Miscellaneous Notes on Mammata's Kävyaprakäsa.
By
Y. Snkthankar, M. A.
I. The two authors of the Kävyaprakäsa.
Tradition ascribes the Kävyaprakäsa to Mammata and Mamma|a
is for all intents and purposes the single author of the Kävyapra¬
käsa (KP.). Another tradition reminds us, however, that the KP.
forms one of the few exceptions to the efficacy of the Nandi to
ensure the nirvighnaparisamapti of the undertaken work ; in other
words, that its author never lived to complete the work he had
begun. This last tradition by itself cai-ries some weight, in so
far as the old Hindus were so ticklish about confessing to any
such exceptions, that a rumour of this nature could not possibly
acquire the currency it has, were it not grounded on fact. These
two conflicting traditions are reconciled in light of the evidence
of the author of NidarSana — one of the older Vyäkhyäs of the
j{;p. wbo confirms the latter statement and tells us that up to
the Alamkära Parikara the KP. is the work of Mammata — and
that includes all the nine chapters, together with nearly two thirds
of the tenth and the last chapter; he ascribes the rest of it to
one AUata, about whom nothing more is known. In support of
tbe view he adduces two verses composed by two different authors,
which i-efer to the tradition, according to which M. left his work
unflnished. The first of these is quoted in Jhalaklkara's edition i)
of the Kävyaprakäsa at p. 852:
kftafi drimammatäcäryavaryaih parikarävadhih |
prabandhah püritah ieso vidhäyällatasürinä || ")
1) Kävyaprakäsa, a treatise on poetics by Mammata, edited by Jbalaki- kara. Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series. Bombay 1901. References throughout this article are made with respect to the figurings of this edition. A single figure following KP. denotes the page and double figures denote the numbers of the Ulläsa and the KärikB respectively.
2) Peterson first called attention to this stanza (JBomBrRAS. XVI, p. 23).
Being misled by an evidently corrupt passage in the commentary of one of the manuscript copies of KP., he had acquired, -be was led to imagine that the 'metrical portion", the Kärikäs alone, belong to M., while the prose commentary is the work of Räjänaka Änanda. Prof. Bühler's reconstruction of the corrupt passage in question clearly pointed out Peterson's mistake (Ind. Ant. XIII,
Zeitschrift der D. M. G. Bd. LXVI. i 32
478 Sukthankar, Miscellaneous Notes on Mammata's Kavyaprahäia.
This fact — quite probable in itself — has, to my knowledge
never been further investigated; and the two facts just quoted
are the only ones on which the theory of the double authorship
of KP. so far rests. A comparison of the Kävyälatnkära (KL.)
with, on the one hand, the part of KP. attributed to M. and on
the other, that attributed to AUata, as I intend to show, sets the
matter beyond the pale of doubt. Such a comparison discloses the
different sources which the two authors have used. While the
author of the latter end of KP. depends for his whole material
practically on KL., and does not hesitate to borrow expressions and
phrases verbatim from the latter, M. himself makes use reservedly
of the new ideas brought into the Alamkärasästra by Rudrata and
looks for his authorities amongst writers older than Rudrata.
Prom Parisamkhyä on to the end of the portion dealing with
Suddha Arthälarnkäras — which , for convenience of reference , I
will name the "second" part of Ulläsa 10, in contradistinction to
the remaining portion of the same Ulläsa which will accordingly
be referred to as the "first" part — there follows a set of new
Alainkaras nearly all of which are borrowed from KL. ; and in the
following I will try to show that the definitions in KP. agi-ee
word for word with those in KL. , or at best , offer only a para¬
phrase of the latter. A comparison of the number of illustrations
in KP. borrowed from Rudrata's work shows us that there are in'
the "second" part as many as 11 out of a total number of 48
illustrations borrowed from the KL., while in the "first" part there
are only 18 out of a total of 378.
The following is a synopsis of the points of agreement between
KL. 7, 72 to the end of that adhyäya and KP. 10, 118—131,
comprising the nine Alamkäras: 1. Parikara; 2. Parisamkhyä;
3. Käranamälä; 4. Anyonya; 6. Uttara; 6. Sara; 7. Milita; 8. Ekä¬
vali; 9. Visama. As, in the KL. one whole äryä is devoted to
the definition of each single Alamkära, while in the KP. the style
of enunciation is much tenser, only the significant portion of each
will be cited for purposes of comparison :
1. Parikara (KL. 7, 72; KP. 10, 118):
KL. definition : säbkipräyaik visesanaik vastu vidisyeta \
KP. has säkütaih instead of säbkipräyaik and the definition
runs: visesanair yat säkütair uktih \
pp. 30, 31). Prof. Biililer remarks in tlie course of tlie same article: "Though I am unable to accept Prof. Peterson's main theory, I think that he has done a service to the history of Sanskrit literature by showing the existence of an old tradition , according to which the KP. is the work of two authors. I do not see any reason for doubting this statement". An independent proof of the common authorship of the Kärikäs and Vrtti is afforded by the Kärikä mälä tu pürvavat in the Alaipkära Rüpaka, where pürvavat must refer to Mälopamä, which has been mentioned in the Vrtti on UpamS, as it can refer to nothing else in the Kärikäs, themselves, mälä never being mentioned in them.
