचिप्तः। न अनुभवसिद्धोड्यों बालेनाप्यपह नोतुं शक्यते। ध्वन्यादिशब्दैः परं व्यवहारो न कृतः । न हेतावतानक्गीकारो भवति ।' रसगग्गा० pp. 414-415. Though भामह and दएडी did not speak of ध्वनि (or व्यङ्ञय) as the pervading element of poetry, they spoke of वक्रोक्ति or अतिशयोक्ि as all important and as lying at the root of all figures; vide aTHE II. 85 (सैषा सवैव०) and 'अलक्कारान्तरायामप्येकमाङठु: परायगम्। वागीशमहिता- मुक्तिमिमामतिशयाइयाम् ।।' काव्या. II. 220. For the meaning of वक्रोक्ति, vide section 12 below. z defined a figure ara (vide p. 145 above), in which there is some वस्तु (matter of fact) that is व्यक्य. He cites an example of implied उत्प्रेक्षा (I. 13). Therefore he also was not unaware of anra sense. The prominence given to alanikaras by दएडी and भामह (who says I. 13 न कान्तमपि निभषं विभाति वनितामुखम्।) persisted, though in a lesser degree, even in later times. Even though #aHa is a thorough-going follower of the ध्वन्यालोक his treatment of alankaras is longer than that of any other topic in his work. The number of alankāras sepa- rately named by various writers exceeds two hundred. Vide I. A. vol. 41 for 1912 p. 204-208 for further information about alańkāras, Annals B. O. R. I. vol. I. pp. 87-98 (on 'History and significance of alankaras' by Prof. Sovani); Annals B. O. R. 1. vol. II. pp. 69-72 (on classification of alankāras by Prof. P. K. Gode), Mookerjee Silver Jubilee vol. III pp. 661 ff), ('Psycho- logical basis of alankaras), History of Sanskrit Poetics' by Dr. De, vol. II pp. 41-94, 'Les Fleurs de Rhetorique dans l' Inde' by Prof. H. R. Divekar (1930), 'Use and abuse of alankāras in Sanskrit Literature' (in 'Indian Culture' vol. III pp. 675-705 by Dr. Raghavan and in his work 'Some concepts &c' pp. 48- 91), 'Bhoja's conception of Alankāras' in - 'Śṛngāraprakāśa' vol. I pp. 361-417. Several questions arise in connection with alankāras viz. the classification of them, difference between guņas and alankāras, the number of them and lastly their positioh in the theory of rasa and dhvani. Only a brief treatment on all these points can be attempted here. It appears that.भामह (I. 15 शब्दाभिधेयालक्कार- भेदादिष्टं दयं तु नः।) divided alankaras into those of शब्द and those

376 HISTORY OF SANKSRIT POETIOS

of भर्थ. Vide V. 66 also. दएडी had the same distinction in view, since he defines arthälankäras at length in the 2nd pari- ccheda and sabdālankaras like Yamaka in the the third. Udbhața enumerates four śabdālankāras first, then treats of arthālankāras, regards śleșa ( in IV) as an arthālankāra but divides it into śabdaśleşa and archaśleşa, for which he is severely criticized by Mammata. Rudrața enumerates śabdā- lankāras in II. 13 (such as Anuprāsa, Yamaka) and mentions arthālankāras in VII. 9 and introduces four bases of classifica- tion in figures of sense (vide p. 143 above). In the areaat- aarw II. 1 Bhoja divides alankaras into those of sabda, those of drtha and those of both; enumerates, defines and illu- strates 24 of each. The most remarkable thing about this classification is that figures like उपमा, रूपक, अपह्तुति, भर्थान्तरन्यास are declared by him to be alankaras of both sabda and artha. A few writers such as the authors of the अभिपुरास and चमत्कार- चन्द्रिका follow him in this respect. Bhoja (in सर. क. V. 8) divides वाकमय into वक्रोकि, रसोफि and स्वभावोकति. He elaborates this subject in the {TFIT95TI and includes gunas and rasas also among alankaras. The अलं. स. gives a far more reasonable classification of arthalankaras under seven heads viz. Hva (उपमा, रूपक), विरोध (विरोध, विभावना, विशेषोक्ति), शुङ्गलाबन्ध (कारणमाला, एकावली), तकन्याय (काव्यलिङ्, अनुमान), काव्यन्याय (यथासंख्य, पर्याय, परिवृत्ति), लोकन्याय (प्रत्यनीक, प्रतीप, मीलित), गूढार्थप्रतीति (सूच्म, व्याजोक्ति). The प्रतापरुदयशोभूषय (pp.337-339) states the basis of classifica- tion of alankaras and their differences from gunas (सङ्कटनाश्रया गुणाः शब्दार्थाश्रयात्त्लक्वारा:). For want of space I do not pursue this question further. Bharata mentioned four alankāras and ten gunas. Hence he must have made a distinction between them, although he does not express it. Dandin includes gunas under the word alankara in the wider sense, as shown above. He defines alanikaras as काव्यशोभाकरान्वर्मानलक्कारान प्रचवते। ते चाधापि विकल्प्यन्ते कस्तान कातस्न्येन वच्यति॥ काव्यादर्श II. 1. भामह's treatment of gunas is meagre. In काव्यालक्कार II. 1-3 he defines three gunas viz. माधुर्य, प्रसाद and ओोजस्. Dandin defines and illustrates ten gunas, the names being the same as in *a (17.96=16. 96 of GOS ed. p. 334), काव्यादर्श (I. 41) and वामन (III 1. 4) though the definitions often differ. वामन defines 'काव्यशोभाया कर्तारो धर्मा गयाः। तदतिशयहेतवस्त्वलक्गाराः।' काव्या सू. III. 1. 1-2. He further says that gunas are faru and enumerates and defines

THE ALANKARA SCHOOL 377

ten gunas of sabda and ten of artha (under the same names). The ध्वन्यालोक estblished the relation of gus and अलक्कारs. When by a metaphor it was said that rasa or dhvani is the soul of poetry, then the rasa theorists had to state the place of gunas and alankaras. The sao (II. 7) states that just as bravery and the like are the gunas of the soul and bracelets are ornaments put on some limb of the body (wrist &c.), so the gunas, madhurya, ojas and prasada are the gunas of rasa (तमथमवलम्बन्ते येदिनं ते गुखा: स्मृताः । अक्ाश्रितास्त्वलक्कारा मन्तव्या: कटकादिवत् ॥ ध्व. II 7) and it is further pointed out that madhurya is pre-eminently appropriate to विप्रलम्भशार (love of separated lovers) and करुण (tragic sentiment), the guna ojas to raudrarasa and prasāda (perspicuity) is common to all rasas and to all compositions. When the predominant rasa is śrngāra, anuprāsa does not help in its evolution and to employ Yamaka in śrngāra is a great mistake, particularly in विप्रलम्भ (ध्व० II. 15-16). Most of the later writers such as Mammata hold that the gunas are three, that they are the qualities of the soul of poetry like bravery (which is a quality1 of the spirit), that they are permanently associated with rasa and figures of speeeh are like ornaments worn on the limbs of the body (ये रसस्याज्विनो धर्मा : शौर्यादय इवात्मनः। उत्करषहेतवस्ते स्युरचलस्थितयो गुखाः ॥ उपकुर्वन्ति तं सन्तं येऽमद्रारेय जातुचित्। हारादिवदलक्कारास्तेनुप्रासोपमादयः ॥ काव्यप्रकाश VIII. 1-2). Most of the alankarikas follow this position. The number of alankaras has varied from time to time. aa mentioned only four. There were ancient authors who described only five or eight figures of speech (vide p. 69 n. 2 above). The व्रिष्णुधर्मोत्तरपुराय appears to have known only 18 alankāras (p. 69 above). Bhatți, Daņdin, Bhāmaha, Udbhața and Vamana speak of between 30 to 40 alankāras. Mammața defines 61, Ruyyaka about 75, the Candraloka one hundred and the Kuvalayananda 115. The ध्वन्यभाववादिन is made to say in the ध्व. p. 9 'सहस्रशो हि महात्मभिरन्यैरलक्कारप्रकाराः प्रकाशिताः प्रकाश्यन्ते च।'. It is noteworthy that the same figure of speech bears different names such as स्वभावोक्ति and जाति, यथासंख्य or क्रम or 77. Sometimes the same name denotes different figures of

1. एवमेते धलक्वारा गुखा दोषाश्च कीर्तिताः। प्रयोगमेषां च पुनर्वच्यामि रससंअ्रयम् ॥ नाय्यशाख 17.108.

378 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

speech as in the case of भवेप The व्यक्तिविवेक (p.88) remarks that although there are many alankaras, yet even a capable poet employs only a few and that Upama is like the life of alankaras and is extremely enjoyable when it is implied. Vide Dr. Nobel in Z. D. M. G. vol. 66. pp. 283-293 and vol. 67 pp. 1-36 for the study of individual alankaras such as व्याजस्तुति, सहोक्ति, विनोक्ति, प्रतिवस्तूपमा, दृष्टान्त, व्यतिरेक. Vide Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya on 'Neo-Buddhist nucleus in Alankārasāstra' in JASB. in vol. XXII (Letters 1956) part I pp. 49-66 and 'Influence of Buddhist logic on Alankarasastra' by Shri Anantlal Thakur in GOI (Baroda) vol. VII pp. 257-261. The latter paper is full of dogmatic assertions made without any serious effort at research on technical words e.g. it asserts that words स्वसंवेदन, विप्रतिपत्ति, नान्तरीयक, भविनाभाव are exclusively terms of Buddhist logic. नान्तरीयक occurs in महाभाष्य on पा. I. 2. 39 and in शोकवार्तिक, वाक्याधिकरण, verse 343. The word विप्रतिपत्ति occurs in the last verse in कौटिल्य's अर्थशाख. One should like to know the Sanskrit Buddhist work eomposed in 2nd century B.C. in which these two words occur. The word विप्रतिपत्ति occurs several times in the पूर्वमीमांसासूत्र of जैमिनि in the sense of 'conflict or contradiction' in V. I. 18, VIII. I. 32, IX. 3. 15. II The Riti School. Vämana is the foremost repre- sentative of this school. aust also devotes considerable space to what are called ritis by others and most later writer, on alankaras have to say something about them. arHq in his own way made a distinction between gunas and alankāras (p. 376 above). Vamana speaks of ten gunas of word and the same ten gunas of sense, viz. भज:, प्रसाद, श्लेष, समता, समाधि, माधुयं, सौकुमार्य, उदारता, अर्थव्यक्ति, कान्ति. दएडी mentions ten gunas under the same names, but makes no difference between gunas of word and those of sense. The doctrine of gunas was an ancient one. It was shown above that the inscription of रुद्रदामन् (150 A. D.) refers to some gunas such as माधुर्य, कान्ति, उदारता and कौटिल्य also spoke of certain गुखs. It may be noted that कौटिल्य in II. 9. mentions six गुरs of a royal writing (शासन) or order viz. अर्थक्रम, सम्बन्ध, परिपूर्णता, माधुर्य, औौदार्य, स्पष्टता, while the ना्यशाख names ten which include माधुर्य and उदार or उदात्त. This shows that कौटिश्य is much earlier than रुद्रदामन and the नाट्यशास in the theory and practice of Poetics. That poets of certain regions cultivated certain poetic features is made clear in his rafta

THE RiTI SCHOOL 379

by Bana who is earlier than any extant writer on poetics (except भरत). 'श्लेषप्रायमुदीच्येषु प्रतीच्येष्वथमात्रकम्। उत्प्रेक्षा वाक्षिणात्येष गौडेष्बवरडम्बर: ॥ (हरषचरित Intro. verse 7). Here we have two important words, दाक्षियात्य and गौड. Bana was not a दाच्ियात्य and hence he cannot be charged with any local patriotism or partiality for दाव्ियात्यs. दसडी does not employ the word रीति at all. Instead, he uses the word मार्ग throughout (काव्यादर्श I.9, 40, 67, 75, 101). He expressly says that there are several dictions distinguished from each other by nice distinctions, but that he will describe only two, वैदर्भ and गौडीय, because the points of dis- tinction between the two are very clear. It is interesting to note that he refers to गौडीय मार्ग or पद्धति as पौरस्त्य and employs the word डम्बर found in बाख as regards गौडs (इत्यनालोच्य वै षम्यमर्थालक्कार- उम्बरौ। अवेक्षमाया ववृधे पौरस्त्या काव्यपद्धतिः। I. 50). Vide also काव्यादर्श I. 83 for पौरस्त्य. On the other hand he applies the word दाक्षिात्य to वैदर्भमार्ग (अतो नैवमनुप्रासं दाक्ियात्याः प्रयुञते॥ I.60). In I. 92 he employs the word aaf and states that the Gaudas are very fond of अत्युक्ति. Even the काव्यमी. chap. VII. (p.30) employs the word मार्ग 'किमर्थ पुनरनुपदेश्ययोर्बाह्मपार मेश्वरयोरवाक्यमार्गयोरुपन्यास :- इत्याचार्या :. ' The सरस्वतीकएठाभरण states that the different ways such as Vaidarbha are known as marga 'वदर्भादिकृतः पन्थाः काव्ये मार्ग इति स्मृतः । रीङ्गताविति धातोः सा व्युत्पत्त्या रीतिरुच्यते॥ II. 27th कारिका (Nir. ed. of 1934). The ध्व. (III. 52 p. 290) remarks: 'एतद्ध्वनिवर्नेन निर्शीतं काव्यतत्त्वमस्फुटस्फुरितं सदशक नुवद्धिः प्रतिपादयितुं वैदर्भी गौडी पान्चाली चेति रीतयः प्रवर्तिताः' This is probably a reference to बामन. The ध्वन्यालोक makes little of Ritis. Instead it says a good deal on वृत्तिs and सङ्टना. The नाट्यशास्तर(17. 96) enume- rates the same ten gunas. In the नाट्यशासत्र gunas and alankaras occupy a subordinate position (17. 108). Vide नाट्यशास K.M. ed. 16. 97-108 and A.B. vol.II (GOS) p.334 chap.16. 96-112 for ten gunas. They are dcscribed in the 17th chap. along with 36 other ornaments of poetry, while rasa occupies a prominent place in the नाट्यशारत्र. Dandin gives gunas great prominence (I. 40-101) and the treatment of gunas and alankāras takes up almost the whole of his work; his work, however, assigns the most prominent place to alankāras of śabda and artha and practically makes no distinction between guņas and alankāras (vide p. 374), while वामन differentiates between them. दरडी thinks that the ten gunas are the essence of the vaidarbha style or way or diction (मार्ग or रीति), whilc the gaudi style generally presents

380 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the opposites or absence of the ten gunas (except अर्थव्यक्ति, उदारता and समाधि which are required by the partisans of both styles) 'इति वैदर्भमार्गस्य प्राणा दश गुणाः स्मृताः । एषां विपर्ययः प्रायो दृश्यते गौडवत्मनि ॥ (काव्या. I. 42); vide also I. 75, 76, 100. It must be remembered that भोज: was required in prose even in वैदर्भी, but not in पद्; while the गौडीयमार्ग regards भोज: as highest even in पद्य. He speaks of the guna समाधि (अन्यधर्मस्ततोन्यत्र लोकसीमानुरोधिना। सम्यगाधीयते यत्र स समाधि: स्मृतो यथा ॥ कुमुदानि निमीलन्ति etc.) as the all-in-all of poetry. But this does not mean that समाधि was the soul of poetry according to him. The words are more or less rhetori- cal. भामह does not accept that there are two distinct dictions like वैदर्म and गौडीय (I. 31-33). वामन boldly asserts that riti is the soul of poetry, that riti consists in the special arrangement or combination of words and that the specialty lies in the possession of gunas (रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य । विशिष्टा पदरचना रीतिः। विशेषो गखात्मा । काव्या. सू. I. 2.6-8). He speaks of three ritis वैदभी, गौडीया and पाळन्चाली and says that the वैदभी style is endowed with all the ten gunas while the Gaudiya specially affects ओज: and कान्ति, and पान्चाली is specially characterised by माधुर्य and सौकुमार्यं (I. 2. 11-13). He cites 'गाहन्तां महिषा' (शाकुन्तल II. 6), दोर्दएडा- न्चित० (महावीरचरित I. 54) and ग्मेऽस्मिन् पथिकाय (अमरु० 131) as respectively the examples of the three styles. He clearly ex- plains why the styles were so named (विदर्भादिषु दृष्टत्वात्तत्समाख्या' काव्या. सू. I. 2.10; 'विदर्भगौडपान्चालेु देशेषु तत्रत्यैः कविभिर्यथास्वरूपमुपल- ब्धत्वाद्देशसमाख्या। न पुनर्देशैः किन्चिदुपक्रियते काव्यानाम्' वृत्ति). It must be observed that there is considerable difference between the definitions of the various gunas given by the नाट्य०, दएडी and वामन, though there is agreement in some. For want of space it is not possible to go into details. To take one or two examples: भोज: is defined by the नाट्य (16. 99) as 'समासवद्धिर्वि विधैरविचित्रेश्च पदैयुंतम्। सा तु स्वरै (सानुस्वारै ?) रुदारैश्च तदोजः परिकीत्यते ।"1 and by दएढी as 'शज: समासभूयस्त्वम्'; while वामन defines as 'गाढबन्धत्वमोजः (III. 1.5.) and 'अथस्य प्रोढिरोज:'. (III. 2.2). समाधि is defines by she नाट्य as अभियुक्तविशेषस्तु योर्थस्यैवोपलभ्यते। तेन चार्थन सम्पन्नः समाधि: परिकीत्यते॥ (16. 97), but वामन defines it as 'आरोहावरोहक्रमः

1. This is the definition in the old K. M. ed. of 1894; the Chowkhambha edition defines ओजः as अविगीताविद्दीनोपि स्यादु- दात्तानुभावकः। यत्र शब्दार्थसंपत्तिस्तदोज: परिकीर्तितम्॥17. 103.

THE RITI SCHOOL 381

समाधि:' (III. 1. 13) and 'अर्थटृष्टिः समाधिः' (III. 2. 7) ; for दएडी, vide aroaf I. 93 and 100. The alankara school looked upon alankāras, which are really of secondary importance and without which kavya can very well exist, as very important. The rīti school marks a very real advance over the alankāra school. Though it did not reach the real essence of poetry, it approached very near it. Instead of looking upon mere ala- nkāras as the essence of poetry, it looked upon the gunas as the essence. The riti school was not yet well aware of that to which the gunas belonged, they had only a glimmering or hazy notion about the real essenee of poetry. It is therefore that the ध्वनिकारिका (III. 57) says about the riti school 'अस्फुटस्फुरितं &c'. वामन included in his वक्रोक्ति (defines as सादृश्याल्लक्षण) all अविवक्ितवाच्यध्वनि and he seems to have found room for rasas in the guna कान्ति (दी्षरसत्वं कान्तिः' काव्या. सू IIl. 2.14). Gunas really belong to rasa &c. the soul of poetry. The sa. pointed out that माधुर्य is a special characteristic of शृङ्गार, that it reaches the highest pitch in विप्रलम्भश्वक्गार and करुण, that भोज: is found specially where रौद्र, वीर and अद्भत prevail and that प्रसाद is a gunn common to all rasas (ध्वनिकारिका II. 8-11). भामइ speaks very briefly of gunas and refers to only three of them, माधुर्य, भोजस् and प्रसाद (II. 1-3). Magha, who as shown above on p. 113, flourished about or before 750A.D. appears to have only three gunas in view when he says 'नैकमोज: प्रसादो वा रसभावविद: कवेः।' शिशुपालवध II. 85. Later writers like मम्मट and हेमचन्द्र reduce the gunas to the above three and show that the rest are either included in the three or are really दोषाभाव. The number of ritis varies with different writers. राजशेखर in his काव्यमी. (chap. VII. p. 31) quotes a verse that gives the same names of the three ritis as वामन; but in his कपरमजरी he speak of three ritis as वच्छोमी (from वत्सगुल्म, modern Basim in Berar), माभही (मागवी) and पञ्चालिश. रुद्रट and अमिपुराण (chap.340) speak of four (लाटीया is added); vide II. 4-6). वाग्भटालक्कार gives only two like दएडी. वाग्भट's काव्यानुशासन names three like वामन; while भोज1 enumerates six, adding भावन्ती, मागधी and लाटी to वामन's three. We must now say a few words about वृत्ति and प्रवृत्ति and

1. The सर. क. II. 27 says: वैदर्भादिकृत: रीतिरच्यते। quoted on p. 379 above and vide same verse in साहित्यमीमासा p. 87.

382 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

their relation to riti. भरत in नाव्यशास्र 22 (=GOS ed. chap. 20) speaks of the mythical origin of the four वृत्तिs called भारती, सास्वती, कैशिकी and भारभटी and their angas (vide p. 34 above). The नाय्यशाख (old K. M. ed. 20. 62) stated that the vrttis were (like) the mothers of natya1 (वृत्तयो नाव्यमातरः) and further provides that कैशिकीवृत्ति should be employed in शङ्गार and हास्य, सात्वती in वीर, रौद्र and अद्भत, आरभटी in भयानक, बीभत्स and रौद्र, भारती in करुण and अद्भत. the साहित्यदपय (VI. 122-123) also calls them मातृका: and slightly differs as to the rasas for which each is proper. The रसार्यवसुधाकर (pp. 69-71) gives the same rule, offers a mythical origin of the qfirs and fanciful derivations of the names (e. g. भारती from भार burden, कैशिकी from केश). The sa. III. 33 remarks that the employment of words and senses that are favourable to a rasa and are endowed with appropria- teness are known as various vrttis (रसाधनुगुणत्वेन व्यवहारोर्थशब्दयोः । औचित्यवान्यस्ता पता वृत्तयो विविधा: स्मृताः ॥); and the वृत्ति on that कारिका runs: व्यवहारो हि वृत्तिरित्युच्यते। तत्र रसानुगुण शचित्यवान्वाच्याश्रयो यो व्यवहारस्ता एता कैशिक्याद्या वृत्तयः । वाचकाश्रयाश्चोपनागरिकाद्याः। वृत्तयो हि रसादितात्पर्येण संनिवेशिता: कामपि नाट्यस्य काव्यस्य च छायामावहन्ति। रसादयो हि द्वयोरपि तयोर्जीवभूताः। इतिवृतादि तु शरीरभूतमेव . This shows that इतिवृत्त (plot) is the body of नाट्य or काव्य, the वृत्तिs called उपनाग- रिका and others are concerned with the words (वाचक). The ध्वन्यालोक (on III. 19 p. 202) remarks यदि वा वृत्तीनां भरतप्रसिद्धानां केशिक्यादीनां काव्यालक्कारान्तरप्रसिद्धानामुपनागरिकाद्याना वा यदनौचित्यमविषये निबन्धन तदपि रसभङ्गहेतुः The नाव्यशास I. 46 (Ch. ed. 45-46 and GOS ed. vol. I. chap. I. 45-46) states that the कैशिकी can be properly rendered by women (actresses) only. उन्द्ट (varga) I) defines the three वृत्तिs of words as follows: शषाभ्यां रेफसंयौगष्वगेय च योजिता। परुषा नाम वृति: स्याद् हहत्यादैश्व संयुता। सरूपसंयोगयुतां मूर्ध्नि वर्गान्त्ययोगिभिः । स्पशैर्युतां च मन्यन्ते उपनागरिकां बुधाः। शोषैवसँर्यथायोगं कथिता कोमलाख्यया। ग्राम्यां वृतति प्रशंक्न्ति काव्येष्वादृतबुद्धयः ।'. The काव्यप्रकाश (VIII) first shows what combinations of letters are favourable to the gunas called माधुर्य, शजस् and प्रसाद and then remarks that the उपनागरिकावृत्ति is constituted by letters that

1. In the Ch. ed. (chap. 22. 64=GOS vol. III p. 105 chap. 20-72) the reading is वृत्तयो नाट्यसंश्रया: The reading नाट्यमातर: is supported by लोचन p. 226; सागरनन्दिन् (in नाटकलक्षण- रत्नक्रोष) line 1386 reads नाटयस्य मातर :. अभिनवभारती (vol. I. p. 22 states शुभाररसस्य तु नामग्रहयमपि न तया (कैशिक्या) विना शक्यमिति।'

VRTTIS 383

are indicative of madhurya, परुषा by letters indicative of ojas and komala (called ग्ाम्या by some) by letters other than those indicative of माधुर्य and ओोजस्. The काव्यप्रकाश notes that Vamana and others regard उपनागरिका, परुषा and कोमला as the three ritis respectively called वैदर्भी, गौडी, पाश्ाली (एतास्तिस्त्रो वृत्तयो वामनादीना मते वैदभी गौडी पाञ्चालाख्या रीतयो मताः। काव्यप्र. (IX. p. 498)· Rudrata (II. 4-6) speaks of four ritis वैदर्भी, पान्चाली, लाटीया and गौडीया based upon the absence of compounds or the presence of a few or many compounded words. Rudrata (II. 19) speaks of five वृत्तिs of अनुप्रास viz. मधुरा, प्रौढा, परुषा, ललिता and भद्ा, all of which are based on the employment of certain letters and conjunct consonants, and his मधुरा and षरुषा are like उपनागरिका and परुषा of काव्यप्रकाश. But रुद्रट's use of them is restricted to अनुप्रास alone. The ना्यशास्त्र (14.36) mentions four प्रवृत्तिs, आवन्ती, दाचिणा- त्या, पान्चाली, ओड्रमागधी and states that प्रवृत्ति1 is concerned with the dress, languages and manners of various countries and that the दाकियात्या प्रवृत्ति is constituted by plenty of dancing, singing and music and with Kaisiki and abhinaya of the limbs which is clever, pleasing and delicate. The सर. क. (II. 3) includes रीति and वृत्ति among the 24 sabdalankaras and then mentions six varieties of रीति (वैदर्भी, पाल्चाली, गौडीय।, आवन्तिका, लाटीया, मागधी) and six of वृत्ति (viz. कशिकी and the other three plus मध्यमारभटी and मध्यमकशिकी). In this welter of conflicting views I should like to quote the काव्यमी. (III. p. 9) 'तत्र वेषवि- न्यासक्रमः प्रवृत्तिः, विलासविन्यासक्रमो वृत्ति:, वचनविन्यासक्रमो रीतिः'. सागरनन्दिन् (ना. ल .र. को. p. 44) adopts the words विलास ... वृत्ति: and provides that भारतीवृत्ति is the anga of वैदर्भ, गौडीय and पाल्चाल ritis (p. 52, lines 1231-33), सात्वती is an anga of पाल्चाली (p. 55 line 1302), कैशिकी is an anga of वैदभी (p. 57 line 1346) and भारभटी of गौडी (p. 58 line 1325). The विष्युधर्मोत्तर (III. 20. 53-60) has to say that प्रवृत्तिs are the abode of वृत्तिs. Vide Dr. Raghavan on vrttis in J. O. R., Madras, vol. VI pp. 346-370, vol. VII pp. 33-52, pp. 91-112, in 'Some concepts &c.' pp. 182-190, 'Śrńgāraprakāśa' pp. 196-215 (for रीति, वृत्तिand प्रवृत्ति). For detailed discussion on ritis, vide I. H.

1. प्रवृत्तिरिति कस्माद। उच्यते पृथिव्यां नानादेशवेषभाषाचारवार्ताः ख्याप- यतीति प्रवृत्तिः। ... तत्र दाक्ियात्यास्तावद् बदुनृ ततगीतवाद्या कैशिकीप्रायाः चतुरमधुर- ललिताक्ञामिनयाक्ष। नाट्यशाख 14.p.165(Ch.ed.GOS=vol. II.p. 205, chap. 13 and K. M. ed. chap. 13 p. 216).

