14. EPILOGUE

EPILOGUE

With Mahimabhatta's Vyaktiviveka, the controversy over

Anandavardhana's dhvani-theory is effectively at an end. The

next major work of Kashmiri Alamkarasāstra is Mammata's

Kāvyaprakāśa (c. 1100 AD). Mammata accepts the central role

of Anandavardhana's dhvani in poetry, argues for the existence

of suggestion (vyañjana) as a distinct mode of verbal

expression, and adopts Anandavardhana's tripartite

classification of poetry (into dhvani-, gunībhūtavyangya-, and

citra-kavya); while he draws on the works of many earlier

theorists in formulating his system of poetics, Mammata is

unambiguously a follower of Anandavardhana. The Kavyaprakasa

proves to be an extraordinarily influential work, and spawns

many imitators. While later Ālamkārikas disagree with Mammata

and with one another on many matters of detail, nearly all

accept Mammata's treatment of the basic issues of

Alamkārasastra as essentially valid.1 After Mammata, the

existence of dhvani and vyanjana are treated as settled facts.

The "scientific revolution" which began with Anandavardhana's

work is at an end, and a new period of "normal science"

ensues .

Yet, while the central tenets of Anandavardhana's poetic

and semantic theory gain virtually universal acceptance among

1Although a few alternative traditions (most notably that pioneered by Bhoja -- cf. above, Chapter One, p. 3) persist outside of Kashmir for some time before Alamkarasastra along the lines of Mammata's throughout the subcontinent. Kavyaprakasa gains acceptance

521

522

the post-Mammata Alamkarikas, the approach these later

theorists take to literary analysis is strikingly at odds with

what Anandavardhana himself seems to have to envisioned as the

proper role for Alamkāraśāstra. Criticism of existing

literary works as functionally unified wholes is wholly

neglected; discussion focuses almost entirely on the operation

of dhvani and other literary features at the level of the

individual verse. Rasa-directedness is widely accepted as an

ideal, but little or no attention is devoted to examining the

concrete techniques by which individual verses may be

effectively integrated into larger order textual units which

convey a single predominant rasa. These Ālamkārikas are

mainly interested in providing a precise account of the

semantic processes involved in poetic expression, along with

an exhaustive and logically ordered taxonomy of the

subvarieties of these processes and of the elements which may

be conveyed by them; attempts to evaluate the aesthetic

effectiveness of existing works, and to formulate principles

which might guide future poets in composing aesthetically

effective works -- both of which played a major role in the

Dhvanyaloka -- are marginalized. Änandavardhana's work

initiated major transformation in the field of

Alamkārasāstra, but the ultimate results of this

transformation are far from what Anandavardhana himself seems

to have intended.

In conclusion, let us briefly reexamine the main points

524

ought ultimately to subserve.

By systematically applying concepts and methods drawn

from extra-poetic language theory to the analysis of poetic

language, Anandavardhana begins to bridge a terminological and

conceptual divide which had so far separated poetic theory and

linguistic philosophy. From this time forth, it comes to be

seen as necessary for Alamkarikas to give a precise and

philosophically defensible account of the semantic processes

by which poetic language conveys its meanings. Anxious to

defend himself against the charge that he is merely

redescribing phenomena dealt with by earlier theorists,

Ãnandavardhana argues that rasa and the other varieties of

unstated meaning (vastu and alamkara) he deals with under the

rubric of dhvani are conveyed by a semantic process so far

unrecognized by either Ālamkarikas or philosophers of

language -- what he calls vyañjanā ("suggestion" or

"manifestation"). The claim to have discovered a new mode of

verbal expression, however, places Anandavardhana in direct

conflict with all established schools of linguistic theory; he

is forced to expend a great deal of effort defending himself

against the objections of Mīmamsakas, grammarians, Naiyāyikas

and Buddhist logicians to the notion of vyañjana, and the

question of the existence or non-existence of vyañjana becomes

the major point of controversy among the Kashmiri Ālamkārikas

in the ensuing centuries.

Ānandavardhana's adoption of a rasa-centered,

525

teleological model of textual coherence opens up new

possibilities in the area of literary criticism; it requires

that the aesthetic value of individual poetic elements be

judged in terms of their ability to enhance that rasa which is

the overall goal of the work in which they are employed, and

thereby gives the analysis of whole literary compositions a

relevance it did not hold for earlier Ālamkārikas.