Rudrata mentions four varieties of Parikara according as the vide^a is a dravya, ()una, kriyä, or jäti. In KP. it is not further
divided. This is the last verse attributed to Mammata.
2. Parisamkhyä (KL. 7, 79; KP. 10, 119):
KL. definition: 6
pj-stam aprstarn sad gunädi yat kathyate kvacit tulyam |
anyatra tu tadabhävqh pratiyate seti pari° \\
KP. definition:
kim cit prstam aprstam vä kathitam yat prdkalpate \
tädrganyavyapohäya parisarnkhyä tu sä smrtä || i»
KP. tädig° corresponds to KL. tulyam anyatra tadabhävah.
— Kävyapradlpa explains, in fact, tädrg tulyam \ vyapohäya vya-
vacchedäya \ KP. illustration 1 is built on the same pattern as
KL. illustration 1; and KP. illustration 3 = KL. illustration 2.
3. Käranamälä (KL. 7, 84; KP. 10, 120): 15
KL. definition:
yathäpürvam eti käranatänt arthänätn pürvärthät |
KP. definition:
yathottaram cet pürvasya pürvasyärthasya hetutä \
KP. illustration jitendriyatvam etc. embodies the same idea 20
as KL. illustration vinayena bhavati etc. Possibly both are made
in imitation of a common model; more likely however as KP.
illustration is quoted by Mammata again in Ulläsa 7 to illustrate
a dosa, the latter is an older verse and R. has transformed it into
an äryä. 25
4. Anyonya (Kl. 7,91; KP. 10,120-121):
KL. definition:
yatra parasparam ekah kärakabhävo
'bhidheyayoh kriyayä sarnjäyet |
KP. definition: 80
kriyayä tu paraspararn vastunor janane \
Here the resemblance is obvious.
5. Uttara (KL. 7, 93; KP. 10, 121—22):
KL. definition :
uttarävacanadravanät unnayanam yatra S5
pürvava^anänäm . . . pradnäd api |
KP. definition :
uttaradrutimätratah pradnasya unnayanam yatra kriyate |
tatra vä sati . . . ||
32' 3 i
480 Sukthankar, Miscellaneous Notes on Mammata's Kävyaprakäia.
Here again the similiarity is striking. The structure of KP.
illustration 2 kä visamä ... is the same as that of KL. illustration 2 kim svargät ...
6. Sara (KL. 7, 96; KP. 10, 123):
8 KL. definition:
yatra yathäsaviudäyät yathaikadeäarn kram&ia yunavad iti |
nirdhäryate parävadhi niratiiayarn, tad bhavet säram |{
This complicated definition of this simple alamkära of R is
compressed into half an äryä with the retention of all the signi-
10 ficant elements of R.'s definition:
uttarottaram utkarso bhavet särah parävadhih |
KL. yathäsamudäyät yathailcadesam gunavat implies the same
idea as utkar^ah and kramena = uttarottaram. parävadhi is the
same in both. Purther, KL. illustration = KP. illustration.
16 7. Milita (KL. 7, 106; KP. 10, 130):
KL. definition:
samanacihnena harsakopädi \
aparena tiraskriyate nityenägantukenäpi ||
KP. definition :
to samena laksmanä vastu vaatunä yan nigühyate |
nijenägantunä väpi . . . ||
In this definition, KL. samena cihnena is the exact equivalent
of KP. samena laksmanä, tiraskriyate of nigühyate, nityenägantu¬
kenäpi of nijenägantunä väpi.
as 8. Ekävali (KL. 7, 109; KP. 10, 131):
KL. definition:
ekävaliti seyam yaträrthaparamparä yathäläbham |
ädhiyatc yathottaravidesanä sthityapohäbhyäm ||
KP. definition:
so sthäpyate 'pohyate väpi yathäpürvarn pararnparam \
viäesanatayä yatra vastu saikävali smrtä ||
Here KL. pararnparä, yathottaravidesariä , sthityapohäbhyäm
are exact equivalents of KP. pararn pararn, yathä pürvarn visesa-
riatayä and sthäpyate 'pohyate väpi respectively.
35 KP. illustration 1 is taken from Navasähasikacaritam and
illustration 2 (to which KL. illustration 2 is not at all unlike)
is from the Bha|tikävya.