384 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Q. vol.III. pp. 375-394 on Gaudi by Prof. S.P. Bhattacharya; Dr. P. C. Lahiri's 'Concepts of rīti and guna' (1937) and his paper in I. H. Q. IX p. 448 ff 'theory of rīti and guna in Agnipurana' and pp. 835 ff on 'Vamana's theory;' Dr. Raghavan in I. H. Q. X pp. 767-779, in Kuppuswami com. vol. pp. 89-118, 'History of Gunas' in his work on Śrngāra- prakāśa vol. I pp. 258-360 and in 'Some concepts &c.' pp. 131-181 on rīti and pp. 182-193 on 'History of ufe', I. H. Q. vol. 8 pp. 257-266 on 'Kuntaka's conception of gunas'; Dr. De on 'Gaudi rīti' in New I. A. vol. I. pp. 74-76. The sub- ject of rīti and guna has been worn threadbare by the above writings. Another word that is employed is पाक. वामन (in काव्या. सू. बृ. I. 3. 15) quotes the following verse: यत्पदानि त्यजन्त्येव परिवृत्ति- सहिष्णुताम्। तं शब्दन्यासनिष्याता: शब्दपाकं प्रचक्षते ॥. This is quoted in the काव्यमी. on p. 20 as the view of वामनीया: and then the view of अवन्तिसुन्दरी is quoted that this is incapacity (भशक्ति) and not pāka, since great poets are able to express the same matter in many ways. The काव्यमी. (pp. 20-21) mentions several kinds of पाकs such as नारिकेलपाक, क्रमुकपाक, मृद्ीकापाक. The एकावली offers (p. 22) several definitions of ure which are passed over here. Vide above for reference to भभिपुराय. The s्व. in several places employs the word सङ्टना (III. 2, 5). This is dealt with below under 'ध्वनि school'. 12 The Vakrokti theory. The word वक्रोकि has been used in literature from ancient times and bears several mea- nings. बाख (कादम्बरी para 44 of my edition and Peterson's p. 51) speaks of 'gay men expert in वक्रोकि' (वक्रोक्तिनिपुयोन विलासिजनेन). In another place where चन्द्रापीड makes a bantering humorous speech (कीडालाप) about the quarrel of the parrot परिहास and the jealous maina, theparrot addresses him with the word 'RaTf वुध्यत एवं तावतीर्वकोक्ती:, शयमपि जानात्येव परिहासजल्पितानि। ... अभू मिरेषा भुजअभङङ्गिभाषितानाम् । Peterson's ed.pp, 195-196. Here वक्रोकि is used in the sense of क्रीडालाप or परिहासजल्पित1 In the अमरुशतक (23) also the word is used in the same sense 'सा पत्युः प्रथमेपराध-

1. It is surprising that in spite of these reference to वक्रोफि in the कादम्बरी Dr. De states on p. XI of his Intro.to बक्रोक्तिजीवित (first edition) 'they (i. e. Subandhu and Bana) have not mentioned vakrokti.'

. THE VAKROKTI THEORY 385

समये सख्योपदेशं विना नो जानाति सविभ्रमाङ्गवलनावक्रोक्तिसंसूचनम् ।'. By दएडी the word is used as opposed to स्वभावोफि and he says that श्लेष generally lends charm to वक्रोक्ति (II. 363 श्लेष: सर्वासु पुष्णाति प्रायो वक्रोक्तिषु श्रियम्। भिन्नं द्विया स्वभावोक्तिवक्रोक्तिश्चेति वाङ्मयम् ।I). So वक्रोफि is a striking mode of speech, often based on श्लेष, and differing from the plain, matter of fact ordinary mode of speech. भामह used the word in the same sense, saying that वक्रोफि sets off to advantage all figures of speech (II. 85). He required वक्रोक्ति to be present in all alankaras. Vide the following from भामह 'वक्राभिधेयशब्दोक्तिरिषा वाचामलङकृतिः ॥' (I. 36); हेतुश्च ... नाल- कारतया मतः। समुदायाभिधानस्य वक्रोक्त्यनमिधानतः ।' (II. 86); 'वार्चा वक्रार्थशब्दोक्तिरलक्काराय कल्पते।' (V. 66); वक्रवार्चा कवीनां ये प्रयोगं प्रति साधवः।' (VI. 23). The लोचन (p. 260) quotes भामह (I. 36) and explains 'शब्दस्य हि वक्रता अभिधेयस्य च वक्रता लोकोत्तीर्ेन रूपेयावस्थानम्' This insistence on वक्रोक्ि emphasises two characteristics of poetry, viz. that, though poetry necessarily takes the words used in common speech, its choice of words is different from that of ordinary speech i.e. its diction is different and that the poet gives expression to striking combinations or relations of things which are beyond the reach of ordinary matter-of-fact men. The वक्रोक्तिजीवितकार used the word वक्रोकि mainly in this sense, but he goes too far in making वक्रोक्ति the soul of poetry. In this respect he is similar to the alankara school. Vide above part I. pp. 227-228 for detailed statement of his views. जयरथ says that वक्रोक्ति is due to कविप्रतिभा (p.9). The अलं. स. P. 9 says वक्रोक्तिजीवितकारः पुनवैदग्ध्यभङ्गीभषितिस्वभावां बहुविर्धा वक्रोक्तिमेव प्राधा- न्याव् काव्यजीवितमुक्तवान्।' on which जयरथ after quoting वक्रोक्ति ... रुच्यते (p. 227 above) proceeds काव्यजीवितमिति काव्यस्यानुमापकम्। ता विना काव्यमेव न स्यादित्यर्थः । यदाह-विचित्रो यत्र वक्रोक्तिवचित्र्यं जीवितायते-इति (वक्रो- क्िजीवित १.४२) । व्यापारस्येति कविप्रतिभोल्लिखितस्य कर्मयः । प्रतिभानिवर्तित्व- मन्तरे हि वक्रोक्तिरेव न स्यादिति।'. कुन्तक's definition of वक्रोकि as 'व दग्ध्य- भङ्गीमितिः' seems to be borrowed from some one like अवन्तिसुन्दरी 'विदग्धभगितिभङ्गिनिवेधं वस्तुनो रूपं न नियतस्वभावमिति श्रवन्तिसुन्दरी' (काव्यमी. p. 46). The word faar has been used from ancient times as opposed to विद्ृत and means 'versed in belle lettres, proficient in poetic or clever speech'. Vide घ्व० 'प्रसिद्धिश्चेयमस्त्येव विवग्धविद्वत्परि- षत्सु' etc.(p. 300); ध्व. p. 250 'विदग्धपरिषत्सु'. In the मालतीमाधव (I.) when मकरन्द hears the double-meaning words 'रमशीय एष वः सुमनरसां संनिवेश: etc.' he ejaculates 'भहो वैदग्ध्यम्'. For भद्ि see above quotation p. 384 from कादम्बरी, ध्व. pp. 209, 362 and लोचन p. 224.

386 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS . The word भखिति occurs in the वासवदत्ता (l1th Intro. verse) 'अविदितगुयापि सत्कविभणितिः कर्रेषु वमति मधुधाराम्।; vide ध्व. p. 304 'भखितिकृतं वैचित्र्यमात्रं' वक्रोक्ति is regarded as an अलक्कार and given a totally different sense by वामन 'सादृश्याल्लवया वक्रोक्तिः' (वक्रोकि is indication based upon resemblance) and the instance is 'उन्मि- मील कमलं सरसीनां कैरवं च निमिमील मुहूर्तात्' (अत्र धर्मावुन्मीलननिमीलने सादृ- श्याद्विकाससक्कोचौ लक्षयतः). This would be the समाधिगुण of काव्यादर्श (vide I. 93-94). रुद्रट regards वक्रोकति as a sabdalankara and gives two varieties, काकुवक्रोफि and श्लेषवक्रोकि. He is followed in this by मम्मट, वाग्भटालक्वार, रुय्यक, काव्यानुशासन of वाग्भट, एकावली and हेमचन्द्र. But रुय्यक regards वक्रोकि as an अर्थालक्कार and remarks 'वक्रोकिशब्दश्चालक्वारसामान्यवचनोपीहालक्कारविशेषे संश्ञितः' (p. 222). It will be thus seen that the वक्रोक्ति of रुद्रट and रुय्यक is much narrower in scope than he वक्रोक्ति of भामह, दएडी and of the वक्रोक्तिजीवित.1 The वक्रोक्ति theory is really an offshoot of the alankara school and need not be separately recognized. The राघवपाएडवीय (I. 41) says 'सुबन्धुर्बाणभट्टश्व कविराज इति त्रयः । वक्रोक्तिमागनिपुाश्चतुर्थो विधते न वा ।'. Peterson in his second Report p. 64 quotes from a ms. हरिहारावलि a verse about मेएठ attributed to बाख 'वक्रोक्त्या मेएठराजस्य वहन्त्या सृसिरूपताम्। आविद्धा इव धुन्वन्ति मूर्धानं कविकुजजरा: ॥' The साहित्यमीमांसा p. 115 follows the वक्रोक्तिजीवित in saying that वऋरत्व exists in ध्वनि, वर्ष, पदार्थ, वाक्य, प्रकरण and प्रबन्ध. The सर. क. V. 8 divides all वाङ्मय into वक्रोक्ति, रसोक्ति and स्वभा-

1. For four other words that occur very frequently in works on Poetics in a similar sense, are विच्छित्ति and वंचित्र्य, चारुत्व and चमत्कार; vide ध्व. p. 159, लोचन pp. 5 and 9, व्यक्तिविवेक- व्याख्या p. 44, अलं.स. p. 58 (for विच्छित्ति) and ध्व. p. 243 and लोचन p. 5 for वैचित्र्य. विच्छित्तिशोभिनैकेन भूषयोनेव कामिनी। पदधोत्येन सुकवे- ध्वनिना भाति भारती । ध्व. P. 159 (a परिकरश्रोक)). The word वक्रोक्ति occurs in the verse quoted in aव. on p. 10, which the लोचन ascri- bes to मनोरथ. For चारु vide ध्व. pp. 32, 39, 42,178(on III.10); 'भानन्दो निर्वृत्यात्मा चमत्कारापरपर्यायः' लोचन p.13; अ्र.भा. (vol. I p. 281) says 'सर्वथा रसनात्मकवीतविन्नप्रतीतिम्ाह्यो भाव एव रसः। ... तथाहि लोके सकल- विध्नविनिर्मुक्ता संवित्तिः। एवं चमस्कार-निर्वेशरसनास्वादनभोगसमापत्तिलयविश्रान्त्या- दिशब्दरभिधीयते'।'; काव्यप्र. IV. p. 93 'अलौकिकचमत्कारकारी शङ्गारादिको रसेः' ।; रसग. p. 4 'लोकोत्तरत्वं चाह्वादगतश्चमत्कारापरपर्यायोऽनुभवसाक्िको जातिविशेष: ।'. Vide Dr. Raghavan in Annals of B. O.R. I. vol. 16 pp. 131 ff, J. O. R. Madras, vol. VI. 218-222 and in 'Some concepts' pp. 268-271.

VAKROKTI THEORY 387

वोकि and states that rasokti catches (hearts of सहदयs) most of all. Vide Dr. Raghavan's work on Bhoja's शङ्गारप्रकाश part I pp. 120-144 'Bhoja and Vakrokti'. 13 The Dhvani School. For an analysis of the धवन्यालोक vide pp. 199-201 above. The dhvani theory is only an extension of the rasa theory. It took over the idea of rasa into the field of poetry. The rasa theory took account only of a complete dramatic work. The main object of a dramatic work is the evolution of some rasa, śṛngāra, karuņa etc. by means of fani -* , अनुभावs etc. This naturally presupposes a composition of some length. But if there be a single charming verse, it cannot be said to evolve a rasa, although it may suggest some one or more of the constituents that bring about the relishing of a complete rasa. Such single pieces would be out- side the pale of kavya, if it were said that the soul of kāvya is rasa alone. It was shown above that rasa is always suggested and not directly expressed. Hence, applying the same reason- ing, the ध्वन्यालोक said that the best poetry is that which con- tains a charming व्यङग्य sense. 'अयमेव हि महाकवेमुख्यो व्यापारो यद्रसादी- नेव मुख्यतया काव्यार्थीकृत्य तद्व्यक्त्यनुगुशात्वेन शब्दानामर्थानां चोपनिबन्धनम् । एतच्च रसादितात्पर्येय काव्यनिबन्धनं भरतादावपि सुप्रसिद्धमेवेति ... । रसादयो हि द्वयोरपि तयोः (काव्यनाट्ययोः) जीवभूताः' ध्व. p. 225-226; 'सारभूतो ह्यर्थ: स्वशब्दानभिधेयत्वेन प्रकाशितः सुतरामेव शोभामावहति। प्रसिद्धिश्चेयमस्त्येव विदग्ध- विद्वत्परिषत्सु यदभिमततरं वस्तु व्यङ्गयत्वेन प्रकाश्यते न साक्षाच्छशब्दवाच्यत्वेनेव।' धव. p. 300. Though it is possible to extract some sort of व्यङग्य sense from any sentence or word, still all words or sentences are not necessarily kavya, but only those words, which have particular qualities and arr arranged in a particular manner and contiin a charming व्यङग्य, constitute kauya. Vide लोचन (p. 32) 'तेन सर्वत्रापि न ध्वननसङ्गावेपि तथा व्यवहारः। आत्मसद्भावेपि क चिदेव जीव- व्यवहार इत्युक्तं प्रागेव।'. The ध्वन्यालोक refutes at great length the theory of some that ध्वनि is गुणवृत्ति or लक्षया (secondary sense due to the possession of some quality common to two objccts) ; vide ध्व. I. 17 'भक्त्या बिभर्ति नैकत्वं रूपभेदादयं ध्वनिः। अतिव्याप्तेरथाव्याप्तेन चासौ लक्ष्यते तया ॥'. The स्व. (p. 18) divided व्यङग्य sense into three varieties, रसादि, अलक्कार and वस्तु. Under the first are included not only the nine rasas but all the bhāvas and their ābhāsas also. What is meant by वस्तुध्वनि is this that a mere fact is suggested by words that express another sense.1 What is 1. An example of वस्तुध्वनि is 'पथिक नात्र स्रस्तरमस्ति मनाकूप्रस्तर-

388 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

meant by an alankara-dhvani is this that what is suggested is an imaginative thing (not a matter of fact) which if expressed in so many words would assume the form of a figure of speech. The suggestion of rasa and others does not require explanation here. The sa. seems to hold like Wordsworth that poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings (क्रौन्चद्वन्द्ववियोगोत्थः शोक: छोकत्वमागतः॥। p.31. When Valmiki was powerfully affect- ed by the spectacle of the death of the loving कौनन्च bird at the hands of the hunter, the sage's imagination was stirred and he burst forth into an impassioned song. But it is not to be supposed that the sage was himself g:faa nor is it to be supposed that the reader when he reads the impassioned poem is simply दुःखित; for, if that were really so, no one would feel delight in reading the poem. Vide लोचन p.31 'तेन रस एव वस्तुत आत्मा वस्त्वलक्कारध्वनी तु सर्वथा रसं प्रति पर्यवस्येते इति वाच्यादुत्कृष्टौ तौ इत्यभिप्रा- येण ध्वनिः काव्यस्यात्मेति सामान्येनोक्तम्। प्राथमिकानामभ्यासार्थिनां यदि परं चित्रेण व्यवहार: प्राप्तपरिणतीनां तु ध्वनिरेव प्राधान्येन काव्यमिति स्थितमेतद्।'. The अलं. #. (pp. 13-14) very clearly and succintly hits off the position of the ध्वन्यालोक as follows: 'वाक्यार्थस्यव व्यङ्यरूपस्य गुणाल्कारोपस्कर्तव्य- स्वेन प्राधान्याद्विश्रान्तिधामत्वावात्मत्वं सिद्धान्तितवान्। व्यापारस्य विषयमुखेन स्वरूपप्रतिलम्भात्तत्प्राधान्येन प्राधान्यात्स्वरूपेश विदितत्वाभावाद्विषयस्येव समग्रभरसहि- ष्ुत्वम्। तस्माद्विषय एव व्यक्षयनामा जीवितत्वेन वक्तव्यः । यस् गुणालक्कारकृत- चारुत्वपरित्रहसाम्राज्यम् । रसादयस्तु जीवितभूता नालक्कारत्वेन वाच्याः । अलक्काराणा- सुपस्कारकत्वाद्रसादीना च प्राधान्येनोपस्कार्यत्वात। तस्माद व्यंग्य एव वाक्यार्थीभूत: काव्यजीवितमित्येष एव पक्षो वाक्यार्थविदां सहृदयानामावर्जक :. ' The ध्वन्यालोक divided काव्य into three varieties, the best or ध्वनिकाव्य, गुीभूत- व्यभ्य and चित्र. In the last it included all alankaras of word and sense. Vide ध् II. 4 (p.82 for ध्वनिकाव्य), III 35 (p. 256 for गुखीभूतव्यङ्ग्य), III 42-43 (p. 275-276) for चित्रकाव्य. But the

स्थले ग्रामे । उन्नतपयोधरं प्रेक्षय यदि वससि तदा वस ॥'. स्रस्तर कटाधास्तरणं पाषायमये डस्मिन ग्रामे नास्ति किन्तु मेघो वर्षखाय उन्नमतीति दृष्टा यदि वससि तदा वस 1. पयोधर also means स्तन. The expressed sense is 'you will have to lie down on a stone, but a cloud is impending; hence you may not proceed and stay here'; but the suggested sense (वस्तुध्वनि) is यधुपभोगक्षमोसि तदा श्रस्स्व. 1. An example of अलक्कारध्वनि is 'निरुपादानसम्भारमभित्तावेव तन्वते। जगच्चित्रं नमस्तस्म कलाश्राध्याय शूलिने॥'. शङ्कर has no material and yet he creates this wonderful world. So he is superior to every one. Hence व्यतिरेकालक्कार is suggested.

DHVANI SCHOOL 389

ध्वन्यालोक is careful to point out that a true poet should never waste his powers over composing poems that have no relation to rasa 'एतच्च चित्रं कवीनां विशङ्गलगिरां रसादितात्पर्यमनपेद्यैव काव्यप्रवृत्तिदर्श- नादस्माभि: परिकल्पितम्। इदानीतनानां तु न्याय्ये काव्यमयव्यवस्थापने ... एव न शोभते। (p. 277 quoted on p. 166 above). Vide his remarks on अनुप्रास and यमक (II. 15-16 pp. 103-104). After having dealt with ध्वनि as the soul of poetry it assigns to gunas and alankaras their proper position (ध्व. 75 'तमर्थमवलम्बन्ते &c.) ; vide p. 378- 79 above on which the वृत्ति is 'ये तमर्थ रसादिलक्षयमङ्विनं सन्तमवलम्बन्ते ते गुयाः शौर्यादिवत्। वाच्यवाचकलक्षणान्यक्ञानि ये पुनराश्रितास्तेऽलद्वारा मन्तव्या: कटकादिवदिति'. About the ritis (III. 47 p. 290) he says that they are explained by the position assigned to the gunas (as the लोचन remarks on p. 290 रीतिर्हि गुयेष्वेव पयवसायिता). It speaks of सङ्टना (ध्व० III. 2, 5, 6) which means nothing more than वर्णरचना or पदरचना1. The काव्यप्र. VIII states : अवृत्तिमध्यवृत्तिर्वा माधुर्ये घटना तथा and on the following कारिका it says 'विकटा सङ्कटना भोजस्' (p. 486), thus making it threefold (असमासा, मध्यमसमासा, and दीर्घ- समासा) and that each of the three is generally suited to some particular rasa or rasas (though not as an invariable rule) and that gunas are not of the nature of सङ्टना, nor are they depend- ent upon सङ्गटना, but that the appropriateness of सङ्गटना is deter- mined by the rasa and by the speaker and the subject (vide ध्व. pp. 164-169). The वृत्तिs dependent upon words such as उपनागरिका and those dependent upon sense (such as कशिकी) are on the same level with rītis i. e. like the latter they all depend upon rasa as the soul.1 Compare ध्व. p.226 'तत्र रसानुगुय शचित्यवान् वाच्याश्रयो यो व्यवहारस्ता एताः कशिकाधा वृत्तयः। वाचकाश्रयाश्चोप- नागरिकाद्याः। वृत्तयो हि रसादितात्पर्येण संनिवेशिता: कामपि नाट्यस्य काव्यस्य च 1. ध्व. III.2 says that असंलद्यक्रमध्वनि shines forth in वर्ष, पद, वाक्य, सङ्गटना and प्रबन्ध and the लोचन remarks 'सङ्गटना पदगता वाक्यगता च। सङ्गटितवाक्यसमुदायः प्रबन्ध:' (p. 159). ध्व. III. 5 states that सङ्गटना is of three kinds, असमासा, मध्यमसमासा and दीर्घसमासा. Onp. 166 ध्व. remarks 'तस्मान्न गुखाः संघटनास्वरूपा न च संघटनाश्रया गुणाः' The two, सङ्गटना and गण, are more or less independent (ध्व० p. 169 तस्मादन्ये गुखा अन्या च सङटना). ओजस् is a गुण and is specially suited to रौद्ररस; but as in 'यो यः शख्त्रं विभर्ति' (वेषीसंदार III.) there is ओजस, but असमासा सङ्घटना. In 'अनवरतनयनजललवनि- पतनपरिमुषितपत्रलेखान्तम्। करतलनिषएणमवले वदनमिदं कं न तापयति ।।' there is शङ्गार (in which there should be a few समासs ordinarily) and also दीर्घसमासा सङ्घटना.

390 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

च्छायामावहन्ति। रसादयो हि दयोरपि तयोजीवभूता इतिवृत्तादि तु शरीरभूतमेव ।।'; vide also sव. pp. 200 and-291. The three वृत्तिऽ, उपनागरिका, परुषा and आम्या (called कोमला by some) are spoken of by उद्ट, मम्मट (IX) and other writers ;. 'शषाभ्यां रेफसंयोगैष्टवर्गेय च योजिता । परुषा नाम वृत्तिः स्याद् हहताघैश्च संयुता। सरूपसंयोगयुतां मूर्ति वर्गान्त्ययोगिमि:। स्पश- र्युता च मन्यन्ते उपनागरिका बुधाः ॥ शेषवंषैरयथायोगं कथिता कोमलाख्यया।' उद्भट I. उपनागरिका is appropriate to शृद्गार, परुषा to वीर and रौद्र, and कोमला to हास्य. रुद्रट (II. 19) enumerates five वृत्तिऽ (मधुरा, ललिता, प्रौढा, परुषा and भद्रा). The वृत्तिs peculiar to the नाट्यशाख are four, भारती, कैशिकी, सात्वती and भारभटी. All these propositions laid down by the ध्वन्यालोक about the several component parts of a complete theory of Poetics are implicitly followed by all later writers on Poetics. The word ध्वनि has five senses according to the लोचन. According to ध्व. I. 13 (यत्राथः ... व्यंक्त: काव्यविशेषः स ध्वनिरिति सुरिभि: कथितः ॥) ध्वनि means a special kind of काव्य. The लोचन (p. 39) remarks 'कारिकया तु प्राधान्यन समुदाय एव वाच्यरूपमुखतया ध्वनिरिति प्रतिपादितम्।'. The first karika asserts that ध्वनि is the soul of poetry ('आत्मशब्दस्य तत्त्वशब्देनार्थ विवृवानः' &c. लोचन p. 3). Hence the second meaning of ध्वनि is the essence of काव्य i.e. suggested sense (व्यङ्गय). On कारिका I. 17 (p. 60) the लोचन says 'अत्रोक्तकार इति पक्चस्वर्थेषु योज्यम्। शब्देऽर्थे व्यापारे व्यङ्गये समुदाये च।'. शब्द and वाच्यार्थ are called ध्वनि (ध्वनतीति), व्यंग्य is called ध्वनि (ध्वन्यते इति). ध्वनि also means व्यापार (ध्वनन) as लोचन p. 21 says 'तस्मा-

नादिसोदरव्यपदेशनिरूपितोभ्युपगन्तव्यः'. It is therefore that the रसगङ्गाधर says 'ध्वनिकृतामालक्कारिकसरयिव्यवस्थापकत्वात' (p. 425). भामह, दएडी, उद्धट, वामन and रद्रट expatiate on शब्द, अर्थ, गुयऽ, अलक्कारs and दोषs. The school of ध्वनि regarded these as of secondary importance, they are only the external appearance of poetry and it holds that we must look deeper into the inner or implicit meaning viz. the emotional atmosphere or mood that underlies the best poetry. As in Vedānta, objects of experience are beld to be not the ultimate reality but only manifestations of Reality, so words and the expressed meaning came to be regard- ed as the mere external appearance of poetry and the emo- tional mood which a poem communicates to those who read it came to be regarded as the essence of poetry. Poetry came to be regarded as having a double purpose viz. giving the highest delight (सधः परनिर्वृति) and also contributing towards a higher mode of conduct and character ( उपदेश) in a subtle

DHVANI SCHOOL 391

persuasive way. When ध्वनि or रस is said to be the soul of poetry (काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति) it is virtually employing the language of the Upanisads about आत्मन् and आनन्द (आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानाव). There is a remarkable similarity between the aesthetic experience on reading a poem or on seing a good drama and the spiritual experience derived from the vedanta discipline by one who has realized and contemplates upon the one Reality. It is there- fore that Mammata speaks of rasa as 'ब्रह्मास्वादमिवानुभावयन्'. But there are differences between the two experiences. Art experi- ence does not last long, vanishes when the stimulus is with- drawn, while the bliss of one who has reached the brāhmi- sthiti is permanent. Art experience does not necessarily rcquire moral elevation, while blissful spiritual life is not possi- ble without moral discipline. Before the theory of safa secured general acceptancc, it had to pass through an ordeal of fierce criticism at the hands of प्रतीहारेन्दुराज (pp. 80-86, Nir.), वक्रोक्ति- जीवित, भट्टनायक and महिमभट्ट. Vide 'Indian Culture', vol. XI pp. 233-241 on 'a historical and critical survey of Dhvani theory', 'Anandavardhana's treatment of rasa in relation to Dhvani' J. O.R.Madras vol. 17 pp. 80-91, and 'treatment of ध्वनि, गुख, रीति and वृत्ति' in Journal of Bom. Un. vol. 18 part 2 pp.57-72, all by Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy. 14 The divisions of Poetry. As in modern works poetry is divided into epic, lyric, dramatic, so in Sanskrit works also it is so divided. Classification of poetry is made from various stand-points. The first divison made by auet is into गद्य, पद and मिश्र. While most English critics are agreed that versification is a sine qua non for poetry (though Prof. Moulton and a few others maintain the opposite view), all Sanskrit writers on Poetics are unanimous that versification is not a necessary condition of poetry. Not only so but a few like Vamana say 'गधं कवीनां निकषं वदन्ति' (काव्या. सू. on I. 3.21). दएडी then speaks under पद्य of सगबन्ध (or महाकाव्य an epic) and मुक्तक (a single verse), कुलक (five श्लोकs), कोष and सङ्वात (compi- lations of unconnected verses). Under ra he refers to ur, आख्यायिका, चम्पू. The मिश्र kauya is constituted by नाटक and other varieties of plays. दएडी also divides काव्य into संस्कृत, प्राकृत and अपभ्रंश; while रुद्रट (II. 31) divides it into six, संस्कृत, प्राकृत, मागध, पिशाच, शूरसेन and अपभ्र श. For भामह's divisions of काव्य, vide p. 82 above. वामन divides काव्य into गध and पद्य; thc former into

392 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

three varieties, वृत्तगन्धि (resembling verse), चूर्य and उत्कलिकाप्राय; qu is of various sorts, but he gives two divisions of both nu and पद्य into अनिबद्ध (unconnected) and निबद्ध (connected i. e. a प्रबन्ध) and declares that among complete works, the drama is supe- rior (सन्दर्भेषु दशरूपक श्रेयः' I. 3.30). हेमचन्द्र (8th भध्याय) divides काव्य into प्रेद््य and श्रव्य, and the former into पाठ्य and गेय and these into numerous varieties; श्रव्य is divided into महाकाव्य, आख्यायिका, कथा, चम्पू and अनिबद्ध. He further speaks of काव्यs composed in संस्कृत, प्राकृत, अपभ्रंश and ग्राम्यापभ्रश and regards भाख्यान, निदर्शन, प्रवहिका, मतल्लिका, मणिकुल्या, परिकथा, खएडकथा, सकल- कथा, उपकथा as varieties of कथा. Vide ध्व. pp. 174 ff and the लोचन thereon for several varieties of काव्य. 15 Dosas. This is an important topic in all works on Poetics. THE (I. 12) states that, not being a poet does not entail adharma or disease or punishment, but to be a bad poet is declared by the wise to be death itself. Similarly, the T- af (I. 7) observes that one should not make light of even an insignificent blemish in a poem and that even a handsome body may cause disgust (to the seer) on account of a single leprous spot. ara speaks of ten dosas (17. 88, GOS 16. 88, vol. II. p.331). Vide p.110 above. दएडी and भामह speaking of ten and eleven dosas rsepectively. But they make no scientific distinction between dosas of पद, of वाक्य, of पदार्थ and वाक्यार्थ. This is done by वामन. This distinction of the dosas of पद, वाक्य and अर्थ is accepted by मम्मट and other later writers. The doctrines of the ध्वन्यालोक that, in a composition in which rasa is to be evolved, शचिंत्य of various kinds has to be looked to (p. 178 ff) and that certain items that conflict (विरोधि) with the main rasa should be avoided (p. 199 ff), as they gave rise to the dosas of rasa. Vide मम्मट VII for रसदोषऽ. मम्मट refers (10th aa) to several dosas of alankāras and shows that they are included in the several dosas discussed by him in the 7th sar. One cannot avoid dosas altogether but there are degrees in dosas, the worst being rasadosas. The साहित्यदर्पण says (I. 2) 'सवथा निर्दोषस्यैकान्तमसम्भवात ।'. One has to remember the warni- ng of कुमारिल 'न चाप्यतीव कर्तव्यं दोषदृष्टिपरं मनः। दोषोप्यविद्यमानोपि तच्चि- त्तानां प्रकाशते।' q. by अ्जुनवर्मदेव on अरमरुशतक verse 72 and by the व्यक्तिविवेक. On dosas, vide Dr. Raghavan on 'Srngaraprakasa' vol. I. pp. 216-257, Dr. Krishnamoorthy on 'doctrine of dosas' in I. H. Q. vol. 20 pp."217-232.