Nevertheless, the careful attention to existing literary works

prompted by this new critical orientation creates problems for

Ānandavardhana. While many celebrated poetic works can be

shown to be rasa-centered, there are others which clearly are

not so. Anandavardhana recognizes three possible classes of

poetry -- dhvani (in which suggested meaning is predominant),

gunībhutavyangya (in which suggested meaning, including rasa,

is subordinate), and citra (in which there is no suggested

meaning whatsoever) -- and, while his poetic teleology would

seem to require that all poetry (having suggested rasa as its

ultimate goal) should belong to the first class,

Anandavardhana is ultimately unwilling to dismiss either

gunībhutavyangya- or citra-kāvya as necessarily deficient.

There is a certain unresolved tension between theory and

observation evident in Anandavardhana's treatment of these

latter two types of poetry -- a tension which his successors

tend to resolve either by emphasizing the theory-driven demand

for rasa-centrality and rejecting non-rasa-directed literature

as defective or (in Kuntaka's case) by dismissing the demand

526

for rasa-centrality and striving for sympathetic

appreciation of rasa-directed and non-rasa-directed literature

alike.

While certain key elements of Anandavardhana's poetic

theory -- especially his claims for vyañjana as previously

unrecognized and specifically poetic mode of expression --

prove to be extremenly controversial, his work produces a

sudden and radical transformation in Kashmiri Alamkārasāstra

which deeply affects all its practitioners; even those who

present themselves as critics of the dhvani-theory are, in

many important respects, following in Anandavardhana's

footsteps. Mukulabhatta and his pupil Pratiharenduraja strive

to defend existing linguistic and poetic theory against

Anandavardhana's charges of inadequacy, yet, in the course of

doing so, both end up modifying and elaborating the earlier

theories they defend so as to derive from them a satisfactory

account of the phenomena Anandavardhana finds to be of central

importance in poetry.2 Both admit the crucial role of

unstated meaning in poetry, and adopt Anandavardhana's

threefold categorization of such meaning (into vastu,

alamkara, and rasa); and both appear to concur in the most

important element of Anandavardhana's revaluation of poetics --

2Kuhn finds the same phenomenon to be common in periods of scientific revolution. Faced with the discoveries produced by adherents of a new scientific theory, impressive

defenders of established theory can and often do extend and modify their own theories so as to adequately account for these discoveries (cf. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, op. cit., pp. 71, 78 and 156-7).

527

his understanding the communication of rasa as the ultimate

goal toward which poetic works are, or ought to be, directed.

By implication, it is for them Anandavardhana's work that

shows what is most valuable in poetry and that sets the

standard for what a poetic theory must be expected to explain.

In spite of the intense controversy regarding the

existence of Anandavardhana's "suggestion", the rasa-centered

model of aesthetic effectiveness he introduces gains instant

and near-universal acceptance among the Kashmiri Alamkarikas.

The one major exception to this general acceptance is Kuntaka,

but, in light of the almost total neglect of his work by later

Ālamkärikas, he may be regarded as an exception that proves

the rule. While Kuntaka regards rasa as an element of major

importance in literature, the communication of rasa is always,

for him, only one among several possible and equally valid

aesthetic goals a poet may seek to achieve in his work. He

rejects Anandavardhana's teleological approach to poetic

analysis, and avoids the heated disputes over interpretive

processes raised in connection with it. His work, whatever

its intrinsic merits, is largely irrelevant to what have

become for his contemporaries the central questions of poetic

theory, and, seemingly as a consequence, he receives little or

no attention from later Ālamkārikas.

Anandavardhana's rasa-centered poetic teleology is not

only generally accepted by later Ālamkārikas: its implications

are carried much farther than Anandavardhana himself was

528

prepared to take them. As we have seen, while Anandavardhana

sees rasa-directedness as a common feature of great poetic

works, and recommends that future poets employ it in their own

compositions, he is ultimately unwilling to insist on it as an

essential requirement for all poetry; he recognizes that there

are works in which rasa is subordinate or altogether absent,

and is not prepared to summarily dismiss all such works as

defective. In tenth and eleventh century Kashmir a consensus

begins to develop that rasa-directedness is indeed an

essential property of all poetic works -- is, in fact, the

defining and constitutive property of poetry. This consensus

cuts across other lines of controversy: Bhattanayaka and

Mahimabhatta, two of Anandavardhana's most determined critics,

and Abhinavagupta, his most celebrated defender, all hold this

view.