Here we will also consider
9. Visama (KL. 7,47-65 and 9,45—47; KP. 10,126—127).
40 In its natural sequence it comes in both the works after Sära
and before Mllita. I did not however consider it there, as it differs 3 (
from the other eight heginning with Parisamkhyä, in so far as it
is an alamkära with several varieties, — described by R. once
under Västavya and again under Ätisaya alamkäras — all of
which have not been adopted in KP. The varieties, however, which
are common to the two show as striking points of sitnilarity as 5
the other eight. Only the varieties which are common to both
are here quoted.
KP. variety 1: kvacid pad ativaidharmyan na dleso ghatanäm-
iyät I and vrtti to il dvayor atyantavilaksanatayä yad anupapadya
manatayaiva yogah \ 10
KL. 7, 49 asambhävyabhävo vä abhidhiyate \ which is to
be taken in conjunction with KL. 7, 47 vakta vighatayati kam api
sambandham \
The illustrations in both are formed with kva-kva.
KP. variety 2: kartuh kriyäphaläväptir naiva närthaä ca yad 15
bhavet \
KL. 7, 54: yatra kriyävipatter na bhaved eva kriyäphalam
tävad I kartur anarthad ca bhavet . . . ||
KP. variety 3, 4 : gunakriyäbhyäm kär yasya käranasya guna-
kriye \ kramena ca viruddhe yat sa esa vi§amo matah \\ so
KL. 9, 45: käryasya ca käranasya ca yatra vir odhah paras¬
pararn gunayoh \ tadvat kriyayor athavä . . . ||
Further as in KL. illustration 1 (9, 46) so in KP. illustration 3 (= Navasähasikacaritam) the properties of objects "sword" and
"fame", bearing the relation of cause and effect, are contradictory a
to each other. KP. illustration 4 = KL. illustration 2 (9, 47).
These nine Alamkäras with the exception of Visama follow
each other in the same order both in the KP. and KL. as may
be easily verified by comparing the numbers indicating the order
in which they appear in the two works quoted above; further, so
there are no other Alamkäras in the first part of the tenth Ulläsa,
which agree in wording so minutely with the corresponding Alam¬
käras in KL. A comparison of the analysis of these nine with
those immediately preceeding them should leave us in no doubt as
to the difference of authorship of them respectively. 35
The above Alamkäras from 1—8 do not follow each other in
KL. uninterruptedly in the same order. Rudrata mentions six more
Alamkäras between Parikara and Ekävali viz; Parivrtti, Vyatireka,
Avasara (= KP. Udätta) and Hetu, Süksma and LeSa (KL. 7, 77.
86. 82. 98. 100. 103), which remain to be noticed. Of them the 40
first three have been dealt with by Mammata himself in the "first"
part of the thenth Ulläsa (KP. 10, 113. 105. 115) and so do not
come properly under our consideration here. In passing, however,
it may be mentioned, that a comparison of the treatment of Pari-
Vftti and Vyatireka in KL. and KP. offers a significant contrast 45
to the Alamkäras just examined. In the definition of Parivftti
although Mammata does not bring us anything new which is not
482 Sukthankar, Miscellaneous Notes on Mammata's Kävyaprakäia.
there already in Rudrata's definition, still the two definitions are
utterly unlike each other in wording. In Vyatireka, moreover^
while quoting Rudrata's own illustration (7, 90) of this Alamkära
Mammata points out that it has been wrongly classified by the
s former; and in fact, in opposition to Rudrata, he maintains that
there can never be in good poetry a superiority {ädhikyd) of the
standard of comparison (Upamäna) over the object compared (Upa-
meya). Purther, he mentions sixteen varieties of Vyatireka against
Rudrata's four.
10 Hetu, Süksma and Lesa form a characteristic group in the
Alamkärasästra. Bhämaha uncompromisingly rejects them^); Dandin,
on the other hand, most emphatically claims great excellence for
them"). Vämana and Udbhata do not mention any of the three.
Rudrata again has all three, but his Süksma is different from that
15 of his predecessors. In KP. , Leäa is not mentioned at all , Hetu
is explicitly denied, Süksma alone is recognised. As regards Süksma
and Hetu the other author of the KP. shows the infiuence of
M. R.'s Hetu has been identified by the former in the vrtti to
Käraiiamälä (10, 120) with Kävyaliöga ; but in doing so, he quotes
«0 R.'s illustration ^) to Hetu and observes , so to say as an apology
to R. , that the verse (although it is no illustration of Hetu)
deserves to rank as good poetry in so far as it contains a Komalä-
nupräsa. In his treatment of Süksma both his definition and the
vftti show that our author borrows his material from Dandin's
«6 definition KD. 2, 260. KP. illustration 2 is in imitation of KD.
2, 261. This treatment of Hetu, Süksma and LeSa must be looked
upon as a characteristic of the school to which M. belonged and
be not allowed in any way to affect our conclusions with regard
to the remaining Alamkäras. Here ends the list of the Västava
»0 Arthalamkäras of Rudrata from Parikara to the end of Adhyäya
seven.