THE INFLUENCE OF OTERS SASTRAS ON POETICS 393

16 The Influence of other Sastras on Poetics. The greatest influence has been exercised by grammar. The ्व. (pp. 47-48) makes it clear that the word ध्वनि was borrowed from the grammarians (vide p. 198 above प्रथमे हि &c.), because they employed the word ध्वनि that manifested the Sphota just as in a poem words manifest the suggested sense (व्यअकत्वसाम्याव). Fte is the all-pervading, eternal and indestructible word principle. ध्वनि (sounds and words) manifest it. The very first verse of the वाक्यपदीय is 'अनादिनिधनं ब्रक्म शब्दतत्वं यदक्षरम्। विवततऽर्थभावेन प्रक्रिया जगतो यतः ॥'. Letters and words are devices used to analyse the operations of our speech. When we utter a word the last letter carrying with it the samskāras of the letters previously uttered produces an idea in our mind and therefore it is called शब्द.1 नाद or ध्वनि is अभिव्यज्जक and स्फोट is अभिव्यंग्य. Vide लोचन p. 47 which quotes several verses from the वाक्यपदीय (e. g. I. 84, 103) and remarks 'व्यक्तशब्दानां तथा श्रयमाणा ये वर्णा नादशब्दवाच्या अन्त्यबुद्धिनिर्ग्राद्याः स्फोटाभिव्यअ्जकास्ते ध्वनिशब्दे- नोक्ता:' The स्फोट theory is very ancient. पाशिनि mentions a predecessor called स्फोटायन 'अवङ स्फोटायनस्य' (पा. VI. 1.123). The महाभाष्य tells us that the संग्रह of व्याडि principally dealt with the question whether शब्द was नित्य or कार्य 'संग्रहे प्राधान्येनैतत्परीक्षितम्, नित्यो वा स्यात् कार्यो वेति।' (vol. I. p. 6, Kielhorn). Vide Sankara's bhasya on Vedantasutra I. 3. 28. The भागवतपुराय XII. 6. 40 identifies स्फोट with ब्रह्म. The काव्यप्रकाश says: 'सक्केतित- श्वतुर्मेदो जात्यादिर्जातिरेव वा' II. p. 32. This is based upon the महाभाष्य (vol. I. p. 19) 'चतुष्टयी शब्दाना प्रवृत्तिः'. भामद VI. 21 also is based on this. The काव्यप्रकाश (II. p. 33) quotes the वाक्यपदीय 'नहि गौः स्वरूपे गौः &c.' and also वाक्यपदीय II. 217-218 (काव्यप्रकाश p. 63) 'संयोगो विप्रयोगश' as helping in the determination of the meaning of a word that has several significations. The sub- divisions of Upama have been based on grammatical rules by भामह (II. 33 वतिनापि क्रियासाम्यं), उद्धट (कारिका I. 15 ff), the काव्य- प्रकाश and साहित्यदर्पण, viz. upon पायिनि's sutras about क्यच् &c.

1. पदे न वर्णा विद्यन्ते वर्णेष्ववयवा इव। वाक्यात्पदानामत्यन्तं प्रविवेको न कश्चन॥ वाक्यपदीय I. 73; नादराहितबीजायामन्त्येन ध्वनिना सह। आवृत्तपरि- पाकार्याँ बुद्धौ शब्दोवधार्यते ॥ वाक्यपदीय I. 86. For 'the doctrine of Sphota,' vide Journal, Annamalai University, vol. I pp. 231- 240, vol. II pp.109-119, न्यायमज्जरी of जयन्तभट्ट (6th आहनिक), वाक्य- पदीय I and शब्दकौस्तुभ.

394 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Dandin (II. 227) refers to the words of the महाभाष्य in discussi- ng the verse लिम्पतीव. The definition of विभावना (क्रियायाः प्रतिषेधेपि) given by the काव्यप्रकाश is based on the view of grammarians that 'kriyā' means 'hetu'. Vāmana deals in his 5th adhikaraņa with the grammatical purity of words and Bhamaha also (in VI. 30-61) does the same. Logic (Tarkaāstra) deals with the power of words (abhidha). The same subject is discussed in the अभिधावृत्तिमातृका, शब्दव्यापारविचार, त्रिवेषिका, वृत्तिवार्तिक by writers on alankara. Alankarikas regard anumana as a figure of speech. The figure काव्यलिन also is suggested by तर्क phraseology. Mahimabhațta wrote व्यक्तिविवेक for establishing that ध्वनि comes under anumana and Sankuka appears to have held that rasa is anumeya and the vibhāvas are anumapaka. The Sankhya philosophy had not much influence over alankāra, but in dealing with Nāyaka's theory of rasa frequent reference is made to सत्त्व, रजस् and तमस् (as on vol. I. p. 279 of अभिनवभारती and p. 283 तत एव कापिलद:खस्य चाशल्यमेव प्रायत्वेनोक्तं रजोवृत्ति वदद्गिः). The word भोग or भोगीकृति seems to be suggested by the सांख्य doctrine that पुरुष is भोका and not कर्ता. The पूर्वमीमांसा system also has lent some doctrines to अल- शारशाखत्र. The काव्यप्रकाश view (सङ्केतित ... जातिरेव वा) is the पूर्वमीमांसा view (भाकृतिस्तु क्रियार्थत्वात्' जै. I.3. 33). The views 'तात्पर्यार्थोपि केषुचित्' (काव्यप्रकाश II.) and 'तात्पर्याख्यां वृत्तिमाङ्ठु: पदार्थान्वयबोधने' साहित्य- दर्पण II. 20 are derived from the अभिहितान्वयवाद which was suppo- rted by Kumārila and Pārthasārathimiśra in his Nyāyaratna- mala .. The अभिददितान्वयवाद and अन्विताभिधानवाद are mentioned in the काव्यप्रकाश II. and V. The काव्यप्रकाश mentions 'लोहितोष्णीषा छत्विजः प्रचरन्ति', 'यत्परः शब्दः स शब्दार्थः' (V. pp. 225-227) which are topics discussed in the पुर्वमीमांसा. Vide जै. III. 8.12 for the first. The words 'फलं संवित्िः प्रकटता वा' in काव्यप्र. II p. 61 give expression respectively to the theories of प्रभाकर and कुमारिल. अर्थापत्ति is an alankara acc. to साहित्यदर्पण aud अलं. स .; it is regar- ded as a प्रमाख by पूर्वमीमांसा. परिसंख्या which is a well-known technical term in पूर्वमीमांसा (asin जै. I. 2. 34, III. 7, 33) is an अलक्कार according to रुद्रट, काव्यप्रकाश, साहित्यदर्पण and others. From the Vedanta some works like the चमत्कारचन्द्रिका, the मन्दारमरन्दचम्पू (9th बिन्दु), and रसगङ्गाधर (p. 23) quote the Upanisad' passage 'रसो वै सः' in order to describe the blissful 1. 'रसो वै सः। रसं ह्येवायं लब्धानन्दीभवति' तै. उप., बह्मानन्दवल्ली 7.

THE INFLUENCE OF OTHER SASTRAS ON POETICS 395

stage of Rasa realization. The काव्यप्रकाश describes रस as म्ह्मास्वादमिवानुभावयन् (vide p. 360 above). These writers regard रस, भानन्द and आात्मन as practically identical. The पृहदारएयकोपनिषद् (IV.3. 21) has the following very interesting passage 'तदथा प्रियया ख्निया संपरिष्वक्तो न बाह्यं किंचन वेद नान्तरमेवमेवायं पुरुषः प्राश्ेनात्मना संपरिष्वक्ो न बाहं किंचन वेद नान्तम्। तदा श्रस्यै तदाप्तकाम- मात्मकाममकामं रूपं शोकान्तरम् । अत्र पिताऽपिता भवति ... तीर्णो हि तदा सर्वान् शोकान् हृदयस्य भवति.' ब्रह्मसूत्र (I. 1. 12-19) deals with the passage of तै उप and others which speak of आनन्द मयात्मा.

Index of authors and works on Sanskrit Poetics

In the edition of 1923 works on abhinaya, music and kāmaśastra were generally excludcd, although in reports on the Mss, works on these subjects are often included under alankāraśāstra. Not all works on dramaturgy have been included. The Index is principally based on Aufrecht's Catalogus Catalogorum, on the first volume of the New Catalogus Catalogorum edited by Dr. Raghavan (which men- tions authors and works beginning with the letter alone) and on the same scholar's numerous papers on Al nkara, on Dr. Harichand's 'Kalidasa et L' Art Poetique de L' Inde', Dr. De's 'History of Sanskrit Poetics' vol. I. These works themselves except Dr. Raghavan's, are based on other catalogues of Mss. and Reports. Hence I had in many cases to consult the original catalogues such as the I. O. (India Office) catalogue, Mitra's Notices, the catalogue of the Mss. at the B. O. R. I. (Poona vol. XII); Govt. O. Mss. Library, Madras, vol. 22; Mss. cat. vol. VI of the Trivandrum Palace Library; Sarasvatī- mahal mss. Library at Tanjore, Cat. vol. 9 and the Reports of Buhler, Bhandarkar, Peterson and others. The entries in catalogues of Mss. are often meagre and misleading. The same work often appears under different names. The word rasa appears in namcs of works on medicine as well as in works on alankara. The word नाटसूत्र in the विवादरत्नाकर (p. 477) is a mistake for लाटसत्र (i. e. लाट्यायनश्रौतसूत्र I. 3. 19) as the quotation shows. Dr. Harichand enters ara in his list (on page 35) with a query. Instead of giving two separate lists for authors and works, one consolidated list is presented, the names of authors being put in thick type. I have probably omitted the names of a few commentators, particularly of the Kāvyaprakāśa. I have not given exhaustive references to all printed editions. Obvious abbreviations such as aay. for rTyaT are not mentioned here, as also those menticned in the general list of abbreviations. The principal abbrevintions employed in this index are :

398 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

A. or a .= author; acc .= according to; Anan .= Ananda- śrama Press edition, Poona; Ano. or ano .= anonymous; Bom. S. S. or Bom. S. Series=Bombay Sanskrit Series; B. O. R. I. cat .- Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute catalogue of mss .; C. or c. or com .= commentary or commen- tator according to the context; CC. or cc .= commentary on a commentary; Gode='Studies in Indian Literary History' published by prof. P. K. Gode in 3 vol .; H. R .= Hultzsch, Reports on mss .; I. O. cat .= India Office catalogue of mss .; JGJRI=Journal of Ganganath Jha Research Institute, Allahabad; m .= mentioned; Madras Cat .= Madras Govern- ment Sanskrit mss. catalogues; N .= Rajendralal Mitra's Notices of mss .; Nir or Nirn .= Nirnayasagar Press edition, Bombay; N. C. C .= New Catalogus Catalogorum ed. by Dr. Raghavan, vol. I; N. I. A .= New Indian Antiquary; p .= page; Pr. or pr .= Printed; R .= Report on mss .; q .= quoted by; q. v .= which see; Tanjore cat .= Tanjore Sarasvati - mahal Palace Library mss. catalogues; V. or v .= Vide; V. V. R. I .- Viveśvarananda Vedic Research Institute, Hoshiarpur.

अकबरसाहशृङ्गारदपण of पद्मसुन्दर,a edition of the work with Jain scholar. Pr. in Ganga an exhaustive Introduction, O. Series No. 1 at Bikaner (1943), edited by Prof. C. published by the Arch. Dept.

K. Raja. Illustrative verses of the old Hyderabad State in 1951. are addressed to the Mogul अच्युत m. by भीमसेन as com. emperor Akbar. In four of काव्यप्र. उल्लासs. Follows शृङ्गारतिलक अच्युतराय a. of साहित्यसार and of ; ms. dated 1569 A.D. com. सरसामोद thereon; lived Accepts nine rasas. at पञ्चवटी near Nasik; compl- अकबर-साहि-शृङ्गारमञ्जरी a sans- eted in 1831 A.D .; pr. Nir. krit version of a Telugu अजितसेन देवयतीश्वर, a. of अल- work of the same name ङ्वारचिन्तामणि and शृङ्गार- composed by a saint Akbar Shah, guru of Sultan Abul मञ्जरी in 3 chap. for Jain prince Kāmirāya (son of Hasan; flourished in latter half of 17th century A.D. विठ्ठलदेवी), an Alupa prince;

Vide Dr. Raghavan's paper 10th cen .; vide N. C. C. p. 69 a. in Kunhan Raja presentation volume pp. 325-335 and his अणुरत्नमण्डन or रत्नमण्डन, pupil of रत्नशेखरसूरि, a. of जल्पकल्प-

INDEX OF AUTHOR AND WORKS 399

लता on कविशिक्षा. As रत्नशखर अभिनयदपण of नान्दकश्वर. Pr. in died in 1460-61 A. D., the Cal. S. S., Text and English. author flourishcd about tr. by Dr. Manomohan middle of 15th cen. Ghosh; with Marathi trans- अतिरात्रयज्वन्, 5th son of नारायण- lation published at Baroda दीक्षित, son of Accan Diksita, in Gaikwad translation series brother of अप्पय्यदीक्षित I; a. (1901); vide under Nandi- of चित्रमीमांसादोषधिक्कार. About keśvara. 1661-1670 A. D. Vide H. अभिनवगुप्त, son of चुखल alias R. II. pp. 51, 126. नरसिंहगुप्त. V. pp. 47-48 and अनन्त a. of साहित्यकल्पवल्ली. 236-243. अनन्त a. of कामसमूह, q. V. अभिनवभारती com. on नाट्यशास्त्र अनन्तदास, a. of com. लोचन on of भरत; pr. G.O.S .; V.pp. the सा. द. of his father; 14th 47-48 above. century A.D. Pr .; vide p. अमरचन्द्र, joint a. of काव्यकल्पलता, 304 above. a. of अलङ्कारप्रबोध (m. in अनन्तपण्डित of पुण्यस्तम्भ on the काव्यकल्पलतावृत्ति, Kashi S. S. Godavari, son of त्र्यम्बकपण्डित, p.90); pupil of जिनदत्तसूरि. a. of com. व्यङ्गयार्थकौमुदी on Middle of 13th cen. रसमञ्जरी; pr. in Benares S. अमृतानन्दयोगिन् a. of अल ङ्कारसंग्रह; Series; composed in 1636 pr. at Cal. 1887 ; vide under A. D. for चन्द्रभानु. अल ङ्कारसंग्रह for other editions. निन्ताचार्य a. of काव्यलक्षणपरिष्कार अयोध्याप्रसाद a. of c. on रस- N. C. C. I. p. 142. तर्राङ्गणी. अनन्तार्य son of शिङ्गराचार्य; a. of अरिसिंह, joint a. of काव्यकल्पलता. कविसमयकल्लोल ; mentions Middle of 13th cen. नञ्जराजयशोभूषण, प्रतापरुद्रीय, अर्थाल ङ्कारमञ्जरी of त्रिमल्लभट्ट, son धर्मसूरि. Later than 14th cen. of वल्लभभट्ट अप्पय्यदीक्षित, vide pp. 317-21 C मधुधारा of सुधीन्द्रयति. above; N. C. C. p. 372 adds अलक a. of com. on अलं. स .; m. that अप्पय्य wrote for वे ङ्कटपति- by रत्नकण्ठ in his com. on राय (1585-1614 A. D.) the काव्यप्र. (Peterson's Report कुवलयानन्द when he was very II p. 17). old as the विधिरसायन अलक joint a. of काव्यप्र. V. shows. pp. 271-273 above. अप्पय्यदीक्षित, son of आच्चान् दी- अलक्कारकारिका: D C. ms No. क्षित, brother of अप्पय्यदीक्षित 226 of 1875-76 I; a. of अलक्कारतिलक. अभिधावृत्तिमातृका of मुकुलभट्ट, son of अलक्कारकुलप्रदीप of विश्वेश्वर, son of लक्ष्मीधर. First half of 18th कल्लटभट्ट. V. p. 218 above. cen. Pr. in Kashi S. S.

400 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

अलक्कारकौमुदी (Ano.). At least अलक्कारक्रीस्तुभ of श्रीनिवासदीक्षित. 7 किरणs. C व्याख्या (Ano.). अलङ्कारकममाला of दामोदरभट्ट हर्षे C by a. अलक्कारकौमुदी of वल्लभभट्ट (of अलक्कारग्रन्थ of काशीलक्ष्मण कवि. recent times).Pr. in ग्रन्थमाला, End of 17th cen. Exam- vol. II, Bombay , 1889. अलक्कारकौस्तुभ of कविकर्णपूर alias ples in praise of Shahaji, king of Tanjore (1684-1711 परमानन्ददाससेन in 10 किरणs. Verses about कृष्ण and राधा A. D.).

illustrate rules; a. born in अलङ्कारचन्द्रिका-V. under कुवलया- नन्द. 1524 A. D. Also wrote drama चंतन्यचन्द्रोदय in 1572 अल क्कारचन्द्रिका by गोपीनाथ.

A. D. Ed. by S. P. Bhatta- " by रामचन्द्रन्यायवागीश, son of विद्यानिधि. Same as charya (1926). He follows काव्यचन्द्रिका. उज्ज्वल-नीलमणि. C सारबोधिनी of विश्वनाथचक्र्- C अल ङ्वारमञ्जूपा by रामचन्द्र-

वर्तिन्. Pr. in 1899 at शर्मन्.

Murshidabad. अलङ्कारचन्द्रिका by नारायणदेव

C दीधितिप्रकाशिका by वृन्दावन- अलङ्कारचन्द्रोदय by वेणीदत्तशर्मन् in 6 उल्लासs. चन्द्र, son of राधाचरण. अलङ्कारचिन्तामणि of अजितसेन, in

C by सार्वभौम, pupil of 5 परिच्छेदs. Pr.in Kavyam- budhi (N. C. C. I p. 293). चक्रवतिन्. New Cat. Cat. C (Ano.). p. 292. अलक्कारकोस्तुभ of वे ङ्कटाचार्य, अलङ्कारचिन्तामणि by रामचन्द्रराज-

son of अण्णयार्य. Speaks of गुरु, son of गदाधर. अलङ्कारचुडामणि of राजच्डामणि- 6 शब्दालक्वारs and 108 दीक्षित, son of श्रीनिवामदीक्षित. अर्थाल क्वारड. He wrote many works of अलक्कारकौस्तुभ of कल्याणसुब्रह्मण्य, which काव्यदर्पण was one. patronised by Rāma Var- अलक्कारच डामणि-v. काव्यानुशासन of man, king of Travancore हेमचन . (1758-1798 A. D.). Deals अलक्कारतिलक of भानुदत्त. V. P. with अर्थालङ्कारs only. 309 above. अल क्कारकौस्तुभ of विश्वेश्वर, sonl of अलक्कारतिलक of अप्पय्यदीक्षित II. लक्ष्मीधर. Defines and illus- V. Pro. of 10th All India trates 61 alankāras; men- O. Conference, pp. 176- tions चित्रमीमांसा and रसग०. 180. First half of the 18th cen- अलङ्कारतिलक of वाग्भट, C. on his tury; Pr. in K. M. series. C विवरण by author. own काव्यानुशासन q्. v. अलक्कारतिलक of श्रीकरमिश्र.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 401

अलक्कारदपण (ano.) in Prakrit., अल ड्कारमञ्जरा of सुखलाल. Follows consisting of 134 ślokas चन्द्रालोक. treating of poetic figures. अलक्कारमञ्जरी of वेणीदत्त. Vide I. A. vol. IV p. 83. अलङ्कारदर्पण of विश्वेश्वर पर्वतीय. अलक्रारमञ्जरी of सुधोन्द्रयति, pupil of विजयीन्द्रयति who died in Pr. Kashi S. S. 1623 A.D. अलक्कारदीपिका-V. under कुवलया- C मधुधारा by a. himself. नन्द. Vide Tanjore S. M. mss. अल क्कारनिकष (or-निकर्ष) of सुधीन्द्र- योगिन्. Illustrates अथालङ्कारs cat. vol. IX pp. 3971-73. अलङ्कारमञ्जूषा of देवशङ्कर पुरोहित, by examples eulogising सुधीन्द्रयोगिन् a follower of मध्व. son of Nāhanābhāi, a Gujerati Brāhmaņa of Rāner (near अल ङ्वारनिरुक्तिका. V. under चन्द्रा- Surat). Deals with अलद्वारs लोक. alone illustrated by exam- अलक्वारप्रकरण -- Ano. ples glorifying the Peshwa अलक्कारप्रकाशिका-(Ano); uses Madhavrao I (1761-1772) the काव्यप्र. and मल्लिनाथ. and his uncle Raghunāth- अलङ्कारप्रबोध by अमरचन्द्र, q. by rao. Edited by Mr. S. L. him in his काव्यकल्पलतावृत्ति Katre in Scindia O. Series (I. O. cat. III p. 340). as No. 1 (1940). Vide अलङ्कारभाष्यकार-m. by जयरथ in Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. विमशिनी ; v. pp. 285 above. 15 pp. 92-96 and vol. 21 अल ङ्कारभूषण Ano. अल ड्कारभे दनिर्णय Ano. pp. 152-154. अलड्कारमञ्जूषा c. on अलङ्कार अलक्कारमकरन्द of Kolluri Raja- चन्द्रिका or काव्यचन्द्रिका. Pr. śekhara. About 1760-1772 Venkateśvara Press, Bombay A.D. and elsewhere. अलक्कारमञ्जरी m. in the अलं.स. अलङ्कारमणिदर्पण of प्रधान वे ङ्गप्पय्य (p. 18) by रुय्यक, but it is (1763-1780 A.D.). not quite clear that it is अलङ्कारमणिहार of कृष्णब्रह्मतन्त्रपर- his own work (as Dr. De in HSP vol, 1 p. 195 and कालस्वामिन्. Pr. in Mysore Govt. O. Library Series. N.C.C.p.295 think); जयरथ अलङ्कारमण्डन of मण्डनमन्त्रिन् Pr. does not expressly say so. at Ahmedabad, 1918. अलङ्कारमञ्जरी or अर्थाल ङ्कारमञ्जरी of त्रिमल्लभट्ट, son of वल्लभभट्ट. अलङ्कारमयूख Ano.

In his योगतर्राङ्गणी he quotes अलक्कारमहोदधि of मलधारिनरेन्द्रप्रभ,

वीरसिंहावलोक. Between 1383- composed at the request of

1499 A. D. (V. cat. of वस्तुपाल in8 तरङ् s, containing 304 कारिकाs and 982 illustra- B. B. R. A. S. mss. p. 42). tive verses.

402 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

अथाल ङ्वारवणन by a .; com- u रत्नादाहरण by a. posed in संवत् 1282 Vide B. O. R. I. cat. (1225-6 A. D.). Text vol. XII p. 17. and C. pr. in G. O. S. अल क्वाररत्नाकरप्राकृतगाथासंस्कृतीकरण अल क्कारमीमांसा q. in वासनाभाष्य of योगेश्वर on the भागवत. Vide अलक्काररत्नाकर by यज्ञनारायण. Eulogizes रघुनाथनायक of B. B. R. A. S. mss. cat. pp. Tanjore. He also wrote 288-89. साहित्यरत्नाकर ; V. Tanjore अलक्कारमीमांसा of कृष्णसूरि, son of cat. IX 3974-75. गोपालाचार्य. अलक्काररहस्य of प्रभाकर, son of अलक्कारमुक्तावली of रामसुधी son of महादेव; q. by him in his नृसिंह. रसप्रदीप composed in 1583 C रत्नशोभाकर of कृष्णसूरि. For A.D. (pp. 8-10). edition, v. N. C. C. vol. I अलङ्कारराघव of चेरुकूरि यज्ञेश्वर- p. 295. दीक्षित, son of कोण्डुभट्ट and अलक्कारमुक्तावली of कृष्णयज्वन् ; 16th brother of तिरुमलयज्वन्. cen. V. 'Brahmavidyā' for Quotes रसार्णवसुधाकर and May 1943. साहित्यचिन्तामणि. अलक्कारमुक्तावली of श्रीनिवास. अल क्कारलक्षणानि of शम्भुनाथ. D.C. अलक्कारमुक्तावली of लक्ष्मीधरदीक्षित, ms. No. 407 of 1892-95 is son of यज्ञश्वर .. Vide H. R. dated संवत् 1797 (1740 A.D.) vol. III pp. VIII-IX. अलङ्कारवादार्थ Ano; discusses अलक्कारमुक्तावली of विश्वेश्वरभट्ट, passages of the साहित्यदर्पण. son of लक्ष्मीधर. First half of अलक्कारवार्तिक-m. by the विमशिनी 18th cen. Pr. in Kashi S. of जयरथ (p. 71) as a work Series. of the a. of अलं. स. अलक्कारमौक्तिकमाला of कृष्ण son of अलक्कारविचार makes use of रामार्य. प्रतापरुद्रीय. V. Tanjore cat. अलक्काररत्नाकर of शोभाकरमित्र, son of त्रयीश्वरमित्र. In 107 sutras. vol. IX pp. 3978-79.

Q.in वृत्तिवार्तिक, p.20, रसगङ्गा- अलक्कारवृत्ति or मुग्धमेधाकर of रत्न- मण्डनगणि; V. B.O.R. I. cat. धर (p.281 which says that XII p. 221 . Middle of in कुवलयानन्द अप्पय्य follows 15h cen. this work); between 1200 -1550 A. D. It is made अलक्कारव्याकरण (in sutras) by कात्यायन. use of by यशस्कर in his देवीस्तोत्र, on which रत्नकण्ठ Cवृत्ति by वररुचि. Spurious.

comments; edited by Prof. C. Vide N.C.C. vol. I p. 297.