Along with a Mimamsa-derived understanding of texts as

hierarchically ordered, functionally unified wholes,

Ãnandavardhana brings into play in his poetic theory some of

the key interpretive concepts developed by the Mimamsakas in

their interpretation of the Vedas. In his work, the

distinctions between primary and subordinate meanings, between

intended (vivaksita) and unintended (avivaksita) meanings, and

between subject (anuvāda) and predicate (vidhi), suddenly take

on a major importance in the analysis of poetic language -- an

importance which they continue to bear in the works of

Ānandavardhana's sucessors. Both Mukulabhatta and

529

PratIharenduraja expand the role of Mimamsa techniques and

concepts in poetic theory. Mukulabhatta asserts the identity

of the process by which poetic language conveys unstated

meanings with that by which non-poetic language conveys such

meanings -- the process of figurative expression [laksanā],

already fully explained by the Mimamsakas. Pratīhārendurāja

reinterprets many of Udbhata's definitions and categories in

Mīmamsa terms, and explains the cognitive process involved in

the interpretation of many of Udbhata's alamkaras in terms of

the Mīmamsa-derived concepts of intermediate and final

sentence meaning (avantara-vakyartha and paryavasana) .

This systematic application of Mimamsa concepts and

methods to the analysis of literary language is, for the most

part, embraced and extended by the later Kashmiri Ālamkārikas.

Kuntaka, again, is a major exception; he resists the trend

toward viewing literary texts through the lens of Mimamsa

interpretive theory. But, again, the near total neglect of

Kuntaka by his contemporaries and successors reveals the basic

irrelevance of his work to the problems of poetic analysis as

they are understood by the Alamkarikas of tenth and eleventh

century Kashmir. Abhinavagupta, arguing for the extraordinary

(alaukika) status of poetic language, attempts to exempt it

from the requirements of propositional coherence imposed by

Mimamsa theory, but this attempt comes to naught. The

application of Mīmamsa-derived standards of sentential

coherence to poetry continues unabated in the works of

530

Mahimabhatta, Mammata and, following him, most of the later

Ālamkārikas.

The most important features of Anandavardhana's

revolutionary poetic theory -- his adoption of a Mīmāmsā-

derived, teleological model of textual coherence, his

arguments for the existence of suggestion as a distinct and

specially poetic mode of expression, and his application of

MImamsa interpretive concepts and methods to the analysis of

literary texts -- ultimately gain general acceptance, and serve

as the basis for most later work in the field of

Alamkāraśāstra. Yet, somewhat ironically, the growing

importance of Mimamsa-based textual analysis gradually shifts

the role of Alamkarasastra away from. what it was for

Ānandavardhana. Attention comes to be more and more focussed

on providing a precise explanation of the cognitive processes

by which poetic meaning is understood. Those tasks which

Änandavardhana seemed to regard as the most pressing business

of Alamkarasastra -- the use of teleological, rasa-based

analysis as a tool for literary criticism, and the outlining

of principles to guide poets in composing rasa-directed

works -- are for the most part pushed aside by the increasing

concern with the analysis of interpretive processes.

531

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abhinavagupta, AbhinavabharatI -- see Bharata.

Abhinavagupta, Locana -- see Anandavardhana.

Amaru, Amarusataka, ed. Pandit Dūrgāprasād and Kasīnāth Pāndurang Parab, Kāvyamāla 18, Bombay, Nirnaya Sagara Press, 1889.

Ānandavardhana, Devisataka, in Kavyamalaqucchaka 9, ed. Pandit Śivadatta and Vasudeva Sarman, Bombay, Nirnaya Sagara Press, 1893.

Anandavardhana, Dhvanyaloka, with the Locana of Abhinavagupta and the Balapriyā of Rāmasāraka, ed. Pattābhirāma Sāstrī, Varanasi, Kashi Sanskrit Series 135, 1940.

Anandavardhana, Dhvanyaloka, ed. Pandit Durgaprasad and KāsInatha Pandurang Parab, Kavyamala 25, Bombay, Nirnaya Sagara Press, 1891.