To summarise the resulis of the foregoing analysis, taking our
standpoint at R.'s Parikara all the remaining fourteen alamkäras
have been accounted for. Of these, eight follow each other in the
55 same general order in both the works; the definitions of seven of
them have been copied in KP. without any significant alteration;
three of them have not further been noticed in KP. as they are
already dealt with in the "first" part of Ulläsa 10; three more,
viz. : Hetu, Süksma and LeSa, have been treated admittedly differ-
•«0 ently. The different numberings of these in the two works depend
chiefly on these very facts and on the addition of two other Alam¬
käras, Visama and Sama. Of these Visama has already been noticed ;
1) cf. BbamahSlainkSra (Appendix VIII to PratSparudrayaiobliüsana , ed.
Trivedi BSS. LXV) 2, 86.
2) Kävyädarsa (= KD.) 2, 235.
3) cf. Section III of this paper (Heft IV).
Sama appears for the first time in KP. and is there defined as the converse^) of Visama.
Next come under our consideration the fifteen remaining Alaip-
käras in KP. — ten of which are met with for the first time with
Rudrata, two more'(Vyajokti , Samädhi) for the first time in KP. s
— at least under these names. They are the following: Vyajokti,
Asaingati, Samädhi, Adhika, Pratyanlka, Smaraipa, Bhräntimän,
Pratlpa, Samanya, ViSesa, Tadgu^a, Atadguna, Vyäghäta, Samsrsti,
Saipkara. These Alamkäras differ in the two works under con¬
sideration from the others earlier examined in so far as they do lo
not follow each other in the same sequence in the two works; in
KL. they are spread over Adhäyas 8 and 9 according as they
are Aupamya or Atisaya Alamkäras: on the other hand, in the
KP. they are jumbled together anyhow. It may, however, be
noticed, that (1) nearly in every doubtful case our author mentions i5
in the vrtti whether the Alaipkära in question is based on an
upamä or an atiäaya; (2) that our author does not borrow
wholesale from R. (as he did the Västava Alamkäras) but that
he picks and chooses his material and often freely _paraphrases R.'s
expressions. It is, however, noteworthy that out of a total number «o
of 18 new Alamkäras introduced by the author of Kävyälamkära
in Adhyäya 8 and 9 eleven find acceptance in this part of Ulläsa 10
of KP. in more or less unaltered condition.
Of the fifteen Alamkäras above enumerated , four : Vyajokti,
Samädhi, Atadguna **) and Samsfsti are not known to R. ; Pratyanlka, 26
Pratlpa, Vyäghäta are treated differently in KP. and KL. and Sam¬
kara is considerably elaborated in KP. Out of the remaining, seven
agree with each other in the two works very closely — sometimes
even in wording. We will consider first these last seven following
the order in which they occur in KP so
10. Asamgati (KL. 9, 48—49; KP. 10, 124):
KL. definition:
vispaste samakälam häranam anyatra käryam anyatra \
KP. definition:
hhinnadeiatayä 'tyantarn käryakäranabhütayoh \ S5
yugapad dharmayok kkyätik \\
The samakälam corresponds to yugapat, anyatra anyatra to
hhinnadeiatayä, käranam .... käryam to käryakäranayok. These
are all the important elements of the definitions. The vrttikära
observes that the Alarnkära is based on an atiäaya. 40
1) In the younger AlatnkSrasSstra, some new AlainkSras were obtained by simply inverting the old ones; thus Sama is obviously the converse of Visama, Atadguna of Tadguna; more remotely Vinokti of Sabokti.
2) Atadguiia is tbe converse of Tadguna. See note 1.
3 6*
484 Sukthankar, MüotUanemu Note» on Man»mata'* Kävyaprakäia.
11. Adhika (KL. 9, 28; KP. 10, 128):
KL. variety 2:
yatra ^dhäre aumahaty adheyam avaathüarp taniyo'pi |
atirieyate katham cit tad adhikam .. \\
5 KP. definition:
mahator yan mahiyäipaav adritädrayayoh kramOt \ ,
adrayoirayirum ayStäm tcmittoepy adhikam tu yat \\
Note the vptti, ohitam adheyam \ aärayah tadodhärah. KP.
illustration 1 = KD. 2, 219 to Atiöaya.
10 12. Smara^a (KL. 8, 109. 110; KP. 10, 182):
KL. definition:
vastu tnäe^am drstvä pratipattä smarati yatra tatoadfSam \
käläntaranubhütam vastv anantaram ity adah smaranam |{
KP. definition:
15 yathä 'nvhhavam arihasya dfste tat aadrie smrtih | smaranatp.