R. Devadhar and pub. by अलक्कारशंतक. Probably same as

Oriental Book Agency, Poona. अलक्कारशास्त्रसंग्रह of रामसुब्रह्मण्य. चन्द्रालोक.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 403

jore Cat. vol. IX pp. 4108-9. अलक्कारसवस्व of रुय्यक. V. pp. 275-285. अलक्कारशिरोभूषण of कन्दलयार्य, C विर्माशनी by जयरथ. V. p. son of रामानुजाचार्य. Patronis- 285. ed by the Gadwal State in C by समुद्रबन्ध; v. p. 285 former Hyderabad, now above. Pr. in Tri. S. S. Andhra State and printed Last quarter of 13th cen. by same. C सञ्जीविनी by श्रीविद्याचक्व- अलक्कारशिरोमणि or (अलक्कारचूडा- मणि) of राजचूडामणि; m. in his तिन् ; V. p. 286 above. Lived at the court of own काव्यदर्पण. वीरबल्लाल (Hoysala) and अल द्वारशेखर of केशवमिश्र. V. pp. had 17 titles such as 315-17 above. संस्कृतसार्वभौम, प्राकृतपृथ्वीधर, अलक्कारशेखर by जीवनाथ, son of पैशाचीपरमेश्वर. About the वल्लभभट्ट. A. is also called त्रिमल्ल or तिर्मल. The work is beginning of the 14th

in 43 verses on अर्थालक्वारs. cen. This com. is referred

C मधुधारा by सुधीन्द्रयति pupil to. in his संप्रदायप्रकाशिनी-

of विजयेन्द्र. बृहट्टीका on काव्यप्रकाश.

अलक्कारसंग्रह Ano. V. Madras Cby अलक, q. in the सार-

Govt. mss. cat. vol. 22 p. समुच्चय (com. on काव्य- प्रकाश) by रत्नकण्ठ. 8606. अलक्कारसंग्रह of अमृतानन्दयोगिन्, अल क्वारसामान्यलक्षण अलक्कारसार m. in विमशिनी of written at the instance of मन्वभूपति. In eleven chap. जयरय; v. p. 285 above. अलक्कारसार of बालकृष्णभट्ट, son of on काव्य and नाटक. Second गोवर्धनभट्ट. A. was a follower half of 14th cen. Pr. in Adyar Series (1949) and of वल्लभाचार्य tenets. In ten

Venk. O. Series, Tirupati. उल्लासs; quotes कुवलयानन्द and

In 725 कारिकाs and 400 चित्रमीमांसा. D.C.ms.No.23 of 1881-82 was copied in illustrative verses. Vide J GJRI vol. VII for review संवत् 1758. Between 1625- 1700 A.D. of this work. अल क्कारसमुद्गक of शिवरामत्रिपाठिन्, अलक्कारसार of कवीश्वरराज. अल क्कारसार of नृसिंह. son of कृष्णराम. 18th cen. He wrote 34 works. V. Stein's अलक्कारसार by भावदेव. Eight chapters in Kārikās. V. cat. p. 292. N. C. C. p. 299. अलक्कारसर्वस्व Ano. अलक्कारसर्वस्व of केशवमिश्र; m. in अलक्ारसारसंग्रह of उद्रट. Vide

his own अलक्कारशेखर (p. 9.) pp. 133-139 above. C लघुवृत्ति of प्रतीहारेन्दुराज.

404 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

V. p. 138 above. About द्वारशेखर p.315-317 above. 925-950 A. D. Pr. C उद्टविवेक by राजानकतिलक. अलक्कारसूत्र m. in the विमशिनी of

About 1100-1125 A. D. जयरथ (p.150).

V. pp. 138-139 above. अल क्वारसूत्र ascribed to वात्स्यायन;

Pr. in G. O. S. The काव्या- contains 75 सूत्रs (vide H.

दर्शस क्केत of सोमेश्वर mentions R. vol. I p. 23).

a कारिका of तिलक on p. 295. अल ङ्ारसूत्र-Another सूत्र work on

Prof. R. C. Parikh in his which कृष्णावधूत wrote a भाष्य called चमत्कारचामीकर; died Introduction to सोमेश्वर's in the beginning of this सक्कत places him bet- century. ween 1135-50 and 1160 अल क्कारसूत्र by चन्द्रकान्ततर्कािक्कार. A. D. A recent work. Vide HSP अलक्ारसारस्थिति, also called कुव- लयानन्दखण्डन, by भीमसेनदीक्षित. vol. I p 327. Pr. at Galcutta in 1899. Composed at Jodhpur while अजितसिंह (1680-1725 A.D.) अलद्धारसूर्योदय by चेरुकूरि यज्ञेश्वर दोक्षित, son of कोण्डुभट्ट. Same was reigning; v. N. vol. X as a. of अल क्वारराघव. p. 209. अलक्कारसारोद्वार by भीमसेनदीक्षित; अल क्कारस्फुरण of रूपनारायण, son of वनाद्रिनाथ. Follows कुवलया- m. in his काव्यप्रकाशव्याख्या- नन्द; v. Journal of Ven. R. सुघासागर, q. V. Insti'ute, Tirupati, vol. 8 अल क्ारसुधा- ac. on कुवलयानन्द by Sanskrit part p. 63. नाग शभट्ट. अल ड्कारागम of कवीन्द्राचार्य. अल क्ारसुधाकर-a com. on साहित्य- अल क्कारानुऋ्र्कमणिका-Ano. रत्नाकर by कृष्णमिश्र. अलक्कारसुधानिधि of गणपति. अलक्कारानुसारिणी by रुय्यक, a. of अलं. स. V. p. 279 above. .अलक्कारसुधानिधि attributed to अलक्काराशय with C. Ano. सायण, son of मायण. Illustrative अलक्कारेन्दुशेखर in five प्रकरणs on verses praise सायण and are मायक, काव्यस्वरूप,शृङ्गार, दोषगुण, the compositions of भोगनाथ, younger brother of सायण; अल क्वार; by वे क्कटनृ सिंह, son of दासमाचार्य of श्रीशैल family; they form a collection called Madras Govt. mss. cat. vol. उदाहरणमाला. Composed about 22 No. 12978. 1358. It is quoted in the रत्नापण (p. 44) and वृत्तिवार्तिक अलङ्कारेन्दुशेखर by the same a. as above on लक्षणमालिका. (p. 19). Vide I. A. vol. 45 अल क्कारेश्वर m. by शिवराम in his pp. 22-24, Indian Culture, for 1940 p. 439-44. com. on सुबन्धु's वासवदत्ता p.4.

अलक्कारसूत्र of शोद्धोदनि. V. अल- अलक्कारोदाहरण by जयरथ, son of शरृङ्गार. Refers to his own

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 405

com. विमशिनी on अलं. स. It सि. कौ. Between 1650-1700. adds illustrations to रुय्यक's He wrote कोविदानन्द and अलं. स. त्रिवेणिका. Vide NIA, vol. अल क्वारोदाहरण (निबद्धदेवीस्तोत्र) VI. 140, which refers to by यशस्कर. D. C. No. 241 of com. कादम्बिनी on it; part 1875-76; B. O. R. I. mss. publishd. cat. vol. XII p. 35. इन्दुराज teacher of अभिनवगुप्त. अल्लट or अलट. V. under अलक Vide pp. 204-207. above. उज्जवलनीलमणि of रूपगोस्वामिन् V. अल्लराज or मल्लराज, son of king हम्मीर A. of रसरत्नदीपिका, q.v. pp. 310-315 above.

अवन्तिसुन्दरी-wife of राजशेखर a. C लोचनरोचनी of जीवगोस्वामिन्,

of काव्यमीमांसा. Vide pp. 212 nephew of रूपगोस्वामिन्; v. pp. 314-15. and 217 above. C आनन्दचन्द्रिका of विश्वनाथ अश्मकुट्ट an a. on नाट्यशास्त्र; m. in ना. ल.र. को. several times. चक्रवर्तिन् composed in 1694

अष्टनायिकादर्पण by भगवत्कवि. A,D. Pr. in K. M. Series with text. अष्टनायिकालक्षण CC लेश N. Vol. II p. 30 आगमचन्द्रिका-V. under उज्ज्वल- No. 580. नीलमणि. C आगमचन्द्रिका. Aufrecht आञ्जनेय, a. on नाट्यशास्त्र, q. by I p. 62 a. भावप्रकाशन p. 251. उक्तिगर्भ m. in काव्यमी. p.1 (v. आदिभरत. V. pp. 26-27 above. आनन्द a. of निदर्शन, c. on काव्यप्र. p. 1 above).

आनन्दचन्द्रिका, c. on उज्ज्वलनीलमणि. उज्ज्वलपदा of यशस्विकवि, son of गोपाल, a. of c. on साहित्यकौतूहल; आनन्ददास, a. of रससुधार्णव. ms. is dated 1730 A.D. आनन्दवर्घन, a. of ध्वन्यालोक. V. उतथ्य m.in काव्यमी. p.1 (v.p, pp. 161-203 above. l above). आनन्दशर्मन्, son of त्र्यम्बक; a. उत्प्रेक्षामञ्जरी of वरदाचार्य. of c. on रसमञ्जरी. आपराजिति m. by काव्यमी. of उदाहरणचन्द्रिका-V. under काव्यप्र. and कुवलयानन्द. राजशेखर (p. 45). same as लोल्लट; vide JOR (Madras) उदाहरणदर्पण c. on काव्यप्र. उदाहरणदीपिका or प्रदीप c. on vol. VI. pp. 169-170. आमोद c. on रसमञ्जरी. काव्यप्र. by नागश. उदाहरणमाला-V. under अलक्कार- आशाधर son of सल्लक्षण, a. of c. सुधानिधि. on रुद्रट; vide p. 156 above. आशाघर son of Ramaji and उदाहरणविवरण.Ano. उद्द्योत- c. on काव्यप्रकाशप्रदीप. pupil of धरणीधर, a. of c. on उड्ूट-V. pp. 48-48, 133-139 कुवलयानन्द. Quotes भट्टोजि's above.

406 - HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

उ्धटविवेक of राजानकतिलक. V. naya, nartana; nine rasas pp. 138-139. and their vibhāvas, anu- उपमन्यु m.in काव्यमी. p.1 (v. bhavas, distinction between p. 1 above). उपमासुधानिधि by Selvappillai nrtta' and nrtya. Work of उमापति m. by कल्लिनाथ in his Ayyangar. ऋजुवृत्ति-V. under काव्यप्र. commentary on संङ्गीतरत्नाकर. कच्छपेश्वरदीक्षित, son of वासुदेव एकषष्ट्यल द्वारप्रकाश -- Summary and grandson of कालहस्तीश्वर; compiled from works of देवनाथ, गोविन्दठक्कुर, जयराम and a. of रामचन्द्रयशोभूषण in 3 chapters dealing with rasas others. N. vol. 4 No. 1447. and bhāvas; Madras Govt. एकावली of विद्याधर. V.pp. 292- mss. cat. vol. 22 No. 12950. 293. Illustrations in praise of C तरल of मल्लिनाथ. बोम्मराज. C प्रकाश by प्रभाकर, son of कन्दालयार्य a. of अलक्वारयशोभूषण. माधवभट्ट and grandson of He lived at court of वे डट. रामेश्वरभट्ट. Born in 1564 कमलाकरभट्ट, a. of numerous A. D. एकावली of महामहेश्वरकवि. works on धर्मशास्त्र and of a

औचित्यविचारचर्चा of क्षेमेन्द्र. V. com.on काव्यप्र. written for his son. V. p. 275 n. 1 p. 264-266 above. above. He wrote his निर्णय- ओ्ड्टा: m.by काव्यमी. pp. 22,44. सिन्धु in 1612 A.D. ओपकायन m.by काव्यमी. V.p.1 कर्णपूर or कविकर्णपूर alias परमा- above. नन्ददाससेन, son of शिवानन्दसेन. ओमापतम् published in the A. of अलक्कारकोस्तुभ, q. v. series of the Govt. Oriental कर्णभूषण of गङ्गानन्द a मेथिल; in mss. Library, Madras, five chapters dealing with 1957. In 38 chapters विभाव, अनुभाव, व्यभिचारिभाव, (75 pages in print) mostly स्थायिभाव, रस; several verses in verse; principally on are addressed to कर्ण himself. śrutis, svaras, rāgas, veņu In II. 32 he mentions that and vīņā, tālas, Maddala भानुकवीश्वर regards जुम्भा as or mrdanga, dance (tāņ- the 9th सात्त्विकभाव; written at dava and lāsya); four command of श्रीकर्ण of Bikaner, types of dance called 1505-1526 A. D.). Pr. Nir. Bhāratī, Sāttvatī, Kaisikī, Ārabhați, poses of body, कर्पूररसमञ्जरी of बाल कवि. कलाघर a. of कारिकावलि of काव्यप्र, chest, hams, 43 kinds of V. under काव्यप्र. hastas; poses of the feet, कल्पवल्ली m. by भावप्रकाशन on bhramarī; Mudras, abhi- pp. 131, 142 which state that

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 407

a. of भावप्रकाशन follows u by दवश्वर. कल्पबल्ली as to rasas, bhavas, C by बेचाराम सार्वभौम. rasānubhūti and rasābhāsa Cby रामगोपाल कविरत्न. and the avasthas of the C बालबोधिका of सूर्यकवि. First heroine when she finds half of 16th cen. out that her lover has C विवक. misbehaved. कविकल्पलता m. in अलक्कारशेखर कल्पलता m. in भावप्रकाशन p. 75 48) as following श्रीपाद. which refers to the four कविकल्पलता of राघवचतन्य. senses of words (वाच्य, लक्ष्य, कविकल्पलतिका Ano. व्यंग्य and तात्पर्य) as described कविकौतुक of विष्णुदास son of माधव; in कल्पलता. m. in his own शिशुप्रबोधालक्कार. कल्याणकल्लोल of महाराजकुमार कविकौस्तुभ of रघुनाथ, son of कल्याणदास; VVRI mss. cat. p. भिकंभट्ट son of कृष्ण surnamed 232 No. 2916. मनोहर. Between 1758-1820 A. कल्याणसुब्रह्यण्य a. of अलक्कारकौ D. Gode, vol. III p. 35-36. स्तुभ, q. v; 18th cen. कविगजाङ्कुश m. in काव्यालक्कार- कविकण्ठपाश-Vide Madras Govt. कामध नु. mss. cat. 12802-3. Says कविचन्द्र a. of काव्यचन्द्रिका and it is based on पिङ्गल's work. son of कविकणपूर. Latter half कविकण्ठहार Ano. of 16th cen. कविकण्ठाभरण of क्षेमेन्द्र. V. p. 265. कविकर्णपूर-same as कर्णपूर above. कवितावतार of पुरुषोत्तम in 10 विहारs. Examples about कविकणिका of क्षेमेन्द्र. V. p. 265 नागभूपाल. above. कविनन्दिका or-नन्दिनी or काव्य- कविकर्पटी or-कर्पटिका of शङ्खधर, प्रकाशभावार्थ of रामकृष्ण .. who was court poet of गोविन्द- कविप्रिया by केशवदास under Birs- चन्द्र of Kanyakubja and ing Deo of Orccha (1608- therefore flourished in the 1627 A. D.). Written in first half of 12th cen. Pr. at. 1601 A. D. Vide Dept. of Darbhanga, 1892. Letters, Cal. Un. vol. 13 pp. कविकल्पलता of देवेश्वरor देवेन्द्र, son 134 (by Sītā Rām). of वाग्भट who was a minister कविशिक्षा of आचार्य विनयचन्द्र; of a king of Malva. Based about 1250 A.D. on काव्यकल्पलता of अरिसिंह and कविशिक्षा of जयमङ्गल, a Jain,who अमरचन्द्र. About the begin- wrote in the times of जयसिंह ning of 14th cen. Pr. several सिद्धराज (1094-1143 A.D.). times in B. I. series and कविशिक्षावृत्ति on काव्यकल्पलता of elesewhere and Gaikwad अमरचन्द्र; vide काव्यकल्पलता. tr. series (1891). कविसञ्जीवनी of श्रीनिवास.

408 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

कविसमयकल्लोल by अनन्तार्य, later III. pp. 339-341. The than 14th cen. dates given in these two कवीन्द्रकण्ठाभरण of विश्वेश्वरभट्ट, son viz. संवत् 1455 and 1475 arc of लक्ष्मीधर. Pr. in 8th गुच्छ most porbably the dates of K. M. V. under अलक्कार- of copying the work. Pr. कौस्तुभ. Chowkhamba S. Series. C by a. C परिमल q. in the above. कात्यायन m. in नाटकलक्षण रन्नकोश C मञ्जरी m. by परिमल as as an author on नाट्यशास्त्र. the author's work. कान्तिचन्द्र a. of काव्यदीपिका; 19th C मकरन्द of शुभविजयगणि. cen. Pr. at Cal. 1609 A.D. कामदेव m. by काव्यमी. p.1 (v. काव्यकौतुक of भट्टतौत. About above p. 1). 950 A. D. V. pp. 179, 218- कामदेव a. of रतिमञ्जरी. 221 above. कामध नुc. on वामन's काव्याल ङ्वार- C विवरण by अभिनवगुप्त m. in सूत्र. V. p. 147 above. लोचन. V. above p. 179. कामसमूह of अनन्त, a नागरब्राह्मण, n. 1 and 2. son of मण्डनमन्त्रिन्, son of काव्यकौस्तुभ of बलदेव विद्याभूषण, नारायण and pupil of आनन्दपूर्ण. known as simply विद्याभषण. Composed in 1457 A. D. In 9 प्रभाs. Also a. of साहित्य- V. Prof. Gode in J. O. R., कौमुदी on काव्यप्र. Madras, vol. 14 pp. 74-81. कारिकार्थप्रकाशिका of रघुदेव, C. on काव्यकौमुदी Ano. काव्यकौमुदी by देवनाथ; c. on काव्यप्र. काव्यप्र. काव्यकलाप Ano. काव्यकौमुदी of रत्नभूषण in 10 काव्यकल्पलता alias कवितारहस्य of परिच्छेदs. First half of अरिसिंह and अमरचन्द्र, in four 18th cen. प्रतानs. Middle of 13th cen. काव्यचन्द्रिका of कविचन्द्र, son of (Bhandarkar's R. for 1883-4. कविकर्णपूर; in 15 chapters. V. p. 6). Pr. in Kashi S. Series. previous pages. C कविशिक्षावृत्ति by अमरचन्द्र काव्यचन्द्रिका of रामचन्द्रन्यायवागीश, This mentions that son of विद्यानिधि. Pr. at some portions of the Comilla, 1885. original were composed काव्यडाकिनी of गङ्गानन्दकवीन्द्र, by अमरचन्द्र and that the मंथिल.Pr.in सरस्वतीभवन Series. com. was composed in Deals with dosas in five संवत् 1455 (1396 A.D.). chapters called दृष्टिs. About V. Bhandarkar's Report first quarter of 16th cen. 1883-84 pp. 312-313 for काव्यतत्त्वविचार of हलधररथ. extract and I. O. cat. vol. काव्यतत्त्वविवेचककोमुदी of कृष्ण-

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 409

किङ्कर, com. on काव्यप्र. are well-known are given काव्यतिलक of विश्वेश्वर, son of first and then the later and लक्ष्मीवर, a. of अल ङ्कारकौस्तुभ. less known ones follow. In काव्यदर्पण -- ano. Vide B.O.R. the reports on mss. several I, cat. vol. XII pp. 54-55. commentaries are men- काव्यदर्पण of मधुमतिगणेश; c.on tioned as टिप्पणी without the काव्यप्र. authors' names. They have काव्यदर्पण of रत्नपाणि, m. by his been all omitted in this list. son रवि. C. on काव्यप्र. काव्यदर्पण of राजचूडामणि दीक्षित, C सङ्कत of राजानकरुय्यक. V

son of रत्नखेट श्रीनिवास, in 10 pp. 271, 274-75. About 1135-1160 A. D. Pr. in उल्लासs; enumerates at end Cal. O. J. vol. II. the many works he wrote. C सङ्कत of माणिक्यचन्द्र. Com- Pr. partly by Vanivilas Press posed in 1159-60 A.D. at Srīrangam. V. p. 274 above. Pr. in. C by Ānan. Series (Poona) काव्यदर्पण of श्रीनिवासदीक्षित. and in Mysore by Dr. काव्यदर्पण of मनोधर; c. on काव्यप्र. Shamsastri. काव्यदीपिका Ano. C सङ्कत or काव्यादर्श of सोमेश्वर. काव्यदीपिका of कान्तिचन्द्र. A com- Ms. in Bhau Daji collec- pilation for beginners. tion , B. B. R. A. S. (see काव्यदीपिका of गोविन्द. cat. of mss. p. 45). It is काव्यनिर्णय of धनिक. Quoted in stated at end that the दशरूपावलोक. V. p. 248 above. Ms. was copied from About 1000 A.D. another ms. dated in काव्यनौका c. on काव्यप्र. संवत् 1283. Hence c. is काव्यपरिच्छेद. certainly older than काव्यपरीक्षा of श्रीवत्सलाञ्छन. In 1225 A. D. This com. five उल्लासs. has been published in the C by a. himself; Ms. is Rajasthan Purātana- gran- dated 1550 A. D .; I. O. thamala at Jodhpur in cat. vol. III. p. 342 .; ed. 1959 in two parts, the by Dr. P. L. Vaidya, first containing the text of Darbhanga, 1956. काव्यप्रकाश and सोमेश्वर's काव्यप्रकाश of मम्मट. Betwecn 1050 and 1100 A. D. Pr. com. and the second con- taining a learned Intro. many times. It is difficult and several very useful to arrange all commentaries in chronological order. The appendices. C बालचित्तानुरञ्जनी of नरहरि earlier oncs and those that सरस्वतीतीर्थ at Benares.

410 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

C. states he was born He may be identified in संवत् 1298 with चण्डीदास the youn- 1241-42 A. D.). (i. e. brother of the C दीपिका or जयन्ती of जयन्त- ger grand-father of विश्वनाथ भट्ट. Composed in संवत् a. of साहित्यदर्पण. He 1350 (1294 A.D.). His states that his grand- father भरद्वाज was पुरोहित father नारायण defeated of chief minister of धर्मदत्त at the court of Vāghela king Sāranga- नरसिंह king of त्रिकलिङ्ग. deva of Gujarat (1277- His दीपिका (p 118) names 1297 A. D. ). Extract खण्डनकृत्. Hence he in Bhandarkar's Report flourished about or 1883-84 p. 326. before 1300 A. D. C by वाचस्पतिमिश्र; m. by C दर्पण of विश्वनाथ a. of चण्डीदास in his दीपिका (P. साहित्यदर्पण. V. pp. 296- 131) and by विश्वनाथ in 304 above. Flourished his com. on मम्मट. He is 1300-1380 A.D. different from वाचस्पति C संप्रदायप्रकाशिनी of विद्याचक्र- a. of भामती and also वर्तिन्; called बृहट्टीका. from वाचस्पतिमिश्र a. of He wrote also लघुटीका several धर्मशास्त्र works on काव्यप्र .; 14th cen. called चिन्तामणि (such Pr. in Tri. S. S .; V. as विवादचिन्तामणि.). Annals of B. O. R. I. C विवेक of श्रीधर सान्धिविग्र- vol. 14 pp. 250 ff. हिक; m. by चण्डीदास in C साहित्यदीपिका of भास्कर; m. दीपिका (pp. 29, 59, 62, by गोविन्दठककुर. Earlier 117) and विश्वनाथ in his than 15th century. काव्यप्र. दर्पण. About 1225 C विस्तारिका of परमानन्दचक- A. D. This has been publi- वर्तिन्. He mentions shed in the Sanskrit col- दीपिका, विश्वनाथ and प्रताप- lege Calcutta series, edited द्रीय. To be distingui- by Prof. S. Bhattachacya shed from श्रीविद्याचक्र- (1959, only part one वर्तिन्, a. of com. on अलं. containing first four ullāsas. स. and also on मम्मट. C दीपिका of चण्डीदास. Pr. Between 1400-1500 in सरस्वतीभवन series A. D. (Benares). Written C प्रदीप by गोविन्दठक्कुर, a at the bidding of his मंथिल, eldest son of केशव friend लक्ष्मणभट्ट. He also and सोनोदेवी, elder bro- wrote ध्वनिसिद्धान्तसंग्रह. ther of a poet श्रीहर्ष

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 411

(different from a. of नंषधीय), pupil of his पाणि, son of अच्युत, mini- ster of शिवसिंह, grand- own step-brother in काव्य son of भवेश; m. by and साहित्य and friend रवि in his मधुमती. About of रुचिकरकवि. Later 1450 A.D. than 1400 and ear- C मधुमती by रवि, son of lier than about 1550 A. मनोधर alias रत्नपाणि and D .; Pr. Nir. He also grand-son of अच्युत, wrote उदाहरणदीपिका ex- minister of शिवसिंह of plaining illustrations. मिथिला. C. is named CC प्रभा by वंद्यनाथ तत्सत् after रवि's daughter; m. (Pr. K. M. Series). by कमलाकर. Between CC उदाहरणचन्द्रिका by वैद्यनाथ 1460-1500 A.D. (I. O. cat. III p. 329 No. C भावार्थचिन्तामणि or आदर्श 1151); 1683-1684 A.D .; by महेश्वरन्यायालद्कार. Ear- Pr. in K. M. Series. lier than middle of CC उद्द्योत by नागेशभट्ट; pr.in 17th cen. Pr. by Jiva- Anan. Scries, Poona. nanda. C तिलक of जयरामन्यायपञ्चा- C by कमलाकरभट्ट for his son नन; q. by श्रीवत्सलाञ्छन अनन्त. He wrote his and भीमसेन. Betwcen निर्णयसिन्धु in 1612 A. D. 1500-1700 A. D. V. Pr. at Benares. V Peterson's 2nd R. p. H. of Dh. vol. I p. 437. 107 for extract. C निदर्शन or शितिकण्ठविबोधन C सारबोधिनी of श्रीवत्सलाञ्छन by राजानकानन्द, composed or श्रीवत्सवर्मन्. One ms. in गतकलि 4766 (i. e. was copied in संवत् 1665; 1665 A. D.). He inter- m. by रत्नकण्ठ and भीमसेन. prets मम्मट's text as Later than 1400 and having another mystic earlier than 1600 A.D. meaning referring to C by पण्डितराज. m. by शितिकण्ठ (शिव). V. रत्नकण्ठ. Different from Stein's Cat. pp. XXVI- जगन्नाथपण्डितराज. Vide VII. Stein's cat. p. XXVII C सारसमुच्चय of राजानकरत्न- and in cat. of Mithila कण्ठ. He states that he Mss. by K. P. Jayaswal drew upon the com. vol. II. p. 24; ms. copied जयन्ती and others. Fri- in Śaka 1559 (1637 end of राजानकानन्द. Bet- A.D.). ween 1648-1681 A. D. C दर्पण by मनोधर alias रत्न- V. Peterson's 2nd Report