Appayadiksita, Kuvalayananda, Varanasi, Vidyabhavana Samskrta Granthamala 24, 1992.

Appayadīksita, Vrttivarttika, ed. Brahmamitra Avasthi, Delhi, Indu Prakashan, 1977.

Bāna, Harsacarita, ed. P.V. Kane, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1986 [reprint].

Bhamaha, Kavyālamkāra, ed. and tr. P.V. Naganatha Shastry, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1970.

Bharata, Natyaśāstra, with the AbhinavabharatI of Abhinavagupta, ed. Manavalli Ramakrishna Kavi, 4 vols., Baroda, Gaekwad Oriental Series 36 (1926), 68 (1934), 124 (1954), 145 (1964) .

Bharata, Nātyasastra, with the AbhinavabhāratI of Abhinavagupta, 4 Vols., ed. R.S. Nagar, Parimal Sanskrit Series 4, Delhi, Parimal Publications, 1983-4.

Bhartrhari, Vakyapadīya, Kānda 2 (Vākyakānda), ed. K.A. Subramania Iyer, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1983.

Bhasarvajña, Nyayabhusana (with Nyayasara), ed. Svami YogIndrananda, Saddarsanaprakasanapratisthāna, Varanasi, 1968.

Bhatt, Govardhan P., Epistemology of the Bhatta School of Pūrvamīmamsa, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies XVIİ; Varanasi,

532

Bhattacharya, Sivaprasad, Studies in Indian Poetics, Calcutta, Firma KLM Private Ltd., 1981.

Bhattanārayana, VenIsamhara, ed. Gangasagar Rai, Kashi Sanskrit Series 247, Varanasi, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, 1989.

Bhavanatha, Mimamsanayaviveka, ed. S. Subrahmanya Sastri, New Delhi, Rastriya Samskrta Samsthanam, 1977.

Bhavanātha, Mimamsanayaviveka [unpublished manuscript], Adyar Library and Research Centre, manuscript 1.A.27 [4 Vols.].

Chakravorty, Amiya Kumar, Studies in Mahimabhatta, Calcutta University, 1975.

Chintamani, T.R. ed The Unādisutras in Various Rescensions, Madras University Sanskrit Series 7, Madras, 1933 [reprint Navrang, New Delhi, 1992].

Dandin, Kavyadarsa, ed. K.R. Potdar, Poona, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1970.

Dandin, Kavyalaksana (also known as Kavyadarsa), ed. Anantalal Thakur, Mithila Institute of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, Darbhanga, 1957.

De, S.K., History of Sanskrit Poetics, Calcutta, Firma KLM Private Ltd., Second ed., 1976.

De, S.K., Some Problems in Sanskrit Poetics, Calcutta, Firma KLM Private Ltd., 1959.

Devasthali, G.V., Mimamsa: The Ancient Indian Science of Sentence Interpretation, Delhi, Sri Satguru Publications, 1991 [second revised ed.].

DharmakIrti, Nyayabindu, ed. Svāmī Dvarikadāsa Śāstrī, Bauddha BharatI Series 18, Varanasi, 1985.

Dharmakīrti, Manorathanandin's Pramanavārttika (with Svopajñavrtti and Vrtti), ed R.C. Pandeya, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1989.

DharmakIrti, Pramanaviniscaya -- see Steinkellner, Stern.

Dharmakīrti, Vadanyaya and Sambandhaparīksa, ed. Svamī Dvārikadāsa Sāstrī, Bauddha Bharati Series 8, Varanasi, 1972.

533

Frauwallner, Erich, "Kumarila's Brhattīka, " Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Süd- und Ostasiens 6 (1962), p. 78-90.

Gautama, Nyayasutra, in Nyayadarsanam with Vatsyayana's Bhasya, Uddyotakara's Varttika, Vacaspatimisra's Tātparyatīka and Visvanātha's Vrtti, ed. Taranātha Nyaya TarkatIrtha and Amarendramohan TarkatIrtha, Calcutta, Calcutta Sanskrit Series 18-19, 1936-44.

Gerow, Edwin, A Glossary of Indian Fiqures of Speech, The Hague, Columbia University Publications in Near and Middle East Studies, 1971.

Gerow, Edwin, Indian Poetics, in A History of Indian Literature, ed. Jan Gonda, vol. 5, fasc. 3, Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1977.