Here, drstvä, drste, smarati, amrti, tatsadräam, tatsadrde,
käläntaränuhhütam , yathänubhavam form the parallel series in
the two.
13. Bhräntimäp (KL. 8, 87. 88; KP. 10, 132):
to KL. definition:
i
arthaviäe^arp, pa4yann avagacched anyam eva tat sadrdam j
'KP. definition :
anyasamvit tat tulyadariane \
ÄrthaviSe^arn paäyan and tatsadräam avagaochet correspond
!5 to tulyadardane, anya^samvit. The terms, präkaranika and aprä-
karanika in the vrtti show that the Alaipkära is based on an
upamä and in fact the vrttikära expressly states that it is not an
atidaya : na ca e^a rUpakam prathamätiäayoktir vä.
14. 15. Sämänya and Tadguna;
so To understand properly the relation of these we must examine
the genesis of these Alamkäras. These two figures run into each
other very closely and they appear in the two works considerably
mixed up. They were forcibly separated by Rudrata and although
this separation is not accepted without- reserve by our author , he
35 betrays Rudrata's influence quite distinctly. The older Alamkära
■writers knew an AtiSaya which was, the desire to depict some
quality of the matter in hand {prastuta vastu) which surpasses
the commonly acknowledged limits, cf. Dandin, KD. 2, 214:
vivaksä yä videsasya lokasimätivartinah \
M asäv atiäayoktih syät cdamkärottamä yathä 1|
3 6 *
to which the classical illustration was the description of the white¬
ness of the moon, which makes inyisible the white-clad abhiaä-
rikas, with white garlands, annointed over with candana (KD.
2 215)- The same we meet with again in Vämana's Alaipkära-
sätravrtti 4, 3. 10: 5
sarnbhüvyadharniatad'utkarsakalpanä 'tisayoktik \
The illustration (which is very likely a quotation) plays on
the same idea of the moonlight and abhiaärikos. Daijdin knows
an atidayopamä , which he illustrates but does not define. It is
based on the idea that (as an AtiSayokti) the upamana and the lo
upameya would be utterly undistinguishable from each other, but
for some accident or for some one trifling property, which is always
present in the upamana or the upameya, cf. KD. 2, 22, where the
moon is said to be difierent from the face only because the moon
is to be seen in the sky and her face on herself. Rudrata, who 16
has an atidaya and an upamä but no atidayopamä, sees in Dandin's
illustration to AtiSaya a state of things in which there is a
description based on AtiSaya of two objects, which when placed
side by side are no longer distinguishable, the same property being
present in each (fadguna) ; while in Dandin's Atisayopamä he sees »o
only an extreme similarity (sämya) and no AtiSaya. In KP. we
find that the KL. Tadgupa variety 1 (= Daijdin's AtiSaya)
corresponds to KP. Sämänya illustration 1 and KL. Sämya variety 2
(= Dandin's AtiSayopamä) corresponds to KP. Sämänya illustration 2;
while KL. Tadguna variety 2, which is a new Alamkära takes »6
its place in KP. as Tadguna.
KL. Tadguna variety 1 (KL. 9,22):
yasminn ekagunänäm artkanäm yogalaksyarüpanam |
samsarge nänätvam na laksyate tadguna sa iti \\
KP. defines it as an aupamya alarnkära (KP. 10, 134). «o
KP. definition:
prastiUasya yad anyena gwnasämyaviviksayä \
aikäimyarn badhyate yogät tat sämänyam iti smrtam \\
R.'s illustration is an imitation of the old model and KP. illustration
= Vämana's illustration to the Sütra above quoted. Further cf. »6
vrtti; prastutatadanyayor anyünätiriktatayä nibaddharp. dkavala-
tvam ekätmahetuh, ata eva prthagbhävena na tayor upalaksanam,
which remainds us of R.'s definition : ekagunänäm arthänätn nänä¬
tvam na laksyate.
KL. Sämya variety 2 (KL. 8, 107): «
sarväkärarp yasminn ubhayor abhidhätum anyathä sämyam \
upameyotkar^akararn kürvita videsam anyat yat ||
is not further defined in KP.; but cf. illustration 2 to Sämänya
and the vi tti, prathamapratipannam abhedarn na vyudasitum ut-
486 Sukthankar, Miscellaneous Notes on Mammata's Kävyaprakäia.
sahate (, cannot do away with the antecedent apprehension of
identity"). It is an upamä-alamkära in both.
The other Tadguna defined by R. is faithfully copied, almost
word for word, by M.'s successor.
6 KL. Tadguna variety 2 (9,24):
asamänagunam yasminn atibahalagunena vastunä vastu \
samsrstam tadgunatam dhatte 'nyas tadgunah sa iti \\
KP. 10, 137:
9vam utsfjya gunam yogäd atyujjvalagunasya yat \
10 vastu ta<^unatäm eti bhanyate sa tu tadgunah |{
Here we see that the KL. , atibahalaguriena corresponds to
KP. ujjvalagunasya , tadgunatam eti to tadgunatärn dhatte and
sarnsfstam to yogät.