412 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

p. 17 for a list of authors C of कृष्णमित्राचार्य, son of quoted by him. C नरसिंहमनीषा by नरसिंहठक्कुर, रामनाथ and grandson of देवीदत्त. being 5th in descent from गोविन्दठक्कुर. Mentions मधु- C of गदाधरचक्रवर्तिन्. C सारदीपिका of गुणरत्नगणि. मतीकार and कमलाकर and See B. O. R. I. mss. cat. is m. by भीमसेन. Between vol. XII p. 112. Ms. 1620-1700 A. D. dated संवत् 1742. C उदाहरणचन्द्रिका by वंद्यनाथ C साहित्यचू डामणि of गोपालभट्ट तत्सत्, son of रामभट्ट, on the or लौहित्यभट्टगोपाल; about illustrations in the काव्य- 1750 A. D. Pr. in Tri. प्रकाश. He wrote also प्रभा S. Series. on काव्यप्रकाशप्रदीप. Compos- C तिरुवे ङ्रट son of चिन्न- ed in संवत् 1740 (1683-4 तिम्म. Mentions गोपाल's A.D.). Pr. in K.M. series. com. C सुधासागर by भीमसेनदीक्षित, C of नारायणदीक्षित, son of son of शिवानन्द and grand- रङ्गनाथदीक्षित. Last quarter son of मुरलीधर, a कान्यकुब्ज- of 17th cen. ब्राह्मण. C. composed in संवत् C लीला of भवदेव, son of 1779 (1722-23 A.D.). Pr. कृष्णदेव of मिथिला and in Ch. S. Serics. Names a large number of com- pupil of भवदेव ठक्कुर; com- posed in 1649 A. D. mentators. C साहित्यकौमुदी of बलदेव विद्या- Cof भानुचन्द्र. C of यज्ञश्वर-यज्वन्. Madras भूषण or simply विद्याभूषण. Govt. mss. cat. vol. XXII Comments only on the कारिकाs calling them p. 8623. Cof रत्नेश्वर; m. in his own भरतसूत्र. He was a follo- com. on भोज. wer of चंतन्य school. Cof राजानन्द. About 1760 A.D. Gof विजयानन्द. Ms. dated CC कृष्णानन्दिनी by a. himself. 1683 A. D. Pr. in K. M. series. C दीपिका of शिवनारायणदास, by नागेशभट्ट or son of दुर्गादास. Beginn- नागोजि. First C उद्द्योत ing of 17th cen. quarter of सुबुद्धिमिश्र, m. by 18th cen. V. चक्रवतिन्. pp. 324-5 C उदाहरणप्रदीप above. Both C अर्थप्रकाशिका of रघुदेव. V. कारिकार्थप्रकाशिका. pr. in Ānan. C अवचूरि of राघव. Series. C उदाहरणदर्पण.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 413

C उदाहरणाववरण Ano. Cऋजुवृत्ति of नरसिंहसूरि, son सुमनामनाहरा of गापानाथ. End of 17th cen. of तिम्माजिमन्त्रिन्. Comm- काव्यप्रकाशखण्डन or काव्यामृततर- ents on कारिकाs only. f्गिणी, Ano. V.N. vol. 8 C कविनन्दिका or कविनन्दिनी No. 2674. of रामकृष्ण. काव्यप्रकाशखण्डन of सिद्धिचन्द्र C कारिकावलि of कलाधर (1587-1666 A. D.) ed. by C काव्यकौमुदी of देवनाथ. R .. C. Parikh; vide Pro. of Written in संवत् 1717 17th All I. O. on pp. 252ff. (1660-61 A. D.). V. काव्यमञ्जरी-V. under कुवलयानन्द. B. O. R. I. mss. cat. काव्यमीमांसा of राजशखर. V. pp. vol. XII p. 81. 208-218 above. First qua- C काव्यदर्पण of मधुमतिगणेश rter of 10th cen. C पदवृत्ति by नागराजकेशव. काव्यरत्न of केवशमिश्र; m. in his Cभावार्थ of रामकृष्ण. Same as कविनन्दिनी com. above अल क्कारशखर; V. p. 317 above. Latter half of 16th cen. C मधुररसा by कृष्णद्विवेदिन्. काव्यरत्न of विश्वेश्वर. V. under C रसप्रकाश by श्रीकृष्णशमन्. his अल ङ्कारकौस्तुभ. C रहस्यनिबन्ध by भास्कर. काव्यरत्नाकर of ब चारामन्यायालङ्कार, C रहस्यप्रकाश of रामनाथविद्या- son of राजाराम. वाचस्पति. He composed his काव्यरसायन. com.on भवदेव's संस्कारपद्धति काव्यलक्षण Ano. Treats of chara- in 1623 A. D. cteristics of काव्यs and रूपकs. C रहस्यप्रकाश of जगदीशभट्टाचार्य; काव्यलक्षणविचार. Ano. Mentions lived at नवद्वीप at beginning चित्रमीमांसा and रसगङ्गा०. of 17th cen; ms. written by Madras cat. vol. 22 No. his pupil in 1579 śaka. 12979. V. N. vol. 4 p. 225. काव्यविलास of चिरञ्जीवभट्टाचार्य, C विवरण by गोकुलनाथ उपाध्याय son of राघवे; mentions between 1650-1730 A. D. C विषमपदी of शिवरामत्रिपाठिन्. रसगङ्गाधर. Pr. in सरस्वतीभवन series. Contains two chap. C श्लोकदीपिका of गोविन्दठक्कुर. dealing with रस and अलङ्कार, Same as · उदाहरणदीपिका illustrations being composed above. by himself. Composed in C श्लोकदीपिका by जनार्दनव्यास, 1703 A.D. pupil of अनन्त. काव्यवृत्तिरत्नावलि of नारायण in 9 C सार by रामचन्द्र. प्रकरणs. V. Tanjore cat. साहित्यचन्द्र on कारिकाड vol. IX pp. 4012-14. only. काव्यशिक्षा of गङ्गादास. About C सुबोधिनी of वे ङ्टाचलसूरि. 1425 A. D. V. Prof. Gode

414 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

in I. H. Q. vol. 15 pp. 512- गीश. V. p. 133. 522 and vol. 24 p. 312. Cश्रुतानुपालनी of वादिजङ्कल. V. काव्यशिक्षा of विनयंचन्द्र. काव्यसरणि m. in वृत्तिवात्तिक (p.20) p. 133 above. He refers to

of अप्पय्यदीक्षित as one of the दशरूप. Pr. (1936), Srini- vasa Press, Tiruvayyaru. sources. Before 1550 A.D. C वैमल्यविधायिनी of मल्लिनाथ, काव्यसारसंग्रह of श्रीनिवासदीक्षित in son of जगन्नाथ. Differ- three parts dealing with ent from the famous काव्यलक्षण, वर्णसंग्रह and सुभाषित- com. मल्लिनाथ. संग्रह .. About 1800 A.D. काव्यसुधा or साहित्यसुधा. C by त्रिभुवनचन्द्र alias वादि-

काव्यादर्श of दण्डिन्. V. pp. 84-102. सिंह, a Jaina. Pr. in Bengali characters. About 660-680 A. D. C by भगीरथ- Cby रत्नश्री, a Buddhist, in C by विजयानन्द. Ms. written 2nd quarter of 11th in संवत् 1683. V. p. 133 century; published by the above. Darbhanga Institute, 1957. C by यामुन or यामुनेय. V. C of तरुणवाचस्पति (ed. by Prof. Rangacharya). First p. 133 above. काव्यादर्श of सोमेश्वर. V. under half of 13th cen. (p. 105) काव्यप्र. above. above. काव्यानुशासन of हेमचन्द्र. V. pp. C केशवभट्टारक, son of तरुणवाच- 287-290. Born in 1088 स्पति; vide JOR (Madras) A. D. and dicd in 1172 A.D. vol. XIII. part 4 pp. 305- Pr. in K. M. scries. 306 (Dr. Raghavan). C हृदयङ्गमा by C अल ङ्कारचूडा- both pr. in an ano. मणि by a. K. M. author (ed. by Prof. C विवेक by a. Rangacharya, on two परिच्छेदs). काव्यानुशासन of वाग्भट, son of नेमिकुमार. V. pp. 295-296. C चन्द्रिका of त्रिशरणतटभीम. Probably flourished in 14th C मार्जन of हरिनाथ, son of cen. विश्वधर and younger C अल ङ्कारतिलक by a .; Pr. in brother of केशव. V. p. K. M. series. 133. Between 1575 काव्यामृत of श्रीवत्स. Later than and 1675 A. D. 1400 and earlier than 1600. C दण्ड्यर्थमुक्तावली by नरसिंह- सूरि, son of गदाधर. काव्यामृततर्राङ्गणी-sameas काव्यप्रका

C रसिकरज्जिनी of विश्वनाथ. शखण्डन q. V.

C काव्यतत्त्वविवेचककौमुदी or काव्यार्थगुम्फ of हरिप्रसाद son of

विवरण by कृष्णकि क्करतकवा- माथुर मिश्रगङ्गश. V. under काव्यालोक.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 415

काव्याथच्डामणि. काव्यालोक of हरिप्रसाद, son of काव्याल द्वार of भामह. V. pp. गङ्गश्वर. Composed in 1728 78-88 above. Between 700 A.D.in 7 प्रकाशs. and 750 A. D. काव्यालोक-cited by अप्पय्यदीक्षित C विवरण or विवृति by उन्भ्ट. V. in चित्रमीमांसा (pp.27, 53); pp. 134-135 above. About cannot be the above work 800 A. D. nor does it appear to be the काव्यालद्कार of रुद्रट. V. pp. 151- ध्वन्यालोक. 160. Between 825-875 A. D. काव्यालोकलोचन-see under ध्वन्या- Pr. in K. M. serics. लोकलाचन. C by वल्लभदेव. V. p. 155 काव्येन्दुप्रकाश by कामराजदीक्षित, above. About 900-930 A.D. son of सामराजदीक्षित. His C टिप्पन by नमिसाध; compos- father wrote श्रीदामचरित in ed in 1069 A. D .; Pr. in 1681 A. D. So कामराज flouri- K. M. series. shed about 1700 A. D. Cby आशाधर. V. p. 156 काशीलक्ष्मण काव a. of अल क्वारग्रन्थ. n. 2 above. About 1240 Examples in praise of the A. D. Tanjore prince Śāhaji काव्यालङ्कारकामधेनु of गोपेन्द्रतिप्प- (1684-1711). भूपाल; a com. on वामन's काव्या. काश्यप m. as an author on सू. V. p. 147 above. About Poetics before दण्डिन् by the 15th cen. Frequently pr. हृदयङ्गमा and as an a. on such as in Benarcs S. S. काव्याल द्वारशिशु प्रबोध or शिशुप्रबो- नाट्यशास्त्र by अभिनवगुप्त. Vide Pp. 2-3; अभिनव holds that धाल क्वार of Punjaraja, son of काश्यप was earlier than भरत; जीवन of the श्रीमाल family. 'गदतो मे निबोधत-इत्यनादरे षष्ठी काव्याल ड्कारसारसंग्रह of उन्ट. V. येन मद्वचनमेवात्र न केवलं प्रमाणं under अल क्कारसारसंग्रह. यावत्कश्यपमुनिप्रभृतिरपि यन्निरू- काव्याल क्वारसूत्र of वामन with his पितं' q. in अ. भा. p. 10 f. in own वृत्ति. V. pp. 139-147. Intro. vol. II. C कामधेनु of गोपेन्द्रतिप्प or किरणावली of शशधर. त्रिपुरहर भूपाल. Pr. in कीतिघर m. in अभिनवभारती. Benares S. S. C by सहदेव. p. 52 above.

C साहित्यसर्वस्व of महेश्वर (माहे- कुचुमार m.in काव्यमी. p. 1 (on p. 1 above). श्वर ?) सुबुद्धिमिश्र. कुन्तक a. of वक्रोक्तिजीवित. V. pp. काव्यालोक, another name of 225-236. Between 950- ध्वन्यालोक. V. pp.184,190- 1000 A. D. 191 above and under कुमारस्वामिन्, son of मल्लिनाथ. ध्वन्यालोक. A. of com. रत्नापण on प्रतापरुद्रीय.

416 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

15th century. Pr. in Bom. स्थिति of भीमसेन दीक्षित. About S. S. 1723 A. D .; V. under अल- TFN, a king of Mewad, a. of क्वार स्थिति above. रसरत्नकोश in 11 chapters. First half of 15th cen. कुवलयामोदिनी.

कुरविराम, a. of a com. on दशरूप कूटसन्दोह of रामानुज.

and कुवलयानन्द. Vide H.R. I. कृशाश्व, a. of a नटसूत्र m. by पाणिनि IV. 3. 111. p. XI. कुवलयानन्द of अप्पय्यदीक्षित. V. कृष्ण, a. of. अलङ्गारमणिहार, q.v.

pp. 317-321. Conflict about कृष्ण, a. of अल ङ्कारमोक्तिकमाला.

date. Most probable dates कृष्ण a. of साहित्यतर्राङ्गणी. कृष्णकि कूर तर्कवागीश a. of काव्य- are 1550-1620 A. D. C अलक्कारचन्द्रिका of वैद्यनाथ, तत्त्वविवेचककौमुदी, c. on. काव्यप्र. कृष्णदोक्षित or कृष्णयज्वन् a. of son of रामचन्द्र. About 1683 A. D. Pr. several रघुनाथभूपालीय q. V. कृष्णद्विवेदिन् a. of मधुररसा, C. on times. काव्यप्र. C अलङ्कारसुधा of नागेशभट्ट. First quarter of 18th cen. कृष्णभट्ट or जयकृष्ण मौनिन् a. of

C कारिकादीपिका of आशाधर, वृत्तिदीपिका.

son of रामजीभट्ट. Pr. Nir. कृष्णशमन् a. of मन्दारमरन्दचम्पू

C रसिकरञ्जनी of गङ्गाधर, gra- and रसप्रकाश. An inhabit- ant of गुहपुर and pupil of ndson of a brother of वासुदेवयोगीश्वर. After 1600 a pupil of अप्पय्यदीक्षित. A. D. Hence about 1700 A.D. कृष्णमित्राचार्य son of रामनाथ and Pr. at Kumbha- grandson of देवीदत्त; a. of c. konam. C विषमपदव्याख्याषट्पदानन्द of on काव्यप्र.

नागशभट्ट काल. This c. is कृष्णसूरि a. of रत्नशोभाकर, c.on अलक्कारमुक्तावली. different from the C. कृष्णानन्दिनी c. on साहित्यकौमुदी. अलक्कारसुधा. Vidc Stein's कृष्णावधूत a. of चमत्कारचामीकर. cat. pp. 270-271 for केशवभट्ट, son of हरिवंशभट्ट, pupil extracts of both. C काव्यमञ्जरी by न्यायवागीश of विट्ठलेश्वर, son of वल्लभा- चार्य. About latter half of 16th भट्टाचार्य. C by मथुरानाथ. cen .; a. of रसिकसञ्जीवनी, q.v.

C by रामचरणतकवागीश. Com- केशवदास a. of कविप्रिया, written in 1601 A. D. at the request posed in 1701 A. D. C प्रभा by गोपीनाथ. of Prabin Rai, a गणिका at

C लघ्वलङ्कारचन्द्रिका of देवीदत्त. the court of इन्द्रजित्. V.Dept. of Letters, Cal. Un. vol. 13 कुवलयानन्दखण्डन alias अलक्कारसार- pp. 1-34.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 417

केशवमिश, a. of अलक्कारशखर, pp. नन्दिन्. 315-317 above. Latter half गागाभट्ट, alias विश्वेश्वर, son of of 16th cen. कोविदानन्द of आशाघर, son of दिवाकर; a. of सुधा alias राकागम c. on चन्द्रालोक, q. v. Latter रामजि. Between 1650- half of 17th cen. 1700 A. D. Vide N. I. A. Vol. III pp. 37-39, and गुण रत्नगणि a. of सारदीपिका com. on काव्यप्र. vol. VI note by Dr. गुणरत्नाकर of नरसिंह; deals with Rāghavan. कादम्बिनी 100 figures; written under C Called by king Sarfoji of Tanjore आशाधर himself ; pub. (1684-1710 A.D.). serially in Sanskrit गुरिजालशायिन् -- V. रङ्गशायिन्. Sāhitya Parishad Patrika, गुरुममप्रकाश of नागेशभट्ट. C.on Calcutta. रसगङ्गाधर. कोहल a. of a नाट्यशास्त्र. V. गूढार्थप्रकाशिका of बालकृष्ण पायगुण्ड. pp. 24-25 above. C. on चित्रमीमांसा. क्षेमहंसगणणि a. of c. समासान्वय- गोकुलनाथ, a मैथिल, son of पीता- टिप्पण on वाग्भटालक्कार. म्बर and उमादेवी. Wrote at क्षेमेन्द्र a. of औचित्यविचारचर्चा.V. Benares. A. of रसाणव and a. pp. 264-66 above. Flouri- of c. on काव्यप्र. Last quarter shed 990-1066 A.D. of 17th and first of 18th गल्ादास a. of काव्यशिक्षा, q. v. cen. गङ्गाघर वाजपेयिन्, son of देवसिंह- गोदवर्मयशोभूषण of अरुणगिरिकवि सुमति of the वाधूल family; a. of on अर्थालङ्कारs; published c. रसिकरञ्जनी on कुवलयानन्द. at Trivandrum, 1946. Between 1684-1711 A. D. गोपाल alias वोपदेव of कोण्डिन्यगोत्र, गङ्गाघर a. of रसपद्माकर. son of नृसिंह. A. of C. गङ्गानन्द, a मैथिल, a. of कर्णभूषण विलास or विकास on रसमञ्जरी. and काव्यडाकिनी, q. V. Vide pp. 307 above for गङ्गानन्द a. of वनमाला. date. गङ्गारामर्जाडि, a. of रसमीमांसा and गोपालभट्ट son of हरिवंशभट्ट; com. नोका on भानुदत्त's रसतर- झ्गिणी, composed in 1732 A.D. a. of रसिकरञ्जनी on रसमञ्जरी of भानु; and a of c. called Both pr. at Benares. गणेश, a. of रसोदधि, c. on रसतर्राङ्गणी on शृङ्गारतिलक and of a c. on काव्यप्र. रसतर्राङ्गिणी, q. V. गोपालभट्ट a. of साहित्यचूडामणि, गदाघ रभट्ट, a. ofcom. on काव्यप्र. a.c. on काव्यप्र. गदाघरभट्ट, son of गौरीपति, a. of रसिकजीवन q. V. गोपालभट्ट m. by कुमारस्वामिन् in रत्नापण (p. 93.). Earlier गर्ग, a. on नाट्यशास्त्र m. by सागर- than 15th cen.

418 HISTORY OF SANSERIT POETIOS

गापानाथ a of c. सुमनामनाहरा on ५ राकागम or सुधा by गागाभट्ट, काव्यप्र. and on साहित्यदर्पण. Latter half of 17th गोपेन्द्रतिप्पभूपाल or त्रिपुरहर० a. cen. Pr. of कामघेन; com. on वामन. C रमा of वैद्यनाथ पायगुण्ड. Verse 8 of Intro. gives the About 1750-1800 A. D. name as गोपेन्द्रत्रिपुरहर० Pr. गोवर्धन m. in अलक्कारशखर (pp. C शारदशर्वरी by विरूपाक्ष, 27, 37). गोविन्द, a. of काव्यदीपिका. son of मुद्गलरामचन्द्र. V.

गोविन्वठककुर, a. of काव्यप्रदीप and Tanjore cat. vol. IX.

श्लोकदीपिका. V. above under pp. 4036-4038. C प्रदीपिका or दीपिका. काव्यप्र. C by वाजचन्द्र. घण्टक m. by अ.भा .; V. p.53. C बुधरञ्जनी by श्रीवेङ्गलसूरि. घासीराम, a. of रसचन्द्र, composed चन्द्रिकाकार-a. of c. called in 1696 A. D. and of चन्द्रिका on ध्वन्यालोक; m. by रसकोमुदी. अभिनवगुप्त. Between 900- चकवतिन्-vide परमानन्दचक्र्वर्तिन् 950 A. D. V. p. 207 above. and श्रीविद्याचक्वर्तिन्. चन्द्रिका-C.on काव्यादर्श q. v. चण्डीदास, a. of दीपिका, a com. चमत्कारचन्द्रिका in 8 विलासs by on काव्यप्र., q.V. विश्वेश्वर patronized by सिंह- चन्द्रकान्ततक लिङ्कार, a. of अलङ्कार- भूपाल. It follows भोज except सूत्र q. V. on रस. It gives up शान्त as चन्द्र चूड son of पुरुषोत्तमभट्ट, a. of a रस. It appears to be the प्रस्तावचिन्तामणि; Peterson's earliest work to adduce the Ulwar cat. No. 223 (ex- Upanisad passage रसो वै सः in tract). चन्द्रालोक of जयदेवपीयूषवर्ष connection with काव्य. First son half of 14th cen. Vide I. O. of महादेव. V. pp. 290-292 Cat. vol. VII p. 1507 and above. Between 1200-1250 Annals, B. O. R. I., vol. 16 A. D. Pr. frequently, p. 131-139 (Dr. Raghavan). C शरदागम or प्रकाश of चमत्कारचामीकर, a भाष्य by प्रद्योतनभट्टाचार्य, son of बल- कृष्णावधूत on अलङ्कारसूत्र. भद्र. Pr. in Kashi S. चारायण m. as an author on series. V. p. 292 above. नाट्यशास्त्र by नाटकलक्षणरत्नकोश, Patronized by prince line 392 and by कामसूत्र I. वीरमद्र son of रामचन्द्रदेव. 1. 12 and 1. 5. 22. V. Adyar Library Bul- चित्रधर a. of शृंगारसारिणी. letin vol. V. miscellane- Copied in 1743 A. D. ous Notes pp. 35-36; चित्रधर a. of वीरतर्राङ्गणी. written in 1583 A.D. चित्रमञ्जूषा by गङ्गाधरकवि in 73

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 419

verses. Composed in 1853 A. D. V. Annals B. O. R. जगबन्ध तर्कवागीश, a. of c. on

I. vol. 30 at p. 41. काव्यचन्द्रिका of रामचन्द्र.

चित्राङ्द. m. in काव्यमी. (p.1). जनार्वनव्यास, pupil of अनन्त. A. of c. श्लोकदीपिका on काव्यप्र. V. p. 1 above. चित्रमीमांसा by चित्रधर उपाध्याय; जयकृष्ण मौनिन् V. कृष्णभट्ट above. जयदेव. a. of चन्द्रालोक, q. V. vide cat. of Mithila mss. by Jayaswal, vol. II. p. 39, N. 28. जयन्तभट्ट, a. of c. जयन्ती on

चित्रमीमांसा of अप्पय्यदीक्षित. V. काव्यप्र. q. V. जयमङ्गल a. of कविशिक्षा, q .. V pp. 317-18 above and under जयमङ्गला c. on भट्टिकाव्य.V. pp. अप्पय्य. 73-74 above. C गूढार्थप्रकाशिका by बालकृष्ण जयरथ a. of c. विमर्शिनी and पायगुण्ड; vide H. of Dh. अलक्कारोदाहरण on अलं. स. V. vol. I. pp. 461-62 for date. C दोषधिक्कार by अतिरात्र यज्वन्, p. 285 above. जयराम, a. of तिलक, c. on काव्यप्र. grandson of अप्पय्य's youn- q. v. ger brother. About 1637 जयन्ती com.on काव्यप्र.by जयन्तभट्ट. A. D. जल्पकल्पलता of अणुरत्नमण्डन or C सुधा by धरानन्द, son of रत्नमण्डनगणि, pupil of रत्नशखर- रामबल, pupil of परमानन्द. Comments up to अतिशयोक्ति. सूरि who died in संवत् 1517 (1460-61 A.D.). C चित्रालोक. चित्रमीमांसाखण्डन of जगन्नाथपण्डित- जिनप्रभसूरि, a. of c. on विदग्धमुख- मण्डन. Last quarter of the राज. V. p. 324 above. 13th and first quarter of चिरञ्जीवभट्टाचार्य a. of काव्यविलास 14th cen. and शृङ्गारतटिनी. V. under जिनवर्धनसूरि a. of c. on वाग्भटा- काव्यविलास. First half of लक्कार. He was pupil of 17th cen. जिनराजसूरि and a priest of छाया-vide under गङ्गारामजडि. खरतरगच्छ from about 1405 जगदीश तर्कालक्कार a. of c. रहस्य- to 1419 A.D. प्रकाश on काव्यप्र. Beginning जिनवल्लभसूरि a. of प्रश्नोत्तर of 17th cen. (riddles and puzzles). जगद्धर, son of रत्नधर and दमयन्ती. जीवगोस्वामिन्-a. of लोचनरोचनी A. of a c. on सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण on उज्ज्वलनीलमणि. V. pp. (on 4th परिच्छेद pr. by Nir.). 314-315; 16th century. About 1460 A. D .; ms. जीवनाथ a. of अलक्कारशेखर, q. V. dated शाके 1521 in Stein's जीवराजवीक्षित a. of c. सेतु on रस- cat. p. 276. तर्राङ्गणी, son of व्रजराजदीक्षित. जगसनाथपण्डित, a. of रसगङ्गाधर. He was great-grand-son of V. pp. 321-325. सामराजदीक्षित who flourished

420 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

in latter half of 17th cen. त्रयम्बक a. of. नाटकदीप. सण्ड-a. on नाट्यशास्त्र. V. pp. 28- दण्डिन् a. of काव्यादर्श V. pp. 29 above. 88-102. About 660-680 A.D. तत्त्वपरीक्षा c.on काव्यप्र. by सुबुद्धि- दस्तक m. in कुट्टनीमत (verses 77, मिश्र. 122) and by कामसूत्र I. 1. तत्त्वालोक, of आनन्दवर्धन. V. p. 11, VI. 2. 55 and VI. 3 44. 203 n. 1 above. Some mss. read दन्तिल; an a. तत्त्वोक्तिकोश, of महिमभट्ट, m.in व्यक्तिविवेक. V.p. 254 above. on कामशास्त्र (वैशिक section). दत्तिल m. by कुट्टनीमत along with तरल, C. on एकावली by मल्लिनाथ. भरत and विशाखिल and by Pr. in Bom. S. Series. रसार्णवसुधाकर (p.8) as a. on About end of the 14th cen. नाट्यशास्त्र.V.pp.25, 56 above. तरणवाचस्पति, a. of com. on दन्तिल. V. pp. 25, 57 above. काव्यादर्श .. V. p. 105 above for Probably identical with date and p. 133. दत्तिल. ताराचन्द्र a. of c. विद्वन्मनोरमा on दर्पण com. on सर.क. by रत्नेश्वर. विदग्धमुखमण्डन. Pr. in K. M. series (on तिलक, a. of उ्भटविवेक. V. pp. 3 paricchedas only) 138-9. About 1100-1125 दर्पण-same as हृदयदर्पणof भट्टनायक. A. D. V. pp. 221-225 above. तिलक c. on काव्यप्र. by जयराम. दर्पण com. on काव्यप्र.by विश्वनाथ. तिरुबेडट, a. of c. on काव्यप्र. दशरूप of धनञ्जय, son of विष्णु.V. तोत or तोत, a. of काव्यकौतुक, m. pp. 243-248. Published by अभिनवगुप्त. V. pp. 218-22 several times. Between Between 950-980. A. 974-996 A. D. त्रिभुवनचन्द्र a. of c. on काव्यादर्श. C अवलोक by धनिक, son of त्रिमल्लभट्ट or तिरुमल or तिर्मल of विष्णु. V. pp. 246-248 Kasi; a. of अलङ्कारमञ्जरी, q.v. above. About 1000 A. D. त्रिलोचन a. of सुबोधिनी c. on विदग्धमुखमण्डन. CC by नृसिंह on अवलोक.