Gnoli, Raniero, The Aesthetic Experience According to Abhinavagupta, Rome, Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1956.

Gnoli, Raniero ed., Udbhata's Commentary on the Kāvyālamkara of Bhamaha, Roma, Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1962.

Hala, GathasaptasatI (Sattasal), ed. Mathuranath Shastri, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1983 [reprint].

Harsa, Ratnavali, ed. and tr. M.R. Kale, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1984 [reprint].

Hemacandra, Kāvyanusasana, ed. Pandit Śivadatta, Kāvyamālā 71, Bombay, Nirnayasagara Press, 1901.

Ingalls, Daniel H.H., Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, and M.V. Patwardhan, tr., The Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana with the Locana of Abhinavagupta, Harvard Oriental Series 49, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1990.

Jagannātha Panditarāja, Rasagangadhara (2 Vols.), ed. Kedāranātha Ojha, Sarasvatī Bhavana Granthamala 113, Varanasi, 1977-1981.

Jaimini, Mimāmsādarsanam, Śabarabhāsya of Śabara, Prabhā of Sri Vaidyanāthasāstrī (Adhyaya 1, Pāda 1 with the

only), Tantravarttika and Tuptika of Kumarilabhatta, ed. K.V. Abhyankar and G.A. Joshi, 7 vols., Trivandrum, Anandasrama Sanskrit Series 97, 1970-1976 [first ed. 1930-1934].

Jayantabhatta, Nyayamanjarī, ed. Šivakumārasāstri Granthamālā 5 (3. Vols.), Varanasi, 1982-84. Gaurinath Sastri,

534

Jha, Ganganath, The Prabhakara School of Purva MTmamsa, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1978 [reprint] .

Jha, Ganganath, Purva-MImamsa in its Sources, Varanasi, Benares Hindu University, 1964 [second ed.].

Kalhana, RajataranginI (3 Vols.), ed. and tr. M.A. Stein, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1989 [reprint] .

Kālidāsa, Abhijmanasakuntala, ed. Celamacerla Rangacarya, Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Akademi, 1982.

Kalidāsa, Kumarasambhava, ed. Vasudev Laksman Śāstrī Pansīkar, Bombay, Nirnaya Sagara Press, 1935 [twelfth ed.].

Kālidāsa, Meqhaduta, ed. E. Hultzsch, London, Royal Asiatic Society, 1911.

Kālidāsa, Raghuvamsa, ed. Haragovinda Śāstrī, Kashi Sanskrit Series 51, Varanasi, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, 1985 [fifth ed.].

Kamalākarabhatta, Mīmāmsākutuhalam, ed. Pattābhirāma Sastrī, Sarasvatībhavana Granthamala 123, Varanasi, 1987.

Kane, P.V., History of Sanskrit Poetics, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, third revised ed., 1961.

Karan, Anita, PratIharenduraja's Contribution to Sanskrit Poetics, Eastern Book Linkers, Delhi, 1988.

Keith, A. B., The Karma-MImamsa, Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978 [second ed.] .

Kevalānandasarasvatī, Mīmāmsākośa (7 Vols.), Delhi, Sri Satguru Publications, 1992 [reprint].

Krishnamoorthy, K. , The Dhvanyaloka and its Critics Mysore, Kavyalaya Publishers, 1968.

Krishnamocrthy, K., ed. and tr., The Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana, Dharwar, Karnatak University, 1974.

Krishnamoorthy, K., Essays in Sanskrit Criticism Dharwar, Karnatak University, 1964.

Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, second edition, enlarged, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Kumarilabhatta, Slokavarttika (with the Nyayaratnakara of Parthasarathimisra), ed Svāmī Dvārikadāsa Sastrī,

535

PracyabharatI Granthamala 10, Tara Publications, Varanasi, 1978.

Kumārilabhatta, Tantravārttika -- see Jaimini.

Kunjunni Raja, K., Indian Theories of Meaning, Madras, Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1977 [second ed.].

Kuntaka, Vakroktijīvita ed. and trans K. Krishnamoorthy, Dharwad, Karnatak University, 1977.

Kuntaka, VakroktijIvita, ed. S.K. De, Calcutta, Firma KLM, 1961 [third ed.].