16. Vifiesa (KL. 9, 5—10; KP. 10, 135 and 136):
15 The three varieties of R. are identical with those in KP.
KL. variety 1 definition :
him cid avadyädkeyam yasminn abhtaneyate nirädhäram \
tädrg upalabhyamänarn vijUeyo 'sau videsa iti 1|
KP. variety 1 definition:
so vinä prasiddham ädhäram ädheyasya vyavasthitih |
KL. illustration = KP. illustration 1.
KL. variety 2 definition:
yatraikam anekasminn ädhäre vastu vidyamänatayä \
yugapad abhidhiyate . . . \\
ib KP. variety 2:
ekätmä yugapad vfttir ekasyänekagocarä \
KL. illustration embodies the same idea as KP. Prakrit illustration.
KL. variety 3:
yatränyat kurväno yugapat käryäntaram ca kurvita |
80 kartum adakyam kartä vijrleyo 'sau videso 'nyah ||
KP. variety 3:
anyat prakurvatah käryam addkyasyänyavastunah \
tathaiva käranam ceti . . .\\
Here the similarity does not need to be pointed out. In the
S6 vrtti the author pointe out that this Alamkära is based on an
Atisaya.
There remain to be considered the three new Alamkäras
Pratyanlka, Pratlpa and Vyäghäta which occur both in KL.
and KP. and which still are differently treated by the two authors.
40 The Pratyanlka and Pratlpa of KP. have indeed some similarities
with those of R. ; but their treatment is widely divergent from
that of the 16 Alamkäras above considered. In Pratyanlka
(KL. 8, 92. 93; KP. 10, 129) an angry opponent (in KL., the
upamäna wishing to conquer the upameya ; in KP. not the upamäna
it all) persecutes an innocent third party (in KL. any third party; 5
n KP. the ally of the invincible offending party). In Pratlpa
Doth in KL. and KP. there is disparagement of the upamäna ; but
the result is arrived at, according to the two authore, in two
different ways. In KL. (8, 76—78) the upameya is censured or
pitied, as the case may be, on account of its comparability with the lo
upamäna which comparability is made possible only by the presence
of some temporary flaw obscuring the excessive beauty of the
upameya. On the other hand in KP. (10, 133) it is Pratlpa, when
the upamäna is condemned as being useless, since the upameya
is quite capable of serving its purpose or else when the upamäna is
is turned into an upameya. R.'s illustration garvam asarnvahya etc.
(8. 78j is indeed quoted in KP. as an exemple of the same flgure;
but the author explains it in a slighty different way if, as I take
it, duravastha is a necessary condition in R.'s definition. KP. has
non ,,duravastha" and he sees in the verse only the turning of the «o
lotus (upamäna) into an upameya which , according to him , con¬
stitutes its condemnation: upameylkaranam eva utpalänäm anä-
darah \ The figure Vyäghäta, which we meet for the first time
in KL. and which is the last figure but one mentioned by R.
(excluding, of course, the separate chapter on Ölesa, which does not «5
come here in consideration) is also the last one of the Öuddhä-
lainkäras in KP. Beyond the names, however, the two Alamkäras
have nothing in common. In KL. (9, 52. 53) it is Vyäghäta when
a cause does not produce its [natural] effect, even when not hindered
by other causes — which would otherwise explain the absence of so
the effect following that cause. The underlying idea is an Atiäaya.
On the other hand in KP. (10, 138) there are two agents; and
by the very means by which one of them accomplishes an act, the
other one undoes it. The underlying idea here is Virodha. The
definition reads : 85
yadyathä sädhttam kenäpy aparena tadanyathä \
tathaiva yad vidhlyeta sa vyäghäta iti smj-tah ||
In the Vrtti we find sädhitavastuvyähatihetutvät vyäghätah,
,it is V. because it is the cause of the frustration of an end
already achieved"; and in my opinion, Bhattoji quite rightly explains: 40
käryavaijätye kärarxavaijätyarn prayojakam. I do not find any
of these things in R.'s definition of V.; nor have I been able to
identify the V. in KP. with any of R.'s Alamkäras.
We will now turn to the 'first" part of Ulläsa 10 of KP.