त्रिलोचनादित्य, a. of नाट्यलोचन; V. p. 247 above. C by देवपाणि. m. by रङ्गनाथ .m.by गघवभट्ट on शाकुन्तल, by on विक्रमोर्वशीय. Earlier दिनका on रघुवंश. Not later than 1656 A. D. than middle of 14th cen. C by बहुरूपमिश्र. V. p. 247 त्रिवेणिका of आशाधर, son of रामजी- above. भट्ट. V. under आशाघर above. C by कुरविराम. Pr. in सरस्वतीभवन series. दशरूपकपद्धति by कुरविराम. Hult- त्रिशरणतटभीम a. of चन्द्रिका, c. on. zsch's R. vol. I No. 554. काव्यादर्श. V. Hall's Index दशरूपकपरिभाषा of शिङ्रभूपाल. p. 63. About 1330 A. D.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 421

दशरूपकाववरण. Not a com. on at Madras and Nellore. दशरूपक, but an independent Vide N.I.A. vol. II pp. compilation. Madras Govt. 428 ff. by E. V. Virara- ms .. cat. vol. 22 No. 12892. ghavacharya. वामोदरभट्ट हर्व a. of अलक्कारक्रम- C नौका by वेङ्कटसूरि son of माला and c. दिनकर a. of c. on रसतर्राङ्गणी. लक्ष्मणसूरि and disciple of

दीधितिप्रकाशिका of वृन्दावनचन्द्र; c. वेक्कटाचार्य. घिषण m.in काव्यमी. p.1 (vide on अलक्कारकौस्तुभ of कविकणपूर, p. l above).

दीपिका-Name of several com- q. v. धूतिल m. in भरत's नाट्यशास्त्र. V. p. 24 above. mentaries. V. under काव्यप्र. ध्वनिकार or ध्वनिकृत-V. under and चन्द्रालोक. ध्वन्यालोक and p. 161 above. दुर्गादास a. of c. on. विदग्घमुखमण्डन. ध्वनिप्रदीप of पुञ्जराज son of जीवन दुष्करचित्रप्रकाशिका by लक्ष्मीनाथभट्ट of the श्रीमाल family. c. on सर. क. ध्वनिविवेक देवदत a. of शृङ्गाररसविलास. ध्वनिसंग्रह Triennial Cat. vol. देवनाथ a. of काव्यकोमुदी, a. c. on VI pp. 2371-72. काव्यप्र. and of रसिकप्रकाश. ध्वनिसिद्धान्तसंग्रह of चण्डीदास m. देवपाणि a. of c. on दशरूप, q. V. in his दीपिका on काव्यप्र. (pp. देकशक्ूर पुरोहित, son of Nahana- 13, 104). bhai. Latter half of 18th ध्वन्यालोक or काव्यालोक or सहृदया- cen; a. of अल क्वारमञ्जूषा, q. v. लोक, of आनन्दवर्धन. Pr. (in देवीदत्त a. of लध्वलङ्कारचन्द्रिका K. M. and elsewhere). V. a.c. on कुवलयानन्द. pp. 161-208. About 850- देवेश्वर or देवेन्द्र a. of कविकल्पलता, 875 A. D.

घनञजय a. of दशरूप, q. v .; 974- q. v. C अल्जन; vide Mad. Govt. mss. lib. cat. No. 12895. 996 A. D. C चन्द्रिका; m. in लोचन. V. धनिक a. of अवलोक, c. on दशरूप, p. 207 above. q. v .; about 1000 A. D. C लोचन of अभिनवगुप्त. V. घरानन्द a. of c. on चित्रमीमांसा pp. 203-207 above. 980-

धर्मदत्त m. in साहित्यदर्पण. V. P. q. v. 1020 A. D. CC कौमुदी of उदयोत्तुङ्ग. V. pp. 301 n. 1 above. 207-208 above. About धर्मदाससूरि a. of विदग्धमुखमण्डन q.V. 1480 A.D. First उद्योत ed. धर्मसूरि or धर्मससिंह or धर्मपण्डित, by M. M. Kuppuswami son of पर्वतेश or पर्वतनाथ; a. of Sastri. साहित्यरत्नाकर; first quarter C ध्वनिगाथापञ्जिका of रत्नाकर of 15th century A.D .; Pr. called काश्मीरकाचार्य. Ex-

422 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

plains the प्राकृत verses in नमिसाधु a. of c. on रुद्रट's the ध्व. V. p. 208 above. काव्यालद्वार. V. p. 155. नसकुट m. in नाट्यशास्त्र (I. 33 G. O. S.) as भरतपुत्र and by Composed in 1069 A. D.

सागरनन्दिन् in ना. ल. र. को. नरािह or नृसिंहकवि, son of शिवरामसुधी; a. of नञ्जराजयशो- lines 2768 and 2904. नञ्जराजयशोभूषण of नरसिंहकवि भूषण, q. V.

alias अभिनवकालिदास son of नरसिह, son of गदाधर and grand- son of कृष्ण; a. of c. मुक्तावलि शिवराम. Illustrations relate on काव्यादर्श. to नञ्जराज, son of वीरंभूप; नरसिहठवकुर a. of नरसिंहमनीषा, c. नञ्जराज was father-in-law, on काव्यप्र. q. V. sarvadhikarī and com- नरसिह a. of गुणरत्नाकर. q. V. mander-in-chief of the नरसिंहमनीषा, c. of नरसिंहठक्कुर Mysore ruler Krishnaraja on काव्यप्र. Wadiyar II.V. Poona Orien- नरसिंहसूरि son of तिम्माजि; a. of talist, vol. V. pp. 217-220. c. ऋ जुवृत्ति on काव्यप्र. m. by पाणिनि 2 नटसूत्र of शिलालिन् IV. 3. 110- नरसिहाचार्य or वे ड्ूटनसिंहकवि; a.

11. V.p. 335 of अलक्कारेन्दुशेखर q. V. नरहरिसूरि a. of रसनिरूपण; m. above. by रत्नापण (p. 224). नन्विकेश्वर-m.in काव्यमी. p.1 (V. नरहरिसरस्वतीतीर्थ, a. of बालचित्ता- p. 1 above); a. of अभिनयदर्पण नुरञ्जनी, c. on काव्यप्र. Born in about 330 verses, ed. by in 1241-42 A.D. Dr .. M. M. Ghosh in Cal. नरहरिभट्ट, a. of श्रवणभूषण, c.on S. Series with English विदग्धमुख० translation and Intro .; नवरसतरा्ङ्गणी-same as रसतर्राङ्गणी. translated by Messrs. A. K. नागरसर्वस्व of पद्मश्री, a Buddhist; Coomarswamy andDuggirala divided into 38 परिच्छेदs. Pr. Gopalakrishnayya, Cambri- in Calcutta and at Gujarati dge. 1917) सङ्गीतरत्ाकर I. 1. Press, Bombay. परिच्छेद 13 is 17 names him as an autho- on भाव, हाव; most of it is rity on music. B. O. R. I. on erotics on the lines of काम- transcript of अ. भा. (p. 417 सूत्र and is rather filthy in chap. 29) 'इत्येव नन्दिकेश्वरमता- places. It quotes कुट्टनीमत and नुसारेणायं चित्रपूर्वरङ्गपूर्वविधिरिति.' is quoted often by सागरनन्दिन्, His name is affixed to राघवभट्ट on शाकुन्तल and शाङ्ग- many late wroks on erotics, धरपद्धति. Earlier than 1100 abhinaya, music &c. A. D. and later than 800. नन्दिमत m. in अ. भा. vol. I. p. नागराजकेशव, a. of पदवृत्ति, c. on 171. काव्यप्र.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 423

नागेश or नागोजिभट्ट a. of several tour in Nepal. Mentions commentaries. V. pp. 324- many dramas and many 25 above. authors on dramaturgy and नाटकचन्द्रिका of रूपगोस्वामी. V. quotes about 500 verses from pp. 313-314 above. About dramas and 160 from भरत; 1470 to 1554 A.D. discards शान्तरस. V. New I. नाटकदर्पण of रामचन्द्र and गुणचन्द्र A.vol. II. pp. 412-419 for Pr. in G. O. series. date; Prof. Gode in Annals B. Divided into four विवेकs. O.R.I. vol. 19 pp. 280-288; रामचन्द्र lived in the times of vide Dr. Raghavan's papers सिद्धराज (1093-1143A.D.) and in Journal of the University कुमारपाल (1143-1172 A. D.) of Gauhati, vol. III with and was disciple of हेम- exhaustive corrections and a and flourished between criticisms pp. 17-33), JOR 1150 A. D. to 1175 A.D. (Mad) vol. XXV pp. The examplcs are more 68-73 and Annals of Oriental profuse than in दशरूपावलोक. Research of University Dilates upon 12 varieties of of Madras, vol. XV. pp. रूपकs and many उपरूपकsFirst 1-9 (1958-1959). The 2nd discoverd by prof. Levi in vol. has recently been publi- Journal Asiatique for 1923. shed (Nov. 1960), of trans- His references to देवीचन्द्रगुप्त lation by Prof. Dillon and are of great historical value. Prof. Fowler, Introduction नाटकदीप of त्र्यम्बक. and notes by Dr. Raghavan. c. by रामकृष्णपण्डित. Between Bhoja and c. Ano. Abhinavagupta' on the one नाटकपरिभाषा of शिङ्गभूपाल son of hand and Śāradātanaya अनन्त (or अनपोत). About on the other; about first 1330 A. D. In verses. half of 13th century A.D. नाटकप्रकाश m. in रत्नापण (p.13). नाटकावतार m. by मोहनदास in नाटकमीमांसा of रुय्यक m. by रसोदधि. author of अलं. स. and in व्यक्तिविवेकटीका (p. 32). V. नाट्यद्पण-same as नाटकदर्पण. नाट्यप्रदीप q. by राघवभट्ट on pp. 279 above. शाकुन्तल about नान्दी. नाटकलक्षण of पुण्डरीक. नाट्यप्रदीप of सुन्दरमिश्र औजागरि नाटकलक्षणरत्नकोश of सागरनन्दिन्. composed in 1613 A. D .; Edited by Prof. M. Dillon I. O. cat III pp 347-348 of Dublin (1937, Oxford नाट्यलोचन of त्रिलोचनादित्य, q. v. Un. Press). First discover- Probably later than सागर- ed by Prof. Levi in his नन्दिन्.

424 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

C अञज्जन by a. himself- evolution of rasas from ब्रह्मा नाट्यशास्त्र of भरत V. pp. 10- (pp. 47, 58, 69). 47. Between 100 B. C. to नारायणदोक्षित son of रङ्गनाथ; a. 300 A. D. of c. on काव्यप्र. About end C अभिनवभारती or नाट्यवेद- of 17th cen. विवृति by अभिनवगुप्त. V. नारायणभट्ट a. of रसतर्राङ्गणी, m. pp. 47 ff. About 1000 in com. of विश्वनाथ on उज्ज्वल- A.D. नीलमणि (p .. 25). For commentaries on निदर्शन c. on काव्यप्र. by राजानका- नाट्यशास्त्र vide pp. 47-55 नन्द. above. निर्मलभट्ट-V. त्रिमल्लभट्ट above. नाट्यशास्त्र of वसन्तराज; m. by नीलकण्ठ a.of चित्रमीमांसादोषधिक्कार मल्लिनाथ on शिशुपालवध II. 8 as q. v. वसन्तराजीय. Metrical. Ear- नूतनतरि c. on रसतर्राङ्गणी q. v. lier than 1400 A. D. नृसिंह a. of अलङ्कारसार. A. is the same as the king नृसिहभट्ट a of c. on. दशरूप. of कुमारगिरि. V. I. O. नुसिंहकेशव a. of पाण्डवराजयशोभूषण cat. vol. VII. pp. 1575-76 (पाण्ड्यराज० ?). where काटयवेम says that नृसिहठवक्ुर a. of नृसिंहमनीषा c.on in his com. on शाकुन्तल काव्यप्र. he follows नाट्यशास्त्र of वसन्त- नेमिसाह a. of साहित्यसुधा, c. on राज, king of कुमारगिरि. रसतर्राङ्गणी. नाट्यसर्वस्वदीपिका, a. of c. on आदि- नौका by गङ्गाराम जडि, a. of c. on भरत in 6000 verses, 5 स्कन्वs, रसतर्राङ्गणो. Composed in 1742 32 chnpters. V. p. 27 above. A.D. Mentions सर. क.,सङ्गातरत्नाकर नौका, c. on साहित्यरत्नाकर, by and several other works on वे कूटसूरि, son of लक्ष्मणसूरि. Pr. सङ्गीत. at Benares in 1884. नाट्यार्णव of नन्दिकेश्वर q. by रस- पक्षधर, cited by भीमसेन as a. c. रत्नप्रदीपिका. on काव्यप्र. नान्यदेव a. of भरतभाष्य or सरस्वती- पञ्चसायक of ज्योतिरीश; m. in हृदयालङ्वार. V. pp. 61-63 रसोदधि by मोहनदास. above. C लक्ष्यवेधन by साहिब्राम. नायक-V. भट्टनायक. पण्डितराज alias रघुनन्दन a. of नायिकादर्पण or नायिकावर्णन of राम- a c. on काव्यप्र; m. by रत्नकण्ठ. कवि in 49 stanzas. Earlier than 1637 A.D. नारद said to be propounder पदवृत्ति c. by नागराजकेशव on of गान्धर्ववेद. V. pp. 19, 43 above. The भावप्रकाशन पदार्थदीपिका of गौरनार्य on अलंकारs; काव्यप्र.

says नारद taught भरत the Mad. Govt. mss. cat. vol.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 425

22 No. 12951, 12952. पद्मश्री a. of नागरस्वस्व, q. v. pp. 293-295. First quarter of 14th cen. Pr. in Bom. पद्मसुन्दर a. of अकबरसाहिशृङ्गार- S. S. with the following द्पण, q. V. two c. परमात्मविनोद by गुणनिधि. C रत्नापण of कुमारस्वामिन्, son परमानन्द चकवतिनa. of विस्तारिका of मल्लिनाथ. 15th cen. a. c. on काव्यप्र. C रत्नशाण. Later than रत्ना- पराशर m. in काव्यमी.p.l.(v.p.1 पण. above). पाण्डवराजयशोभूषण (पाण्ड्यराज०?) प्रतोहारेन्दुराज, pupil of मुकुलभट्ट. A. of com. on अल क्कारसारसंग्रह of नृसिंह: पाल्यकीति m. by काव्यमी. p.46. of उन्ट. V. pp. 133,205-7. Between 925-950. पितामह, a verse of his is प्रदीप c.by गोविन्दठक्कुर on काव्यप्र. quoted by ना. ल. र. को. q. v. पीयूषवर्ष title of जयदेव a. of प्रदीपकृत् or प्रदीपकार. V. गोविन्द चन्द्रालोक. ठक्कुर. पुञ्जराज son of जीवनेन्द्र, a. of ध्वनिप्रदीप and काव्याल द्वार शिशु- प्रद्योतनभट्टाचार्य a. of c. शरदागम on चन्द्रालोक; composed in प्रबोध. 1583 A. D. V. p. 292 above. पुण्डरोक a. of. नाटकलक्षण. प्रधानिवेडय्यामात्य a. of अलक्कार- पुण्डरीकरामेश्वर or पौण्डरीकरामेश्वर मणिदर्पण (1400-1450 A. D.). a. of रससिन्धु q. v. About प्रभा c. on प्रदीप on काव्यप्र. q. V. 1400-1450 A.D. प्रभा c. by गोपीनाथ on साहित्य- पुण्यानन्द a. of कामकलाविलास. दर्पण. पुरुषोत्तम सुधीन्द्र a. of कवितावतार प्रभाकर, son of महादेव; a. of रस- प्रदीप composed in 1583 A.D. पुरुषोत्तम cited in साहित्यदर्पण on q. v.

IX. 4 on गौडीयारीति .. and of अलक्काररहस्य q. in रस- प्रदीप. पुलस्त्य m. in काव्यमी. p.1(v.p.1 प्रश्नोत्तर of जिनवल्लभसूरि. About above). 1110 A.D. प्रकाशवर्ष a. of रसाणवालक्वार; V. प्रस्तावचिन्तामणि of चन्द्रचूड, son of I. H. Q. vol .. V part 1 at पुरुषोत्तम; in five उच्छ्वासs; on end for text in Roman the writing of poetic des- characters; and ibid. pp. criptions. 770-780 (Dr. De), J. O. R. प्रस्तावरत्नाकर of हरिदास, son of Madras, vol. 8 pp. 267-276. पुरुषोत्तम. Composed in verse Later than 1050 A.D. in 1557 A.D. प्रचेतायन m. in काव्यमी. p.1 (v. प्रियातिथि m. by अभिनवभारती p. p. 1 above). 53 above. प्रतापरु द्रयशोभूषण of विद्यानाथ. V. बलदेव a. of शृङ्गारहार q. V.

426 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

मलदेवविद्याभूषण a. of काव्यकोस्तुभ |भगवद्दट्ट a. of नूतनतरि, c. on and a. of c. on. काव्यप्र. q. V. रसतर्राङ्गणी. बावर m. as an author on नाट्य- भगोरथ a. of c. on काव्यादर्श. शास्त्र by सागरनन्दिन्. भट्टगोपाल v. मोपालभट्ट. बादरायण m. in ना. ल. र. को. by सागरनन्दिन्, lines 1091, भट्टगोपाल m. by अ.भा. V. p. 53 above. 2770. बालकवि a. of कर्पू ररसमञ्जरी. भट्टतौत-v. तौत.

About 1535-1545 A.D. भट्टनायक, a. of. हृदयदर्पण. V. pp. 221-25. Between 935-985 बालकृष्णपायगुण्ड, a. of c. on A.D. चित्रमीमांसा q. V. भट्टयन्त्र m. by अ.भा. V.p. 53 बालकृष्ण, son of गोवर्धन, a. of above. अलक्कारसार, q. V. भट्टवृद्धि m. by अ.भा. V. p. 53 बालचित्तानुरञ्जनी of नरहरिसरस्वती- above. तीर्थ; c. on काव्यप्र. भट्टसुमनस् m. by अ. भा. V. p. बालबोधिका c. on कविकल्पलता by 53 above. सूर्यदास or सूर्यकवि. About 1540 A. D .; V. Aufrecht I भट्टि a. of भट्टिकाव्य. Between 575-650. A. D. V. pp. 72-78. p 731b and II p 175b. भट्टिकाव्य-v. above. बालरामवर्मयशोभूषण by सदाशिव दीक्षित; includes C जयमङ्गला pr. by Nir. drama C मल्लिनाथ. Pr. in Bom. S. वसुलक्ष्मीकल्याण in five Acts Series. where the hero is बालरामवर्मा. भट्टन्दुराज teacher of अभिनवगुप्त V. Tri. Palace mss. cat. as to ध्वन्यालोक. V. pp. 204- vol. VI. p. 2354. Illustra- 207 and 238 above. Between tions praise the king बालराम- 960-990 A.D. वर्म. बिन्द्वल द्वार of हरिहर, m. in एकावली भरत, a. of. नाट्यशास्त्र. V. pp. 10-47 above. p. 242. एकावली p.19 speaks C अभिनवभारती. Pr.in G. O. of one हरिहर as having rece- S. V. pp. 47 ff above. ived immence wealth from king Arjuna who is identi- भरतवृद्ध. V. p. 26 above. भरतशास्त्रग्रन्थ of लक्ष्मीधर. V. fied by Trivedi (notes p. Annals B. O. R. I. vol. 15 348) with अर्जुनवर्मदेव (1211- 1216 A. D.). pp. 240-42. Between 1550- 1572 A.D. Mentions कवि- बुधरञजनी, c. on चन्द्रालोक (अर्थाल- कण्ठपाश, भावप्रकाश, भरतार्णव. ड्वारs), by वेङ्गालसूरि. भरतसंग्रह of विद्याचक्रवर्तिन्. बेचारामसार्वभौम, a. of c. on. भरतसूत्रवृत्ति by बलदेव विद्याभूषण or कविकल्पलता. भगवत्कवि a. of अष्टनायिकादर्पण. simply विद्याभूषण. C. on. काव्यप्र. q. V.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 427

भरतार्णव of नन्दिकेश्वर. C For a sample of this भवदेव a. of com. लीला on काव्यप्र. com. v. I. H. Q. vol. V. q. v. p. 791. भानुकर-supposed to be the भावप्रदीप-Aufrecht I p.408a. same as भानुदत्त. V. p. 306 भावमिश्र, son of मिश्र भटक. A. of above. Some mss. refer to शृङ्गारसरसी. भानुदत्त's work as भानुकर's भावलवव्याख्या (e.g. ms. of अलङ्कारतिलक in भावविवेक on भावs;Triennial cat. B. B. R. A. S. mss. cat. Madras, vol. VI p. 7151. p. 41 and some commen- भावार्थ alias काव्यनन्दिका of राम- taries like the परिमल do the कृष्ण. A c. on. काव्यप्र. same. भावार्थचिन्तामणि of महेश्वर. A c. भानुचन्द्र a. of a c. on. काव्यप्र. on काव्यप्र. q. V. भानुदत्त, a मैथिल, a. of रसमञ्जरी, रसतर्राङ्गणी and several other भाषाविभूषण of गोपालदास. भास्कर of साहित्यदीपिका, com. works. V. pp. 304-310 above. Between 1450-1500 A. D. on काव्यप्र. q. v .; m. in काव्य- प्रदीप (p. 25, 201). भानुभावप्रकाशिनी of महादेव; c. on. रसमञ्जरी, भाष्यकाराचार्य, son of वरदगुरु a. of साहित्यकल्लोलिनी q.v.Author भामह son of रत्रिलगोमिन्; a. of expressly states that he is काव्यालड्कार. V. pp. 78-88. indebted to रसार्णवसुधाकर. About 700-750A. D. Pr. Later than 1350 A. D. several times (v. pp. 80-81 Deals with नाट्य, सन्धिs, नायक, above. उपरूपक, काव्यलक्षण. V. Madras भामहविवरण by उ्ट V. pp. Govt, mss. cat. vol. 22 No. 134-5 above. 12964. भावतर्राङ्गणी. भीमसेन दीक्षित a. of c. सुधासागर भावप्रकाश or-प्रकाशिका or-प्रकाशन on काव्यप्र .; composed in 1723 of शारदातनय son of भट्टगोपाल. Pr.in G.O.S. in 10 अधिकारs. A.D .; a. of अल क्वारसारोद्धार,

Vide Dr. Raghavan's paper कुवलयानन्दखण्डन (=अल क्वार- सारस्थिति). in Adyar Library Bulletin, भोमेश्वरभट्ट, son of रङ्गभट्ट; A. of vol. 19 parts l and 2 for रससर्वस्व. identification of several pas- भूदेवशुक्ल a. of रसविलास. About sage thought by the editor to 1550. V. Annals B. O. R. be unidentifiable and some I. vol. 13 p. 183 (Prof. corrections. Between 1175- Gode). He wrote a नाटक 1250 A. D. Very important in 5 Acts called धर्मविजय. work for students of अलक्कार- भोजदेव or भोजराज, a. of सरस्वती- शास्त्र and नाट्यशास्त्र. कण्ठाभरण and शृङ्गारप्रकाश. V.

428 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

pp. 257-263 above. The मन्दारमरन्दचम्पू of कृष्णशर्मन् and first was published several of चन्द्रदेवशर्मन् in eleven बिन्दुs. times and only a portion of An extensive complilation the 2nd has been published for serving as a handbook so far. Reigned from for poets. Later than 1600 about 1005 to 1054 A.D. A. D. Deals with metres, मकरन्द c. on काव्यकल्पलता by श्लेष, यमक, चित्रबन्धs, नाटक शुभविजयगणि pupil of हीरविजय- and other रूपकs and their सूरि who flourished in the angas, नायक, नायिका, रस, reign of the Mogul Emperor वृत्तिs, अलद्वारs &c. One verse Akbar. Composed in संवत् is 'अथ भोजनृपादीनां मतमत्र प्रका- 1665 (1608-9 A.D.). श्यते। रसो वै स इति श्रुत्या रस मडल or मद्लक said to be a. of वृत्ति in अलं. स. V. pp. 277- एक: प्रकीतितः ॥ 9th बिन्दु p. 107. Pr. K. M. series. 78 above. About 1125-1150 C माधुर्यरञ्जनी by a. Text A.D. and C. pr. by Nir. मङ्गल q. by काव्यमी. of राजशेखर मम्मट a. of काव्यप्रकाश and शब्द- (pp. 11, 14, 16, 20). V. p. व्याापारविचार. V.pp. 266-275. 144 above. Between 1050-1100 A.D. मङ्गलमयू खमालिका of वरदाचार्य. मम्मट appears to have writ- मञ्जीरध्वनिकोमल. ten another work सङ्गीतरत्ना- मतङ् an ancient authority on वलि; V.Annals,B.O.R.I. नाट्यशास्त्र and music. V. p. vol. 16 at pp. 131-139. 58 above. Before 750A.D. मर्मप्रकाश same as गुरुममंप्रकाश q.V. मथु रानाथशुकल, a. of c. on साहित्यदर्पण and कुवलयानन्द. मल्लराज-see अल्लराज above. मल्लिनाथ, a. of तरल, c. on एका- मवनोवय m. in कुट्टनीमत verse वली; V. pp. 292-93 above. 122 as an a. on कामशास्त्र मल्लिनाथ, son of जगन्नाथ. A. of along with वात्स्यायन and दत्तक वैमल्यविधायिनी, a c. on काव्या- and by राघवभट्ट on शाकुन्तल I. दर्श. मधुधारा c. on अलङ्कारमञ्जरी, by महादेव a. of भानुभावप्रकाशिनी, a.c. सुधीन्द्रयति. on रसमञ्जरी and रसोदधि, a.c. मधुमतिगणेश,a. of c. काव्यदर्पण on on रसतर्राङ्गणी. काव्यप्र. महिमभट्ट, a. of व्यक्तिविवेक and मधुमती a c. by रवि son of तत्त्वोक्तिकोश; V. pp. 248-257. रत्नपाणि on काव्यप्र. q. V. The first pr. in Tri. series मधुररसा a c. by कृष्णद्विवेदिन् on with c. of रुय्यक. Between काव्यप्र. 1020-1100 A. D. मनोघर alias रत्नपाणि a. of c. महेश्वर a. of आदर्श alias भावार्थ- काव्यदर्पण on काव्यप्र. चिन्तामणि c.on. काव्यप्र.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 429

महश्वर, a. of साहित्यसवस्व c. on यशास्वत् son of गापाल. A. of काव्या. सू. of वामन. साहित्यकौतूहल and its c. उज्ज्वल- माणिक्यचन्द्र a. of सक्कत, c. on पदा; ms. (I.O. cat.vol. III काव्यप्र. q. v .; composed in 1159-1160 A. D. Pr. in p. 337) copied in 1730 A.D.

Anan. and in Mysore. यशोवन्तयशोभूषण by रामकर्ण in praise of a prince of Raj- मातृगुप्ताचार्य an a. on dramatu- rgy m. by अ. भा., सागरनन्दिन्, putana. यामुन or यामुनेय a. of c. on भावप्रकाशन and others. V. काव्यादर्श. pp. 54-55 above. First half यायावरीय- same as राजशेखर, a. of 7th century. of काव्यमी. q.v. मानसिंह a. of साहित्यसार. रघुदेव a. of c. काव्यप्रकाशकारिकार्थ- मारुति, an a. on dramaturgy प्रकाशिका. He explains only m. by भावप्रकाशन p. 114; the कारिकाs which he regards same as आञ्जनेय. मार्जन c. on काव्यादर्श and also as composed by भरत. N. vol. X No. 4242. on सर. क. by हरिनाथ. रघुनाथ alias पण्डितराज c. of मुकुलभट्ट a. of अभिधावृत्तिमातृका. काव्यप्र. Ms. dated 1637 A.D. Pr. by Nir. V. p. 218 रघुनाथभूपालीय of कृष्णदीक्षित.Men- above. Last quarter of 9th tions काव्यप्रकाश and विद्यानाथ. cen. C साहित्यसाम्राज्य by सुमतीन्द्रयति मुवतावलि by नरसिंहसूरि son of गदाधर. A. of c. on काव्यादर्श. pupil of सुरीन्द्रपूज्यपाद.