Madhavācārya, Jaiminīyanyayamalavistara, Vrajajīvan Prācyabhāratī Granthamala 35, Delhi, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan, 1989 [reprint].

Magha, Sisupalavadha with the commentary of Vallabhadeva, ed. Ram Chandra Kak and Harabhatta Shastri, Bharatiya Book Corporation, Delhi, 1990 [reprint].

Mahabharata, ed. V.S. Sukthankar et al., Poona, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (19 Vols.), 1933-1966.

Mahimabhatta, Vyaktiviveka, ed. T. Ganapati Śāstrī, Trivandrum Sanskrit Series 5, Trivandrum, 1909.

Mahimabhatta, Vyaktiviveka, ed. Rewaprasada Dwivedi, Varanasi, Kashi Sanskrit Series 121, 1964.

Mammata, Kāvyaprakāsa, ed. Rāmagovinda Sukla, Sarasvatī- bhavana Granthamala 46, Varanasi, 1990.

Mammata, Kavyaprakāsa, with Manikyacandra's Samketa and Ravibhattacarya's ed. Venkatanåthācārya, Oriental Research Institute Series 120 and MadhumatI (2° Vols.), N.S.

122, Mysore, 1974-1977.

Mammata, Sabdavyaparavicara, ed. Brahmamitra Avasthī, Delhi, Indu Prakashan, 1977.

Mandanamiśra, Bhavanaviveka, ed. Ganganath Jha and Gopinatha Kaviraj, Varanasi, Princess of Wales Saraswati Bhavana Texts, No. 6, 1922.

Mandanamira, Vidhiviveka, ed. Mahaprabhu Lal Goswami Varanasi, Tara Publications, 1978.

Mukulabhatta Abhidhavrttamātrka, ed. Dvivedi, Vidyabhavana Samskrta Granthamala 165, Chowkhamba Revāprasāda

Vidyabhavan, Varanasi, 1973.

536

Mukulabhatta, Abhidhāvrttamātrka, ed. Brahmamitra Avasthi, Delhi, Indu Prakashan, 1977:

Nakamura, Hajime, "The Problem of the Categorical Imperative in the Philosophy of Prabhakara School: A Brief Note, " in R.C. Dwivedi ed., Studies in Mimamsa, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1994.

Pandey, K.C., Abhinavagupta An Historical and Philosophical Study, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies, Vol. I, 1963 [second ed.].

Pandey, K.C., "Kashmir Saiva Tendencies of Mahimabhatta, " BhāratIya Vidya, Vol. XI, pp. 187ff.

Pānini, Astādhyāyī -- see Patañjali.

Pashupatinath Shastri, Introduction to the Pūrva MImamsa, Chaukhamba Oriental Research Studies 19, Varanasi 1980 [second ed.].

Patañjali, Vyakaranamahabhasya (on Panini's AstadhyayI), ed. Bhargava Sāstrī Josī, Vrajajīvan Prācyabhāratī Granthamālā 23 (6 Vols.), Delhi, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan, 1992 [reprint] .

Patañjali, Yoqasūtra, in Sāmkhyayogadarsanam, ed. Gosvāmī Damodara Sāstrī, Kashi Sanskrit Series 110, Varanasi, 1989 [second ed.] .

Pocock, J.G.A., The Macchiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1975.

Pocock, J.G.A., Politics, Language, and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1971.

Prabhākaramiśra, Brhatī (on Sabara's Bhasya), with Śālikanāthamisra's Rjuvimalapañcikā, ed. S.K. Ramanatha Sastri (vols. 1-2) and S. Subrahmanya Sastri (vols. 3-5), Madras, Madras University Sanskrit Series 3 [parts I and II] (1934), 24 (1962), 25 (1964), 26 (1967) .

Raghavan, V., Bhoja's Sragaraprakasa, Madras, Punarvasu, 1963.

Raghavan, V., The Number of Rasas, Madras, Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1975 [third ed.].

Raghavan, V., Some 0ld Lost Rāma Plays, Annamalai University, 1961.

537

Rajendran, C., A Study of Mahimabhatta's Vyaktiviveka, published by Dr. C. Rajendran, Feroke, 1991.

Ramayana, ed. G.H. Bhatt et al. (7 Vols.), Baroda, Oriental Institute, 1960-1975.

Rudrata, Kavyalamkara, with the commentary of Namisadhu, Motilal Banarsidass, 1983 [reprint].