The most cursory comparison of the Kärikäs 87 to 118 of KP. *5
together with the Vj-tti to them with Adhyäyas 7, 8, 9 of KL. in
488 Sukthankar, Miscellaneous Notes on Mammata's KävyaprakUa.
which B. deals with the corresponding Alatpkäras convinces ns that
though it would he quite incorrect to assume that Mammata
ignores Eudrata's work altogether, still we are justified in saying
that he did not take the latter for his model. He has indeed
6 borrowed B.'s illustration *), and even adopted some of the Alam¬
käras, which we meet for the first time with the anthor of KL. ;
but on the whole M. shows an individuality of treatment and even
in the cases of the Alamkäras, which are directly borrowed from
R. , we find them presented in KP. in a distinctly different garb.
10 Budrata was, so far as we at present can say, the first writer
on Poetics who categorically classified all Alamkäras so as to make
them finally rest on a simple description of Vastu (Adhyäya 7),
or on an Upamä (Adhyäya 8), or an Atiäaya (Adhyäya 9) or a
^lesa (Adhyäya 10). Thus there arises a series of parallel*) Alam-
16 käras sometimes bearing different names which are to be regarded
as västaiM or aupamya according as we look at them as implying
a coordinate description of two different things which may have
some common properties — and in that case it is a västava —
or we consider it as a description of only one of the objects (i. e.
«0 the prastuta) to which the other with similar properties (i. e.
the aprastuta) is compared. This craving after an almost mathe¬
matically precise analysis characterises the whole work KL. This
is not the only instance in which B. forsakes the trodden path.
In the KL. he introduces a row of new Alamkäras and adds new
«5 varieties to the old ones ; M., on the other hand, follows the older
school and his work betrays the infiuence of Udbhata, who himself
was a follower of Bhämaha. He treats KL. in no kindly spirit.
When he quotes B. , it is to show that he is wrong*), with the
single exception of the verse KL. 4, 32 which he quotes with
so approbation naming at the same time the author. Compare here
the Alamkära Samuccaya, which, as a Västava Alamkära, we meet
for the first time with B. B. defines three varieties; M. accepts
only two of them. In the Vftti he specially mentions that those
who try to make out. that there is a third variety are vrrong*) —:
S6 here he must have R.'s classification in mind, for the reason above
mentioned — in so far as that variety is included in his first
That both the authors understand the first variety in the same
sense follows from M.'s illustrations and the Vftti to them. M.'s
definition is different from that of B. and it must be admitted that
40 the former is better than the latter. B. defines Samuccaya, KL. 7,19:
yatraikatränekam vastu param syät sukhävähädy eva |
1) I think there is no doubt about the fact that R. illustrated hia mles exclosively by examples composed by himself. See furtheron.
2) cf. Sabokti (KL. 7, 13—18 and 8, 99—102); Samuccaya (KL. 7,19—22;
und 8, 103. 104); Simya (KL. 8, 105) and Tadguna (KL. 9, 22—23) ete.
3) cf. KP. 834. 838. Samuccaya; KP. 784 Vyatireka.
4) cf. Section II of this article.
M.'s definition is (KP. 834):
tataiddkihetav ekasmin yatränyat taticaram Wiavet \
This latter definition applies to R.'s illustrations equally well.
In each of the three illustrations : in 7, 20, kim atra vo kssya-
pade mahad pfiayam,-in 7, 21, sukham idam etävad, in 7, 22, »
aairatvam adhosyan, form the prastutakärya of M. (see Vftti)
corresponding to katham nu virahah sodhavyah. Here we see
that the definition, although bringing no extraneous element, is
worded differently from R.'s definition. In variety 2 (= KL.
variety 3) M.'s definition leaves out R.'s vyadhikarane and ekasmin lo
dede — which are two of the most important elements of R.'s
definition and which in fact exactly define the points in which this
variety differs from variety 1 — which virtually alters the Alaip¬
kära ; the Vftti justifies the omission giving examples of Samuccaya
which are not vyadhikarane or ekasmin dede. This typifies the is
cases of E.'s Alainkäras which are borrowed directly by M. Now
we will consider the six Alarnkäras with which R. commences the
seventh Adhyäya: Sabokti, Jäti, Yathäsaipkhya , Bhäva, Paryäya,
Anumäna (KL. 7, 13—18, 30—33, 34-37, 38—41, 42—46,
56—63). They appear in KP. in the following order: Yathäsam- so
khya KP. 803 (then follow two other Alaipkäras) ; Svabhävokti ==
R.'s Jäti KP. 814 (then one more) Sahokti KP. 817 (then follow
seven others) Paryäya KP. 842 and Anumäna KP. 847. The wordings
of these Alaipkäras in KP. and KL. with the exception of Yathä-
samkhya offer the widest contrasts ; we may again notice here that ss
even when M. does not add anything new to them, he does not
simply paraphrase R.'s definition. 1 refer the reader further to
the brillant monogram „Beiträge zur älteren Geschichte des Alaip-
käraäästra' (Dissertation, Berlin 1911) of my friend Dr. Johannes
Nobel, in which he has exhaustively analysed the eight Alaipkäras : so
Dipaka and Tulyayogitä, Vibhävanä and Viäesokti, Aprastutapraäaipsä
and Samäsokti, Nidar^ana, and Arthäntaranyäsa following them
successively as they appear with Bhämaha, Dandin, Vämana, Udbhata,
Rudrata, Mammata and Ruyyaka and particularly to p. 75 where,
with reference to M.'s treatment of Arthäntaranyäsa, he says : „Ganz ss
von Rudrata abhängig ist Mammata, was um so beachtenswerter
ist, als er sonst wenig auf das Kävyälamkära Rücksicht nimmt'
and in note 14: „Sonst folgte Mammata meist Udbhata, wie wir
bei den vorangehenden Untersuchungen sahen".