मुग्धमेधाकर of अणुरत्नमण्डनगणि रङ्गशायिन् alias गुरिजालशायिन् a. ofc. आमोद on रसमञ्जरी. Vide or रत्न० on alankaras. About Dr. Raghvan's Intro. to 1461 A. D. शृङ्गारमञ्जरी (Hyderabad) C .- Vide B. O. R. I. mss. pp. 13-14. cat. vol. XII. p. 222. रतिकल्लोलिनी of सामराज. Compo- मुरारिमिश् m. as a c. of काव्यप्र. sed in 1719 A.D. V. Annals by भीमसेन. B.O.R. I. vol. X pp. 58-59. मेघाविन् (or मेवाविरुद्र) m.by भामह रतिमञ्जरी of कामदेव in 63 and नमिसाधु. V. pp. 63-64. stanzas. V. B. B. R. A. S. मोहनदास a. of रसोदधि. mss. cat. p. 48. यज्ञनारायणदीक्षित a. of साहित्यरत्ना- रतिरहस्य of कुक्कोक, in ten chap- कर. Aufrecht II. p. 108b. ters. Composed before 13th यज्ञश्वरदीक्षित (son of कोण्डुभट्ट) cen. Quoted by मल्लिनाथ. a. of अलक्कारराघव, अलक्कारसूर्यो- रत्नकण्ठ a. of सारसमुचय, c. on दय and साहित्यरत्नाकर q. v. काव्यप्र.q.V. यशस्कर a. of अलक्काररत्नाकर- रत्नदर्पण of रत्नश्वर, c. on सर- संनिबद्धदेवीस्तोत्र. स्वतीकण्ठाभरण. Pr. by Nir.

430 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

रत्नपाणि alias मनोधर son of रसकौमुदी Ano. On alankaras. अच्युत; a. of काव्यदर्पण, a com. V. Cal. Oriental Journal on काव्यप्र. q. V. vol. III. pp. 35-37 (Prof. रत्नभूषण a. of काव्यकौमुदी in 10 Gode . परिच्छेदs. A recent writer रसकौमुदी of श्रीकण्ठ. Combines of middle of 19th cen. साहित्य and सङ्गीत in 10 chap- रत्नमण्डन्गणि or अणुरत्न० a. of ters divided into पूर्वखण्ड मुग्धमेधाकर and जल्पकल्पलता. and उत्तरखण्ड. Ms. dated रत्नमाला of लक्ष्मणभट्ट. Deals with 1596. A. D. and work अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, प्रहेलिकाs &C. composed between 1569- रत्नशाण c. by ano.a. on प्रतापरुद्र- 1596 A. D. V. B. O. R. I. यशोभूषण, q. V. mss. cat. vol. XII. pp. 463- रत्नशोभाकर of कृष्णसूरि, c. on अल- 466. A. was patronized by क्ारमुक्तावलि, q. v. शत्रुशल्य) 1569-1608 A. D.) रत्नाकर-same as अलक्काररत्नाकर Jām (Sattarsal) of Navā- of शोभाकरमित्र. रत्नापण of कुमारस्वामिन्; c. on nagar. V. Annals, B. O. R. I. vol. 14 p. 129. प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण, q.v. रसकौस्तुभ of वेणीदत्त Cat. of रत्नेश्वर a. of रत्नदपण, com. on Mithila mss., vol. II p. सर.क,. who composed it at 44 No. 34 the request of king रामसिंहदेव. रमा by वैद्यनाथ पायगुण्ड, com. on रसगङ्गाधर of जगन्नाथपण्डितराज. V. pp. 321-324; flourised 1620- चन्द्रालोक q. V. 1665 A. D. रवि, a. of मधुमती, com. on काव्यप्र. C मर्मप्रकाश of नागेशभद्ट who

रसकल्पवल्ली of रामगोपालदास q. v. was supported by pri- nce राम of शृङ्गवेर. Pr. ( 16th cen. A. D.); quotes in K. M. Series. सङ्गीतदामोदर. रसगन्ध रसकलिका of रुद्रभट्ट. Vide Mad. Govt. mss. Library रसचन्द्र of घासीरामपण्डित. Com- posed in 1696 A. D. in four No. 2241, 3274 and Dr. chapters d~aling with नायक, Raghavan on /number of नायिका, अनुभावादिगण and रस. Rasas' pp. 53-54. रसचन्द्रिका of विश्वेश्वरभट्ट, son of रसकल्लोल of दीनकृष्णदास written लक्ष्मीधर; quotes अप्पय्य and in 1490 A. D., when गजपतिपुरु गोत्तम was reigning. जगन्नाथ; beginning of 18th

V. I. A. vol. I. p. 215. cen .; pr. in Kashi S. Series.

रसकौमुदी of घासीरामपण्डित. Des- रसतर्राङ्गणी of गोपालभट्ट son of हरिवंशभट्ट. This is a com. on cribes characteristics of the शृङ्गारतिलक of रुद्रभट्ट nine rasas. रसतर्राङ्गणी a.ofc. on रुद्रट's काव्या-

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 431

लक्कार. V. p. 156 above. in five सोपानs in संवत 1706 रसतर्राङ्गणी of नारायणभट्ट m. in c. (1649-1650 A. D.). He of विश्वनाथ चक्र्वर्तिन्on उज्ज्वल- नीलमणि (p.25). gives his own examples. Names कविकल्पलता as one of रसतर्राङ्गणी of भानुदत्त in 8 तरङ्गs. his sources. It quotes a verse from रसनिरूपण of नरहरि; m. by रत्नापण रसरत्नदीपिका which is found (p. 224). in V. 50 of the latter. V., रसपझ्माकर of गङ्गाधर. pp. 304-05 above. रसपारिजात of भानुदत्त. Edited by C by अयोध्याप्रसाद Badarinath Jha and pub- C by दिनकर. lished by Messrs Motilal C नू तनतरि by भगव्द्ट्ट Banarsidas, Lahore. C नौका by गङ्गारामजडि, son रसप्रकाश of कृष्णशर्म c. on काव्यप्र. of नारायण and pupil of रसप्रदीप of प्रभाकर, son of माधव, नीलकण्ठ. Composed in son of. रामेश्वर. Pr. in सरस्वती- 1742 A. D. Pr. at भवन series. Composed in Benares 1885. V. Jour- 1583 A. D. He wrote it at nal, Bom. Un. vol. XI the age of 19. part 2 pp. 84-89. रसबिन्दु Ano. Vide B.O.R. I. C रसिकरञ्जनी by वेणीदत्तभट्टा- mss. cat. vol. XII p. 246. चार्य, son of विश्वेश्वर. Com- Mentions रसमहोदघि. posed in 1553 A. D. रसमञ्जरी of भानुदत्त or भानुकर C रसिकरञ्जनी by गोपालभट्ट son son of गणश्वर or गणनाथ. V. of हरिवंशभट्ट C रसोदधि by गणेश; ms. dated pp. 304-5 above. Between 1450-1500. 1698 A.D. C आमोद by गुरिजालशायिन C रसोदधि by महादेव. C साहित्यसुधा or काव्यसुधा by alias रङ्गशायिन्. Severely criticises परिमल; first half नेमिसाह son of भीमसाह of 17th century A. D. महाराजाधिराज; B.O.R. I. C परिमल by शेषचिन्तामणि, son cat. XII pp. 234-235. of शेषनृसिंह and younger Probably दिनकर wrote it. brother of शषकृष्ण C सेतु or सेतुप्रबन्ध by जीवराज, guru of भट्टोजिदीक्षित; son of व्रजराजदीक्षित. Men- see Bhandarkar's R. for tions नौका of जडि. So 1883-84 later than 1750 A. D. pp. 365-366, ABORI vol. VI pp. 145- रसतराङ्गणी by रामानन्द son of 147, vol. 17 pp. 243-258; देवनाथ; vide. cat. of Mithila of middle of 16th cen. mss. vol. IIp. 51 No 37. Cप्रकाश by नागेशभट्ट काल रसदीघिका of विद्याराम composed (or काले) son of शिवभट्ट-

432 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Pr. in Benares S. Series. 1885. Second quarter of First quarter of 18th cen. 18th cen. C भानुभावप्रकाशिनी by महादेव. C रसिकरञ्जन of व्र जराजदीक्षित C छाया by himself. रसरत्नकोश of राजाधिराजकुम्भ or son of कामराज and father कुम्भकर्ण, in 11 chapters on of जीवराम. First half of rasas, नायक, नायिका, अभिनय. 18th cen. C रसिकरञ्जनी of गोपालभट्ट son This is part of his सङ्गातराज.

of हरिवंशभट्ट, द्राविड ब्राह्मण. Vide Annals, B. O. R. I. vol. 14 pp. 258-262 (Dr. C विकास or विलास by गोपाल alias वोपदेव, son of नृसिंह; Raghavan). About 1428- 1459 A. D. Mentions कीर्ति- 1572 A.D .; quotes प्रदीपकार, धराचार्य and अभिनवभरताचार्य. वत्सलाञ्छन, साहित्यदर्पण. C व्यङ्ग्यार्थकोमुदी of अनन्त son V. Regnauds' 'La Rhetori-

of त्र्यम्बक; Pr.in Benares S. que' p. 379.

Series. Composed in काशी रसरत्नप्रदीपिका or रसरत्नप्रदीप of

in संवत् 1692 i.e.1635-36A.D. अल्लराज or मल्लराज, son of king

C व्यङ्ग्यार्थकौमुदी or समञ्जसा हम्मीर. In 6 परिच्छेदs, prose

by विश्वेश्वर son of लक्ष्मीधर. and verse. Between 1250-

Vide N. IX. p. 122. 1350 A. D.Pr.in the भारतीय- विद्याभवन series, Bombay, ed. C व्यङ्ग्यार्थदीपिका by आनन्द- शर्मन्, son of त्र्यम्बक. by Dr. R. N. Dandekar.

C स्थूलतात्पर्यार्थ Quotes stanzas from कवि-

C by रमानाथवैद्य कक्कण, चण्डकौशिक, and भाव-

रसमञ्जरी of लक्ष्मीधर, son ofयक्षेश्वर- प्रकाशन and is quoted by कुम्भ

दीक्षित, grandson of तिम्मय and in रसिकप्रिया c. on गीतगोविन्द. रसरत्नहार of शिवराम त्रिपाठिन्, son pupil of कोण्डुभट्ट. Patronized by तिरुमलराज. Later he be- of कृष्णराम and grandson of त्रिलोकचन्द्र. In verses on रस, came a यति called रामानन्दाश्रम. भाव & C. रसमहार्णव of गोकुलनाथ, son of पीताम्बर. Lived and wrote C लक्ष्मीविहार by a. himself. Later than 1st quarter at Benares. Last quarer of 18th cen .; quotes of 17th and first of 18th cen. रसमीमांसा of काशीश्वर, guru of रसमञ्जरी and its टीका

विश्वेश्वर author of चमत्कार- व्यंग्यार्थकौमुदी. Pr. in K. M.

चन्द्रिका. V. Annals, B.O. R. series, 6th गुच्छ p. 124.

I. vol. 16 at pp. 139-140. रसरत्नावली of वीरेश्वरपण्डित son

About 1300 A.D. of लक्ष्मण. Deals chiefly with

रसमीमांसा of गङ्गारामजडि in 114 शृङ्गाररस and नायिकाड रसविलास of शुक्लभूदेव, son of verses. Pr. at Benares in सुकदेव. In four स्तबकड;

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 433

edited by Miss Premlatā Śanma and published by 1360 A. D.) is more likely to be correct in view of the Poona Oriental House, 1952, Srirangam plates of अनपोत Rs. five. The work borrows माधवनायक dated sake 1343 from रसगङ्गाधर; written (1421 A. D.). Vide J O I between 1660-1720 A. D. रसविवेक alias काव्यादर्श. Author's (Baroda) vol. VII pp. 25-33 for appreciation of name not known. He was this work on rasa. younger brother of सौजन्य- रसार्णवालक्वार of प्रकाशवर्ष ; V. Dr. भूषण. Tanjore cat. vol. IX Raghavan in J. O. R., Mad- p. 4074. Nów published by Sri Venkateśvara Institute, ras, vol. 8 pp. 267-276 and

Tirupati, 1956. on शृङ्गारप्रकाश vol. I p. 204. रसिकजीवन of गदाघरभट्ट, son of रससमुच्चय V.Aufrecht I p. 496b. गौरीपति; in 10 प्रबन्धs; quotes रससवस्व of भीमेश्वरभट्ट, son of numerous authors and रङ्गभट्ट works. Later than 1500 A.D. रससागर q. by मल्लिनाथ on शिशु- रसिकप्रकाश of देवनाथ, who wrote पाल० 15.89 for definition of also काव्यकोमुदी. राग. रससिन्धु of पौण्ड रीकरामेश्वर in 14 रसिकप्रिया of केशवदास under Bir-

रत्नs. Quotes दर्पग, रसतर्राङ्गणी, singh of Orccha (composed in 1601 A.D.). V. Dept. of भानुदत्त. Between 1500-1550. Letters, Cal Un. vol. XIII रससुधाकर m. in नाटकचन्द्रिका of रूपगोस्वामी and by मल्लिनाथ on pp. 1-34 and Peterson VI. 379. रघु. VI. 12. This is the same रसिकरञजन, c. on रसमञ्जरी by as the रसार्णत्रसुधाकर, as the व्रजराज son of कामराज, son of quotations establish. रससुधार्णव of आनन्ददास. सामराज, q. v.

रससेतु com. on रसतर्राङ्गणी by रसिकरञ्जिनी of वेणीदत्त, c. on रस-

जीवराज, q. v. तर्राङ्गणी; composed in 1553 A. D. रसामृतशष of रूपगोस्वामी. रसिकर्जिनी of गङ्गाधर, a c. on रसामृतसिन्धु रसाणव or रसार्णवसुधाकर of शिङ्ग- कुवलयानन्द. रसिकरज्जिनी of गोपालभट्ट, son of भूपाल, son of अनन्त (or अनपोत) हरिवंशभट्ट; a c. on रसमञ्जरी. Raja of Venkațagiri at रसिकरञ्जिनी of विश्वनाथ; c. on about 1330 A. D. Pr. in काव्यादर्श. the Tri. S. Series. शिङ्गभूपाल रसिकसञ्जीवनी of केशव, son of हरि- was called सर्वज्ञ. The date वंश. In 3 विलासs on नायिकाs, proposed by Mr. A. N. Krishna Ayyangar (1340- मान, प्रणय, शृङ्गार &c. Latter half of 16th cen.

434 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

रासकसवस्व cited in रासकाप्रया, C. by king कुम्भ on गीतगोविन्द; दपण q. v. रामचन्द्र a. of काव्यप्रकाशसार, C. v. pp. 51, 55. 56 of Nir. ed. on काव्यप्र. and अलक्कारमञ्जूपा, of 1949. रसोदधि by गणेश on रसतर्राङ्गणी; a c. on अल ड्कारचन्द्रिका. रामचन्द्रवीक्षित a. of शब्दभेदनिरूपण. ms. dated 1698 A. D. रसोदधि by महादेव on रसत्राङ्गणी. रामचन्द्रन्यायवागीश a. of काव्य- चन्द्रिका. रसोदधि of मोहनदास. V. Auf. रामचन्द्रयशोभूषण of कच्छपेश्वर- cat. of Bodleian mss. part I दीक्षित. Illustrations in honour p. 143 a. of बोमराज. रहस्य-citcd by मल्लिनाथ on किराता- र्जुनीय III. 60 and XIV. 41 रामचरण, a. of c. on साहित्यदर्पण. 1700 A.D. and by अलक्कारशेखर pp. 40 रामनाथविद्यावाचस्पति a. of c. and 83. रहस्यदीपिका of जयराम, also called रहस्यप्रकाश on काव्यप्र. First

तिलक. C on. काव्यप्रकाश. quarter of 17th cen. रामदेवचिरञ्जीवभ ट्टाचार्य a. of काव्य- रहस्यप्रकाश by जगदीश on काव्यप्र. विलास and शृङ्गारतटिनी. राकागम by विश्वेश्वरभट्ट, c. on रामपण्डित a. of रसकौमुदी. चन्द्रालोक q. V. राघव, a. of an अवचूरिटिप्पण on रामसुघीवर a. of अलङ्कारमुक्तावली,

काव्यप्र. q. v.

राघवर्च तन्य a. of. कविकल्पलता. रामसुब्रह्मण्य a. of अल क्वारशास्त्रसंग्रह. रामानन्द a. of रसतर्राङ्गणी. राजचूडामणिदीक्षित son of श्री- निवासदीक्षित and कामाक्षी; a. of रामानन्दाश्रम i. e. लक्ष्मीघरवीक्षित,

अल क्कारशिरोमणि (or-चूडामणि), a. of. अल क्कारमुक्तावलि and रस- मञ्जरी. काव्यदर्पण, चित्रमञ्जरीandmany रामानुज a. of कूटसन्दोह. other works. राजशखर, a. of काव्यमीमांसा. V. राहुल a. on dramaturgy cited by अभिनव, and by ना. ल. र. pp. 208-218; 900-925 A. D. को .; V. p. 54 above. राजशखर, a. of अलक्कारमकरन्द. रीतिवृत्तिलक्षण by विट्ठलेश्वर or About 1760-1772 A.D. विट्ठलदीक्षित. राजहंसोपाध्याय a.of a c.on वाग्भटा- रुचक-Vide. रुय्यक लङ्कार. Ms. dated 1430 A.D. रुचिनाथमिश्र m. by प्रभाकर in राजानन्द a. of a c. on काव्यप्र. रसप्रदीप (pp.6, 7, 9,). रामकर्ण a. of यशोवन्तयशोभूषण q. V. रूचिमिश्र m. as a. of c. on काव्यप्र. रामकवि or रामशर्मन् a. of नायिका- दर्पण or-वर्णन. by भीमसेन.

रामकृष्ण a. of c. भावार्थ or कवि- ब्रट, a of काव्यालक्वार V. pp.

नन्दिनी on काव्यप्र. q. V. 151-160 above. प्रभट्ट a. of शृङ्गारतिलक V. pp. रामचन्द्र a. of नाटकद्पण or नाट्य- 156-160 above.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 435

रय्यक a. of अलक्कारसवस्व and लक्ष्मीनायभट्ट a. of दुष्कराचत्रप्रका- several other works. V. pp. शिका a c. on सर. क. About 275-286 above. 1600 A.D. रपगोस्वामी a. of उज्ज्वलनीलमणि. V. pp. 310-315 above. लघ्वल क्वारचन्द्रिका of देवीदत्त, a. of c. on कुवलयानन्द. रपनारायण, a. of अलक्कारस्फुरण. लक्षणदीपिका of गौरनार्य son of लादभास्कर or भास्कर, a. of

आयंप्रभु, also called प्रबन्धदीपिका साहित्यदीपिका ..

or पदार्थदीपिका in 6 प्रकाशs; लीला, a com. on. काव्यप्रकाश by भवदेव. quotes साहित्यचूडामणि. Mad. लोकनाथ, a.of c. on अल क्वारकोस्तुभ. cat. vol. 22, No. 12951. लक्षणदीपिका of गौरनार्य, son of लोचन, a c. on ध्वन्यालोक by

अय्यलुमन्त्रिन्;quotes कविकण्ठपाश, अभिनवगुप्त. V. pp. 204-207 above. चमत्कारचन्द्रिका, साहित्यचन्द्रोदय, साहित्यरत्नाकर This seems to C कौमुदी of king उदयोत्तुङ्ग. V. pp. 207-208 above. be a different work from About 1480 A. D. Pr. the preceding. V. ibid No. at Madras by M. M. 12952. Prof. Kuppuswami. लक्षणमालिका of नरसिंहाचार्य on नायक, काव्य, रस, अलक्कार and लोचनरोचनी of जीवगोस्वामिन्; a. of c. on उज्ज्वलनीलमणि. V. pp. नाटक. 314-315. Flourished between C अलक्कारेन्दुशेखर by श्रीशेलनृ- 1470-1554 A. D. सिंहकवि. लोल्लट, a of a com. on भरतनाट्य- लक्षणरत्नावली of अप्यय्यदीक्षित. शास्त्र. V. pp. 50-51. Flouri- Cprobably by अप्पय्य him- shed between 800-840 A. D. self. V. Tanjore cat. vol. IX pp. 4079-4086 and लौहित्यभट्टभोपाल or simply भट्ट-

J. O. R. (Madras) IV. गोपाल a. of साहित्यचूडामणि. Earlier than beginning of 242-244. 15th cen. लक्ष्मणभट्ट a. of. रत्नमाला. वकोक्तिजीवित of कुन्तक. V. pp. लक्ष्मीघर, son of यज्ञेश्वर and 225-236. grandson of तिम्मय and bro- वकोक्तिजीवितकार i.e. कुन्तक. V. ther and pupil of कोण्डुभट्ट; a. of अल ङ्वारमुक्तावली and रस- pp. 225-236. वत्सवर्मन् or वत्सलाञ्छन a. of सार- मञ्जरी. बोधिनी, c. on काव्यप्र. q.v. लक्ष्मीघर, a. of भरतशास्त्रग्रन्थ. V. Annals, B. O. R. I. vol. वनमाला of गङ्गानन्द, son of the पौत्री

15 p. 241-42 (Prof. Gode); of भानु; vide cat. of Mithila Mss. vol. II p. 62 No. 44. composed about 1550-1572. वरदाचार्य a. of उत्प्रेक्षामञ्जरी anu A.D. मङ्गलमयूखमालिका.

436 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

बरहाच m. as an ancient writer C by समयसुन्दर, pupil of on Poetics along with काश्यप सकलचन्द्र; by the c. हृदयंगमा on काव्यादर्श. composed at Ahmedabad in 1636 A.D. वललभ देव, son of राजानक आनन्ददेव, and called परमार्थचिह्न, a. of C अवचूरि by unknown a. C by कृष्णशर्म. c. on रुद्रट's काव्यालङ्कार. V. p. C ज्ञानप्रमोदिका by वाचनाचार्य 155 above. Between 900- ज्ञानप्रमोदगणि, composed in 930 A. D. वल्लभभट्ट a. of अलक्कारकोमुदी. संवत् 1681 (1624-25 A.D.). वाग्भट, son of नेमिकुमार, a. of वसन्तराज, king of कुमारगिरि, a. of काव्यानुशासन. V. pp. 295-6 a नाट्यशास्त्र called वसन्तराजीय. above; 14th cen. वसन्तराजीय, a नाट्यशास्त्र of वसन्त- वाचस्पति a. of a c. on काव्यप्र. राज. Not later than 1400 वात्स्यायन, a. of अलक्कारसूत्र q.v. . A.D. वाजचन्द्र, a of c. on चन्द्रालोक. वाग्भट, son of सोम, a. of वाग्भटा- वादिजङ्कल a. of c. on काव्यादर्श. लड्ार. V. pp. 286-7 above. Flourished in first half of वामन, a. of काव्यालक्कारसूत्र with वृत्ति by himself. V.pp.139- 12th cen. 147. वाग्भटाल क्ार-Vide the preced- वासुकि m. as a writer on dra- ing. C by आदिनाथ or जिनवर्धन maturgy by भावप्रकाशन (pp- 37, 47, 69) and रत्नापण (P. who was a priest of खरतर- 122). The verse (नानाद्रव्यौ० गच्छ in 1405-1419 A. D. .. नयः सह ) cited as वासुकि's Pr. in ग्रन्थमाला, Bombay; by the भावप्रकाशन p. 37 is ms. copied in संवत् 1610 (1553-4 A.D.). B. O. R. I. नाट्यशास्त्र VI. 39 (G.O.S. vol. I p. 294). mss. cat. 12 p. 323. C by सिंहदेवगणि. Pr. in K.M. विजयवर्णी a. of शृद्वारार्णवचन्द्रिका. V. N. C. C. p. 69a. sreries. C समासान्वयटिप्पण by क्षेमहंस- विजयानन्द a. of c. on काव्यादर्श. विठ्ठलेश्वर or विट्ठलदीक्षित, also गणि. called अग्निकुमार, a. of रीति- C विवरण by गणेश, son of अनन्तभट्ट; ms. copied in वृत्तिलक्षण and शृङ्गाररसमण्डन. A. was son of the famous 1713 A.D. वल्लभाचार्य and was born C by राजहंसोपाध्याय, pupil of in 1515 A. D. Author of जिनतिलकसूरि; ms. copied numerous works. V. in 1430 A. D. (V. Aufrecht's cat. I. p. 572 a Bhandarkar's R.for 1883-4 and b. pp. 156, 279.). Between 1350-1400 A. D. विदग्धमुखमण्डन of धर्मदाससूरि (a Bauddha) in four परिच्छेदs

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 437

dealing with enigmatology बिनयचन्द्र a. of काव्यशिक्षा. and चित्रकाव्य. Pr. several विमर्शिनी c. of जयरथ on अलं. स. times (such as in Haeberlins' विरपाक्ष a. of c. शारदशवरी on anthology and Nir.). M. by चन्द्रालोक. रत्नापण p. 122, and by शार्ङ्ग- विवेक c. on. कविकल्पलता. धरपद्धति. Earlier than the विश्वनाथ a. of c. on काव्यादर्श. middle of 11th cen. Dr. विश्वनाथकविराज, son of चन्द्रशेखर; Raghavan points out in a. of साहित्यदर्पण and a. of c. Prof. Gode vol. that the दर्पण on काव्यप्र .. V. pp.296- शृङ्गारप्रकाश mentions it by 304. Between 1300-1384 name. A.D. C by जिनप्रभसूरि. His known विश्वनाथचक्रव्तिन् a. of c. आनन्द- dates are 1293 and 1309 चन्द्रिका on उज्ज्वलनीलमणि. A. D. Completed in śaka 1618 C by आत्माराम or स्वात्माराम (1694 A. D.). योगीन्द्र,. C विद्वन्मनोहरा by ताराचन्द्र .. विश्वनाथ a. of साहित्यसुधासिन्धु; 17th cen. C वीटिका of गौरीकान्त भट्टाचार्य. विश्वनाथ a. of c. रसिकरज्जिनी on G श्रवणभूषण by नरहरिभट्ट. काव्यादर्श. C सुबोधिनी by त्रिलोचन. विश्वेश्वरपण्डित, son of लक्ष्मीघर; C by शिवचन्द्र. C by दुर्गादास, son of वासुदेव. a. of अल द्वारकुलप्रदीप, अलक्कार- कौस्तुभ,अलक्कारमुक्तावली,कवीन्द्र- C अवचूणि. कर्णाभरण, काव्यतिलक, रसचन्द्रिका विद्याचकवतिन् a. of commentar- and व्यङ्गयार्थकौमुदी on रस- ies on मम्मट, one on रुय्यक, मञ्जरी. His रसचन्द्रिका (p.90) of a भरतसंग्रह and probably mentions a शृङ्गारमञ्जरी as of रसमीमांसा. Vide Annals, his work. 18th cen. B. O. R.I. vol. 16 at p. 140; विश्वेश्वर alias गागाभट्ट, son of about 14th century. दिनकर, son of रामकृष्ण; a. of विद्याघर a. of एकावली. V. pp. c. राकागम on चन्द्रालोक; 292-293 above. Between flourished 1620-1685 A. D. 1285-1325 A.D. विषमपदी c. on रसगङ्गाधर. विद्यानाथ a. of प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण विषमपदी c. of शिवराम त्रिपाठिन् pp. 293-295. First quarter on काव्यप्र. of 14th cen. विष्णुदास, son of महादेव; a. of विद्याभूषण a. of साहित्यकौमुदी c. कविकौतुक and शिशु प्रबोध काव्या- on काव्यप्रकाशकारिकाs. लक्कार. विद्याराम a. of रसदीर्घिका. विस्तारिकाc. of परमानन्दचक्वर्ती on विद्वन्मनोहरा by ताराचन्द्र, c. on काव्यप्र. विदग्ध मुखसण्डन. वीरतर्राङ्गणी of चित्रधर; deals

438 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

with गाम्भायदगुणs. राातऽ 1044 and 1. O. Cat., vol. and दोषs; cat. of III, No. 1151; these give Mithila mss. vol. II p. 65 the above pedigree the उदा- no. 46. वीरनारायण a. of साहित्यचिन्तामणि. हरणचन्द्रिका was composed in संवत् 1740 i. e. in 1683-84 A. वीरेश्वर a. of. रसरत्नावलि. D. (I. O. Cat. vol. III. No. वृत्तिदीपिका of कृष्ण or जयकृष्णमौनिन्. वृत्तिवार्तिक of अप्पय्य दीक्षित; vide 1151 p. 322 gives this date). वंदनाथ पायगुण्ड, a. of c. रमा on p. 317; 1550-1620 A. D. चन्द्रालोक and of a c. called Pr. in K. M. series. अलक्कारचन्द्रिका on कुवलयानन्द. वन्वावनचन्द्र तर्कालकगर, a. of दीधितिप्रकाशिका c. on अलक्कार- In the Gujarati Press edition (1939) of रमा, his parentage कोस्तुभ. वे कूटनसिहकवि, a of अल क्कारेन्दुशेखर is not mentioned; while in Jivananda's edition of the c. on लक्षणमालिका. वेडटसूरि a.of नौका, c. on साहित्य- अलक्कारचन्द्रिका, वंद्यनाथ is des- cribed as the son of रामभट्ट. रत्नाकर. वेडूटाचार्य, son of अण्णायाचार्य of I, believe that the two Vaidyanāthas are different, श्रीशल family. a. of अलङ्वार- though some mss. make a कौस्तुभ. confusion between the two. वेकूटाचलसूरि a. of c. on काव्यप्र. वेडुपय्यप्रधानa. of अलक्कारमणिदर्पण. Aufrecht (II p.146a) makes

बेङ्गलसूरि a. o बुधरञ्जनी on the confusion worse by remarking 'वंद्यनाथ पायगुण्ड of चन्द्रालोक. वेचाराम a. of c. on कविकल्पलता. the तत्सत् family'. पायगुण्ड is a

वेणीवत्तशर्मन् a. of अलक्कारचन्द्रोदय well-known surname in

and c. रसिकरञ्जनी on रस- महाराष्ट्र. Peterson's R. II

तर्राङ्गणी. About 1583 A.D. p. 108 and Cal. S. College

वैदयनायतत्सत् son of रामचन्द्र and mss. cat. vol. VII p. 54 have the colophon 'धर्मशास्त्र- grandson of विट्ठल; a. of c. पारावारीणतत्सद्विट्ठलात्मज' &c. प्रभा on the काव्यप्रकाशप्रदीप of वंमल्यविधायिनी by मल्लिनाथ son गोविन्दठक्कुर andof the उदाहरण- चन्द्रिका explaining the illus- of जगन्नाथ ; a c. on काव्यादर्श. वोपदेव another name of गोपाल, trations in the काव्यप्रकाश. The K.M.ed. of प्रभा clearly son of नृसिंह, a of c. विकास

ascribes it to वद्यनाथतत्सत्. (or विलास) on रसमञ्जरी;

For the उदाहरणचन्द्रिका, vide composed in 1572 A.D.