Ruyyaka, Alamkarsarvasva, ed. Pandit Durgaprasad and Kasīnatha Pandurang Parab, Kāvyamālā `35, Bombay, Nirnaya Sagara Press, 1893.

Ruyyaka, Alamkarasarvasva, ed. Revāprāsāda Dvivedī, Kashi Sanskrit Series 206, Varanasi, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, 1979 [second ed.].

Śabarasvāmin, Sābarabhāsya -- see Jaimini.

Sahadeva, Kāvyālamkārasutratippana [unpublished manuscript], University of Kerala Oriental Manuscript Library, manuscript T.316.

Śālikanāthamiśra, Prakaranapañcika, ed. A. Subrahmanya Sastri, Varanasi, Benares Hindu University Darshana Series, No. 4, 1961.

Sharma, Mukund Madhav, The Dhvani Theory in Sanskrit Poetics, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies, Vol. LXIII, Varanasi, 1968.

Somevarabhatta, Nyayasudha, in Mimamsadarsanam, ed. Mahaprabhulala Gosvamī, PracyabharatI Granthamala 16ff (4 Vols.), Varanasi, Tara Printing Works, 1984ff.

Stcherbatsky, Th. , "Über die Nyāyakanikā des Vacaspatimisra und die Indische Lehre vom Kategorischen Imperativ, " in Beitrage zur Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte Indiens, Bonn: Kommissionsverlag Fritz Klopp, 1926, pp. 369-80.

Steinkellner, Ernst, "DharmakIrti's Pramānaviniscayah, Zweites Kapitel: Svarthanumanam, " Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Sitzungsberichte 287, Band 4, 1973.

Steinkellner, Ernst, "New Sanskrit Fragments of Pramanviniscaya, First Chapter," Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Sudasiens XVI, 1972, pp. 199-206

Stern, E.M., Additional Fragments of Pramanaviniscaya I- II," Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens XXXV, 1991,

538

pp. 151-168.

Udbhata, Bhamahavivarana -- see Gnoli.

Udbhata, Kavyalamkarasarasamgraha, with the Laghuvrtti of Pratīhārenduraja, ed. Narayana Daso Banhatti, Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series 79, Poona, 1925.

Udbhata, Kavyalamkarasarasamgraha, with the commentary Udbhatalamkaravivrti, ed. K.S. Ramaswami Sastri, Gaekwad's Oriental Series 55, Baroda, 1931.

Uddyotakara, Nyayavarttika -- see Gautama.

Umbeka, Ślokavārttikavyākhyā Tātparyatīkā, ed. S.K. Ramanatha Sastri, Madras University Sanskrit Series 13, Madras, 1971 [revised ed.].

Vācaspatimiśra, Nyayavārttikatātparyatīka, ed. Rājesvara SastrI Dravida, Kashi Sanskrit Series 24, Varanasi, 1925.

Vācaspatimiśra, Tattvabindu, ed. V. Ramaswami Sastri, Annamalai University Sanskrit Series 3, 1936.

Vallabhadeva, Subhasitavalī, ed. P. Peterson and Pandit Durgaprasada, Bombay Sanskrit Series 31, Bombay, 1886.

Vāmana, Kavyalamkarasutra, with the Kamadhenu of Gopendra Tripurahara Bhūpāla, ed. Bechana Jha, Kashi Sanskrit Series 209, Varanasi, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, 1989.

Vatsyayana, Nyayabhasya -- see Gautama.

Velankar, H.D. ed., Jayadaman: A Collection of Ancient Texts on Sanskrit Prosody, Haritosamala 1, Bombay, 1949.

Vidyadhara, Ekavalī, ed. P. Sriramachandrudu, Hyderabad, Osmania University, 1981.

Vidyakara, Subhāsitaratnakośa, D.D. Kosambi and V.V Gokhale, Harvard Oriental Series 42, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1957.

Vidyanātha, Pratāparudrīya, ed. Madhusudan Śāstrī, Krishnadas Sanskrit Series 11, Varanasi, Krishnadas Academy, 1981.

Viśvanātha, Sāhityadarpana, ed. Śālagrāma Sāstrī, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1982 [reprint].

Wicher, Irene, "Svargakäma," Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 38 (1994), pp. 509-522.