From a consideration of these facts I consider I am justified 40
in drawing the conclusion that although Mammata lies under
obligation to Rudrata for a great many of his ideas, he has shown
a distinctive individuality in the treatment of the ideas he has
borrowed and that his work can in no sense of the words be
called a slavish imitation of Rudrata's Kävyälamkära. 45
In conclusion, I may mention a fact which by itself would
490 Suktliankar, Miscellaneous Notes on Mammata's Kävyaprakäia.
have been thoroughly inconclusive, namely, that in the 'second" part of the tenth Ulläsa there have been borrowed six illustrations (out of
a total number of 84) from the little known Kävya Navasähasi¬
kacaritam*), while of the preceeding 518 illustrations there is not
5 a single one which is traceable to that Kävya.
In view of these facts taken all together, I think we are
justified in asuming for true the tradition regarding the two authors
of the Kävyaprakääa and I am inclined to think that the statement
of the author of Nidaräana agrees correctly to the very verse, as
10 Parikara is just the hinge where the two parts are most Hkely to
be joined together.
1) For this data I am dependent on the alphabetical index of the illustra¬
tions in the KP. at the end of Jha}akIkarBs edition of the work, as the Mahä¬
kävya is as yet known only in MS.
(To be continued.)
Anzeigen.
Documents of Jewish Sectaries, edited by S. Schechter. —
Vol. I: Fragments of a Zadokite Work, edited from Hebrew
Manuscripts in the Cairo Oenizah Collection . . . and
provided with an English Translation, Introduction and
Notes. LXIV -)- 20 S. — Vol II: Fragments of the Book s
of the Commandments by Anan etc. VIII -)- 50 S.
Cambridge, University Press, 1910. 10 Shill.
Band I der vorliegenden Ausgabe hat gleich bei seinem Er¬
scheinen das lebhafteste Interesse der Theologen erregt, und je
mehr man sich in ihn versenkt, desto gewisser wird die Über- lo
Zeugung, daß er ein noch viel größeres Interesse verdient. Ich
stelle die bedeutendsten Aufsätze kurz zusammen, soweit sie mir
bekannt geworden sind: G. Margoliouth (Athenaeum, Nr. 4335 vom
26. Nov. 1910, S. 657 ff. und The Expositor, Dez. 1911, S. 499ff.);
G. Poote Moore (Harvard Theological Review IV, 1911, S. 330 ff.); is
S. Landauer (Theol. Literaturzeit. XXXVII, 1912, Sp. 261ff.); eine
französische Übersetzung von Israel L6vy (Revue des Etudes Juives
LXI, 1911, S. 172 ff.); eine deutsche Übersetzung von Th. Böhl
(Theol. Tijdschrift XLVI, 1912, S. Iff). Endlich habe ich selbst
eine vorläufige Anzeige verfaßt (Internationale Wochenschrift V, 20
1911, Sp. 257ff.), die ich jetzt in einzelnen Punkten korrigieren
muß. Von einem wirklichen Verständnis sind wir, wie es scheint,
trotz der wertvollen Vorarbeiten noch immer weit entfernt.
Die Schrift, die Schechter willkürlich und nicht gerade glücklich
als ein ,Zadokitisches Werk* bezeichnet hat, stammt, wie der 26
hebräische Jesus Sirach, aus der Geniza zu Kairo. An ihrer Echt¬
heit und an ihrem jüdischen Ursprung kann demnach auch
nicht der leiseste Zweifel sein. Es handelt sich um Bruchstücke
zweier Handschriften, die sich teilweise decken und eine Parallel-
Eezension darbieten: Manuskript A umfaßt 8 Blätter (16 Seiten), so
die fast ganz erhalten sind; auf den letzten Seiten sind einzelne
Zeilen durch Flecken und Beschädigungen verstümmelt, im übrigen
aber ist die Schrift leicht lesbar. Manuskript B umfaßt nur 1 Blatt
(2 Seiten); sein Text weicht zum Teil von A ab und ergänzt ihn
in der glücklichsten Weise. A. ist im 10., B. im 11. oder 12. Jahrh. ss
n. Chr. aufgezeichnet worden. Der überlieferte Text ist stark ver¬
wahrlost, läßt sich aber vielfach noch sicher emendieren. Schon