Peterson's R. II. p. 108, Cal. व्यक्तिविवेक of महिमभट्ट. V. pp. 248-256 above. Sanskrit College mss. Cat. Between

VII. 54, Ulwar Cat. No. 1020-1100 A. D. Pr. Tri. s. S.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 439

C व्याख्या or विचार by the ibid, pp. 4092-94 under शाह- a. of the अलं. स. Pr. महाराज. Tri. S. S. व्यङ्ग्यार्थकौमुदी, c. of अनन्तपण्डित, शब्दव्यापारविचार of मम्मट; vide

son of त्र्यम्बकपण्डित, on रस- p. 274 above. Pr. in Nir. शब्दार्थचिन्तामणि of चिदम्बरकबि. मञ्जरी; composed in 1635 शब्दाल क्कारमञ्जरी. A. D. व्यङ्ग्यार्थकौमुदी or समञ्जसा of शम्भुनाथ a. of अलक्कारलक्षण.

विश्वेश्वर, son of लक्ष्मीधर; a. of शरच्चन्द्रिका of सुब्रह्मण्यशास्त्रिन्. शरदागम, c. of प्रद्योतनभट्टाचार्य on c. on रसमञ्जरी. V. N. vol. चन्द्रालोक; v. p. 292 above, IX p. 122. व्यङ्ग्यार्थदीपिका c. of आनन्दशर्मन, Composed about 1580 A.D. Pr. in Kashi S. S. son of त्र्यम्बक, on the रसमञ्जरी. शशधर a. of किरणावली. व्यास m.as an author on rasa शाण्डिल्य m. in रसार्णवसुधाकर p.8 and dramaturgy by भाव- प्रकाशन (pp. 55, 69. 251). as an a.on. नाट्यशास्त्र. शातकणि q. as an author on व्रजराजदीक्षित a. ofc. रसिकरञ्जन dramaturgy by ना. ल. र. को on रसमञ्जरी शकलीगर्भ m. by अभिनवगुप्त. V. (line 1101 on सूत्रधार). शारदश्वरी by विरूपाक्ष, c. on चन्द्रा- p. 49 above. About 800- लोक. 840 A. D. शारदातनय a. of भावप्रकाशन, शङ्कुक, m. by अभिनवगुप्त as ex- 1175-1250 A. D. Pr. in plaining the Rasa-sūtra in G. O. S. नाट्यशास्त्र. V. pp. 50-51 शाहराजीय by लक्ष्मणकवि; Illustra- above. tions refer to शाहराज of शाङखधर a. of कविकर्पटिका; court Tanjore (1684-1710). poet of king गोविन्द of शिङ्गभूपाल, a. of रसाणवसुधाकर, कान्यकुब्ज (1113-1143 A. D.). Kathavate's Report (for q. v. and नाटकपरिभाषा; about 1330 A. D. 1891-95) No. 467 (pp. 15 शिलालिन् a. of नटसूत्र, acc. to and 124) reads name as पाणिनि; v. p. 335 above. शङ्कचर. शब्दभेदनिरूपण of रामचन्द्रदीक्षित; शिवचन्द्र a. of c. on विदग्धमुख- मण्डन. vide Tanjore cat. IX, pp. शिवनारायणदास, son of दुर्गादास; 4090-91. a. of com. on काव्यप्र. शब्दभेदनिरूपण of वे ङ्टकृष्ण; vide शिवराम त्रिपाठिन्, son of कृष्णराम Tanjore cat. IX. pp. 4091- 92; under king शाहेन्द्र of Tan- and grandson of त्रिलोकचन्द्र;

jore (1684-1710 A. D.). a. of अल क्कारसमुद्गक, रसरत्नहार, लक्ष्मीविहार, विषमपदी (c. on शब्दभेदनिरूपण of नारायण; vide काव्यप्र. About the begi-

440 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

nning of 18th cen. From शृङ्गारप्रकाश of भाज. Vide pp. extract 236 in Ulwar cat. 259-60 above. Ruled 1005- it appears that he composed 1054 A. D. over 30 works. शितिकण्ठविबोधन alias निदर्शन, of शृङ्गारभेदप्रदीप of हरिहर on the ten avasthas of विफ्रलम्भ, q. by राजानकानन्द; a. c. on काव्यप्र; रसचन्द्रिका p. 55. composed in 1665 A.D. शुङ्गारमञ्जरी of विश्वेश्वर; q. by शिवनारायणवास a. of c. on his own रसचन्द्रिका (p.90). काव्यप्र. Beginning of 17th शृङ्गारमञ्जरी of अजितसेन in three cen. शिशुप्रबोधाल द्वार of विष्णुदास, son of chapters and 128 stanzas dealing with दोषs, गुणs and माधव. Vide Auf. II p. 156b अर्थालक्कारs. Latter half of which says that the Floren- 10th cen. tine ms. contains only chap. शृङ्गारमञ्जरी of अकबरसाहि; vide 6 and 7. शिशुप्रबोधाल द्वार of पुञ्जराज, son above अकबरसाहिशृ० शृङ्गारमण्डन of मण्डन, prime mini- of जीवनेन्द्र .. शुभविजयर्गणि a. of परिमल, c. on ster of a king of Malva; composed between 1400- काव्यकल्पलता. 1448 A. D. शृङ्गारकौस्तुभ. शृङ्गारमाला by सुखलाल, son of शृंङ्गारचन्द्रोदय q.in प्रस्तावचिन्ता- बाबूराय; in 3 विरचनs; written मणि. in संवत् 1801. Ulwar cat. शृङ्गारतटिनी of चिरञ्जीवभट्टाचार्य. No. 1083, extract 230. First half of 18th cen. शृङ्गाररत्नाकर. शुङ्गारतर्राङ्गणी of श्रीनिवासाचार्य. शृङ्गारतिलक of रुद्रभट्ट. Vide pp. शृङ्गाररसमण्डन or शृङ्गारमण्डन of विठ्ठलेश्वर, son of वल्लभाचार्य, 156-160 above. Flourished the famous religious teacher; sometime between 950 and in 10 उल्लासs. Author was 1110 A. D. born in 1515 A. D. B. O. C रसतर्राङगणी by गोपालभट्ट, son R. I. mss. cat. XII. pp. of हरिवंशभट्ट. 350-351. शृङ्गारदर्पण of पद्मसुन्दर. Vide- शृङ्गाररसविलास of देवदत्त अकबरसाहिशृङ्गारदर्पण above. शृङ्गारदीपिका of भानुदत्त. Whether शृङ्गारलता of सुखदेवमिश्र.

the same as the a. of रस- शृङ्गारविधि.

मञ्जरी is a question. शृङ्गारसरसी of भावमिश्र, son of भटकमिश्र. शृङ्गारदीपिका of वेम, son of पेद्दको- मटि. Vide E.I. vol. XI at p. शृङ्गारसार of वे क्कटनारायण दीक्षित of गोडवर्तिकुल, son of कामेश्वर. 315. In six उल्लासs; mentions his शृङ्गारपवन. own fuller work. He is said

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 441

to have composed works in श्यामराज same as सामराजabove. eight languages. श्रवणभूषण by नरहरिभट्ट. शृङ्गारसारावलि of वे क्कटनारायण. श्रीकण्ठ, a. of रसकोमुदी; ms. Vide the preceding. copied in संवत 1652. शृङ्गारसारिणी of चित्रधर. श्रीकरमिश् a. of अलक्कारतिलक. शृङ्गारसारोदधि of सुधाकर पौण्डरी- श्रीकृष्णशमन्, a. of रसप्रकाश, c. on कयाजिन्. काव्यप्र. शृङ्गारहार of बलदेव son of केशव; श्रीष रसान्धिविग्रहिक, a of विवेक ms. dated संवत् 1845. c. on काव्यप्र. शृङ्गारादिरस (Incomplete) inN. धीनिवासदीक्षित a. of अलक्कार- vol. II. No. 606. कौस्तुभ, काव्यदर्पण, काव्यसारसंग्रह, शृङ्गारामृतलहरी by सामराजदीक्षित, and साहित्यसूक्ष्मसरणि, q.v. He son of नरहरिबिन्दुपुरन्दर. Pr.in was probably the father of काव्यमालागुच्छ 14. He quotes तं. उ. II. 7 रसो 'व'; in last राजचूडामणिदीक्षित. श्रीपाद q. by the अलक्कारशेखर of para before the Index; केशवमिश्र (pp.4, 5, 6, 23, 27, on रस, सात्त्विकभावs &C. He wrote a drama श्रीदामचरित 32, 72 and 81). On p. 48

in 1681 A.D. and appears of the same work it is said that कविकल्पलता follows श्रीपाद. to be different from सामराज (who does not give his श्रीवत्सलाञछन or श्रीवत्सवर्मन् a. of सारबोधिनी c. on काव्यप्र. q. parentage) that wrote रति- in the रसगङ्गाधर (p.39). He कल्लोलिनी in 1719 A. D. Vide also wrote काव्यपरीक्षा (q.v.) Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. and काव्यामृत. X.pp. 158-159 (Prof.Gode). शृङ्गारार्णवचन्द्रिका by विजयर्वणिन्. शरीवत्साङ्कमिश्र a. of यमकरत्नाकर; 10th cen. शेष m. in काव्यमी. p. 1 (p. 1 श्रीविद्याचकवर्ततिन् V. under विद्या- above). चक्रवर्तिन्. शेषचिन्तामणि, a. of परिमल, com. शरीहर्ष or हर्ष a. of a वार्तिक on on रसमञ्जरी of भानुदत्त ; N. vol. भरत's नाट्यशास्त्र; v. pp. 59-60 IX No. 3115 bears the date above. संवत् 1609 (1552-3) A. D. श्रुतानुपालनी of वादिजङ्कल, a. C. which appears to be the on काव्यादर्श. V. p. 125 above. date of composition. श्रुतिरञ्जिनी of नारायणपण्डित. शोभाकरमित्र author of अलक्कार- श्लोकदीपिका or उदाहरणदीपिका of रत्नाकर, q. V. गोविन्दठक्कुर on काव्यप्र. शोद्धोदनि a. of अलङ्कारसूत्र includ- श्लोकदीपिका of जनार्दन व्यास, on ed in अल ङ्कारशेखर of केशवमिश्र. काव्यप्र. श्यामदेव m. by काव्यमी. pp.11, शवेतारण्यनारायण a. of सहृदयतोषिणी 13, 17. a.c.on औचित्यविचारचर्चा.

442 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

षट्पदानन्द (विषमपदव्याख्यान) by सदाशिवदीक्षित a. of. बालरामवमं- नागशभट्ट, a c. on कुवलयानन्द यशोभूषण,, q. V. q. v. षट्सहस्त्रीकृत् i.e. भरत's नाट्यशास्त्र. समयसुन्दर a, of c. on वाग्भटालक्कार

Vide धनिक on दशरूप IV. 2. q. v.

सक्कत c. of माणिक्यचन्द्र on काव्यप्र. समयसुन्दरगणि a. of अष्टलक्षार्थी alias अर्थरत्नावली. No. 1353 q. v. V. p. 274. in Kathavate's Report सत-c. of रुय्यक on काव्यप्र. q.V. V. p. 279. (1891-95). Composed in संवत् 1646 (1589-90 A.D.) सङ्गीतदामोदर of शुभक्कर, son of श्रीवर कविचक्र्रवतिन्; 15th cen. at लाभपुर (Lahore).

A. D. Edited by Principal समुद्रबन्ध a. of c. on अलं. स. Pr. in Tri. S. S. About 1300 Gaurinath Sastri and Dr. A. D. Govindagopal Mukhopadh- संप्रदायप्रकाशिनी (बृहती टीका) c. on yaya and published in काव्यप्र. by विद्याचऋवर्तिन् q. v. the Cal. Sanskrit College समञ्जसा or व्यंग्याथकौमुदी by Research Series, 1960; in विश्वेश्वर a. of c. on रसमञ्जरी five स्तबकड; Intro- of भानुदत्त. duction pp. 13-40, text pp. समासान्वयटिप्पण, c. on वाग्भटाल- 1-124 and pp. 125-136 sour- द्वार by क्षेमहंसगणि. ses and references. Deals सरसामोद by अच्युतरायमोडक, c. on with भाव, हाव, अनुभाव, नायिका, साहित्यसार, q.v. नायक and dramaturgy, रस, सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण of भोज. Vide besides सङ्गात. सङ्गीतरत्नाकर of निःशङ्ध शार्ङ्गदेव pp. 257-264 above. C by. आजड who was patronized by यादव सिङ्कण (1210-1247 A. D.). C रत्नदर्पण by रत्नेश्वर. 14th

Pr. by Ānan. cen. Vide p. 263 above.

C कलानिधि by चतुरकल्लिनाथ a (3 परिच्छेदs in K. M. edition). resident of विजयनगर. Pr. Cof जगद्धर (on 4th परिच्छेद in Anan. Earlier than in K. M. edition). 1608 A. D. C सुधाकर of सिंहभूपाल. Cby भट्टनृसिंह. Vide Dr. Pr. Ragahvan on Bhoja's (in part) by Adyar Śṛńgāra-prakāśa vo. I Library. About 1330 pp. 418 ff. particularly A. D. ञ्जीवनी or सर्वस्वञ्सजीवनी C. pp. 432-434.

by विद्याचऋ्रवर्ततिन् on अलं. स. C मार्जन by हरिनाथ. C दुष्करचित्र प्रकाशिका by लक्ष्मी- Before the end of 14th cen. नाथभट्ट. Before the middle सदल क्वारचन्द्रिका. of 17th cen.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS 443

C by. हरिकृष्ण व्यास. 287 No. 616. सरस्वतीतोर्थ, a. of c. बालचित्तानु- साहित्यकल्पवल्ली of अनन्त in four रञ्जनी on काव्यप्र. q. .V. गृच्छs. सवश्वराचार्य, vide under साहित्य- साहित्यकल्लोलिनी of भाष्यकाराचार्य, सार. descendant of वरदगुरु; based सहदव a. of c. on काव्याल क्वारसूत्र on काव्यप्र. and रसाणवसुवाकर. of वामन. भाष्यकार means रामानुज. सहत्त्राक्ष m. by the काव्यमी. p.1 साहित्यकुतूहल of रवुनाथ; on चित्र- (p. l above). काव्य; protege of queen सहृदयलीला of रुय्यक. Pr.in K.M. Dīpābaī of Tanjore; bet- series and by Pischel. ween 1675-1712 A. D. V. About 1125-1150 A. D. Journal Bom. Un. vol. X सहृदयालोक-the same as ध्वन्यालोक part 2 pp. 132 ff. q. v. साहित्यकौतूहल of यशस्विकवि, son सागरनन्दिन् vide नाटक-लक्षणरत्न- of गोपाल; in verse. कोश. C उज्जवलपदा by यशस्विकवि. सामराजदीक्षित a. of रतिकल्लोलिनी, Ms. copicd in 1730 q. v. V. Annals B. O. R. I. A. D. vo. X. pp. 158-159. साहित्यकौमुदी of विद्याभूषण, com- सामराजदीक्षित a. of शृङ्गारामृतलहरी ments only on the कारिकाs in

सायण a. of अलक्कारसुधानिधि, q. v काव्यप्र. Pr.in K.M. series. C कृष्णानन्दिनी by a. q. v. साहित्यचन्द्र a. of c. on कारिकाड सारबोधिनी a of c. on काव्यप्र. by in काव्यप्र. which are here वत्सलाञ्छन. ascribed to भरतमुनि. V. Ul- सारसमुच्चय a. of c. on. काव्यप्र.by war cat. No. 1046 extract रत्नकण्ठ, q. V. 218. साहितीसार of सीताराम son of साहित्यचन्त्रिका वे ङ्टराम. साहित्य चन्द्रोद cited in लक्षणदी- साहित्यकण्टकोद्धार Author's name पिका. Madras Cat. vol.22at not given, son of नारायण. V. Triennial cat. of mss. p. 8695. साहित्यचिन्तामणि of वीरनारायण in Madras, vol. VI, part 1 No. 5068 p. 6935. seven परिच्छेदs; on ध्वनि,

साहित्यकलिका by शङ्करमिश्र; शब्दार्थ, ध्वनिभेद; गुणीभूतव्यंग्य, दोष, गुण, अलङ्कार. वोरनारायण vide cat. of Mithila Mss. is the king पेदकोमटिवेम. He vol. II p. 71 No. 53. साहित्यकल्पद्गुम An encyclopaedia is only. the alleged author, being praised in the work of rhetorical comments. V. Mitra in Bikaner cat. p. as प्रतापरुद्र is praised in प्रताप- रुद्रीय. V. Madras cat. vol.

444 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

44 NO. 12905 pp. 8/08-10; close of 14th cen. In the साहित्यमुक्तावाल

Tanjore cat. vol. IX No. साहित्यरत्नाकर of धर्मसूरि of धर्मसुघी

5309 p. 4100 the same work son of पर्वतनाथ in ten tarangas;

is described as having 13 ridicules विद्यानाथ. About

परिच्छेदs. 16th cent. A.D. V. JBBRAS.

साहित्यचूडामणि of. भट्टगोपाल. Pr. mss. cat. p. 52; N. I. A.

Tri. S. S .; mentions प्रदीपकृत्, vol. II pp. 428-441.

साहित्यदर्पण, श्रीपाद. He com- C मन्दर by. मल्लादिलक्ष्मणसूरि. C नौका by वेड्कटसूरि son of posed it at 19 in 1640 संवत्. साहित्यदर्पण of विश्वनाथ कविराज. लक्ष्मणसूरि.

V. pp. 296-304 above. Bet- साहित्यविलास of चतुर्भुज; vide cat. of Mithila Mss. vol. II, ween 1300-1380 A. D. Pr. p. 81. at Nir. C लोचन by अनन्तदास, son of साहित्यसंग्रह of शम्भुदास q. V.

विश्वनाथ himself. V. p. 304 साहित्यसर्वस्व of महेश्वर; is it माहेश्वर सुबुद्धिमिश्र ? This is a above. Pr. C प्रभा by गोपीनाथ. c. on वामन's काव्या. सूत्र. V.

C by मथुरानाथशुवल. Aufrecht's Cat. of Bodleian

C by रामचरण written in mss. No. 488 p. 207 b (1864

1700 A. D. Pr. by Nir. A. D.).

C विज्ञप्रिया by महेश्वरभट्ट. Pr. साहित्यमाम्राज्य of सुमतीन्द्रयति. It is

V. p. 304 above. a. c. on रघुनाथभूपालीय of

साहित्यदीपिका of भास्करमिश्र ; a. of कृष्णदीक्षित. साहित्यसार of अच्युतरायमोडक q.v .; c. on काव्यप्र, also called in 12 रत्नs; finished in saka काव्याल क्काररहस्यनिबन्ध; q. by प्रदीप on pp. 25, 204,308, 1753 (1831 A. D.); 1313

329; also called लाटभास्कर- verses.

मिश्र. Earlier than 1500 A.D. C सरसामोद by a. Text and

साहित्यबोध of सीताराम. c. pr. Nir.

साहित्यमञजूषा of दाजी, son of साहित्यसार of मानसिंह. साहित्यसार of सर्वेश्वराचार्य in 6 बल्लाल from सङ्गमेश्वर, Ratna- giri District; in 455 verses; prakāśas. Pr. in Journal of

composed in 1825 A. D. Travancore Un. vol. 2 No.

C कुञ्चिका by son of Baji- 2 pp. 1-16.

panta. V. J. B. B. R. साहित्यसुधा or काव्यसुधा of नेमिसाह,

A. S. cat. p. 52. a. of c. on रसतरङ्गणी.

साहित्यमीमांसा of रुय्यक. V. pp. साहित्यसुधासिन्धु of विश्वनाथ, son of

280-282 above; 1125-1150 त्रिमल्लदेव, in eight tarangas;

A. D. Pr. in Tri. S. S. Original home धारासुर on the गोदावरी, migration to

INDEX OF AUTHERS AND WORKS 445

Benares; work written in Benares in संवत् 1649; V. वामन's काव्यालक्कारसूत्र and

Ulwar Cat. extract 235. cited as a commentator of

साहित्यसूक्ष्मसरणि of श्रीनिवासदीक्षित. काव्यप्र. by नरसिंहठक्कुर, रत्नकण्ठ

साहित्याब्धि of वेणीदत्त. V. Tanjore and भीमसेन. V. Peterson's 2nd R. p. 17 (where सुबुद्धि- cat. IX p. 4103. सिहदेवगणि a. of c. on वाग्भटा- मिश्रs com. and तत्त्वपरीक्षा are

लक्कार. Pr. in K. M. series. both cited).

सिंहभूपाल same as शिङ्गभूपाल, a. सुबोधिनी a. of c. on काव्यप्र. by

of रसार्णसुवधाकर, q. V. वे ङ्कटाचलसूरि.

सीताराम, son of वेककटराम, a of सुबोधिनी a. c. on विदग्ध पुवमण्डन, by त्रिलोचन. V. Stein's cat. साहितीसार. p. 274 (extract). सुखदेवमिश्र a. of श्र सुब्र ह्म ण्यशास्त्रिन a. of शरच्चन्द्रिका. सुखलाल a. of अलक्कारमञ्जरी, pupil of गङ्गेशमिश्र and हरि- सुमतीनद्रयति, pupil of मुरीन्द्रपूज्य-

प्रसाद. About 1740 A.D. पाद; a. of c. साहित्यमा म्राज्य. सुमनस् m. by the अभिनवभारती सुधा by धरानन्द, son of रामबल; on गयाधिकार, p. 434 of the a. of c. on चित्रमीमांसा of B. O. R. I. transcript. अप्पय्य दीक्षित; Madras cat. सुमनोमनोहरा of गोपीनाथ; a c. vol. 22 No. 12884. on काव्यप्र. सुधा alias राकागम of गागाभट्ट or विश्वेश्वरभट्ट; a of c. on चन्द्रा- सुरानन्द m by काव्यमी. p.75.

लोक. Latter half of 17th cen. सूर्यकवि a. of बालबोधिका, a c. on कविकल्पलता. सुधाकर a. of शृङ्गारसारोदधि. V. सेतु or सेतुप्रवन्ध c. of जीवराज, son Kathavatc's R. (for 1891- of व्रजराजदीक्षित, on रसतर्राङ्गणी. 1895) No. 710 p. 46. Treats the c. नीका with सुधासागर or सुधोदधि by भीमसेन; contempt (Intro. verse 9); a c. on काव्यप्र .; composed in Ulwar Cat. extract 226. 1723 A. D. सुधोन्द्रयति or -योगिन् a. of सोमनार्य a. of नाट्यचूडामणि, with Telugu com. अलक्कारनिकष or -मञ्जरी and सोमेश्वर, son of भट्टदेवक of भरद्वाज- of मधुधारा. V. above under गोत्र, a. of c. काव्यादर्श alias those two. काव्यप्रकाशसङ्कत on. काव्यप्र. सुन्दरमिश्र a. of नाट्यप्रदीप com- सौभाग्यकमदीपिका on the nine posed in 1613 A. D. rasas. सुबन्धु q. as a writer on drama- स्वात्मारामयोगोन्दर a. of c. on turgy by the भावप्रकाशन p. विदग्घभुखमण्डन. 238 (सुबन्धुर्नाटकस्यापि लक्षणं हरि m. by नमिसाधु on रुद्रट's प्राह पञ्चधा।). सुबुद्धिमिश्र a. of c. साहित्य सर्वस्व on काव्याल ड्वार II. 19 as a writer on Poetics in Prakrit.

446 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

हारकृष्णव्यास a. of a c. on हष-same as श्राहष,, a. of a वातक सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. on नाट्यशास्त्र. V. pp. 59-60 हरिश्चन्द्र m. in शृङ्गाररत्नाकर of above. सागरनन्दिन् mentions ताराचरण. हर्षविक्रमनराधिप and भावप्रका- हरिदास, son of पुरुषोत्तम; a. of शन. p. 238 mentions हर्ष as a प्रस्तावरत्नाकर composed in writer on नाट्य०. 1557 A. D. V. Aufrecht's हलघररथ a. of काव्यतत्त्वविचार. Cat. Cat. I p. 360 a. हृदयंगमा c. on काव्यादर्श. Pr. हरिनाथ a. of c. मार्जन on काव्यादर्श by Prof. Rangacharya at and c. मार्जन on. सर.क. Madras. हरिप्रसाद, son of माथुर मिश्रगङ्गश; हृदयदर्पण of भट्टनायक. V. pp. a. of काव्यार्थगुम्फ, काव्यालोक. 221-225. Between 900-1000 About 1718-1728 A. D. A. D. हरिलोचनचन्द्रिका-V. रमा above. हेमचन्द्र a. of काव्यानुशासन with हरिहर a. of शङ्गारभप्रदीप q. V. वृत्ति अलङ्कारचूडामणि and c. एकावली p. 242 quotcs a vcrse विवेक. V. pp. 287-290. Flo- on दीपक from हरिहर. urishcd 1088-1172 A. D.