Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c30: XVI Mammata And Allata

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c30

Language
English

Contents

XVI Mammata And Allata

v1.c30.1

A great deal of uncertainty exists with regard to the exact date of Mammaṭa whose name¹, as well as the title rājānaka, indicates that he was probably a Kashmirian. The story relied upon by Hall² and Weber³ that Mammaṭa was the maternal uncle of the author of Naiṣadha may be relegated to the region of fantastic fables which often gather round celebrated names. The lower limit of Mammaṭa’s date, however, may be fixed with reference to two commentaries on the *Kāvya-prakāśa*, of which the date can be ascertained. The commentary of Māṇikyacandra is expressly dated in *saṃvat* 1216 = 1160 A.D. The exact date of Ruyyaka’s commentary is not known, but we know from other sources that Ruyyaka flourished in the second and third quarters of the 12th century¹. Mammaṭa, therefore, cannot be placed later the beginning of the 12th century.

v1.c30.2

¹ Aufrecht (i 432) notes that Mammaṭa's original name was Mahimabhatta on the mistaken authority of Keśava Miśra's erroneous citation (p. 80-81). The passage in which Keśava cites Mahimabhatta clearly refers not to Mammaṭa but to Mahiman, author of the Vyaktiviveka, mentioned in the same context. The verse anaucityādite, however, which is thus quoted and attributed to Mahiman by Keśava, occurs originally in the vṛtti of the Dhvanyāloka (p. 145) from which apparently it is also cited in the Vyakti-viveka (pp. 31, 114) with a sa evāha, along with many other verses similarly quoted from the same text. Keśava might have taken the verse directly from the Vyaktiviveka's citation, without knowing the original source, and wrongly attributed it to Mahiman himself. It does not occur at all in the Kāv. prak. Aufrecht's suggestion, therefore, that Mammaṭa is a corruption of the name Mahimabhatta, like his other supposition that the name Rudrabhatta yields Rudraṭa, is unwarranted. Cf Peterson ii p. 19.

v1.c30.3

² introd. to Vāsavadattā p. 55.

v1.c30.4

³ Hist. of Sansk. Lit. (Eng. trans. 2nd ed.), p. 232 fn.

v1.c30.5

¹ Jhalakikara maintains, on the authority of Paramānanda Cakravartin and Nāgoji on Mammaṭa, that Mammaṭa in several places criticises Ruyyaka, who therefore must be placed earlier than Mammaṭa. But the passages he cites do not support his contention. Thus the verse *rājati taṭīyam* (*Kāv. prak.* p. 758) is supposed to be directed against Ruyyaka p. 199, where the same verse is quoted in the same context. It appears, however, that Mammaṭa gives this verse as an instance of *śabdālaṃkāra-saṃkara* without any comment but with the simple statement that here we have a commixture of *yamaka* and *anuloma-pratiloma-citra* dependent on one another. Ruyyaka, on the other hand, citing the same verse and referring to the opinions of “other authors” comments on it at some length. He remarks that though the verse is given by some as an example of *śabdālaṃkāra-saṃkara*, such commixture of *śabdālaṃkāras*, in his opinion, is not possible, and the example is faulty. The verse itself occurs in Ratnākara’s *Hara-vijaya* (v 137). Jayaratha and Samudrabandha also remark in this connexion that the anonymous authors, referred to by Ruyyaka in his criticism, allude to “Mammaṭa and others.” Besides, Ruyyaka himself quotes (p. 102) Mammaṭa’s *kārikā* iv 15-16. Jayaratha expressly says that Ruyyaka wrote a commentary on Mammaṭa called *Kāvyaprakāśa-saṃketa* (p. 102). In several other places, both Jayaratha and Samudra-

v1.c30.6

1 Jhalakikara maintains, on the authority of Paramānanda Cakravartin and Nāgoji on Mammaṭa, that Mammaṭa in several places criticises Ruyyaka, who therefore must be placed earlier than Mammaṭa. But the passages he cites do not support his contention. Thus the verse *rājati taṭīyam* (*Kāv. prak.* p. 758) is supposed to be directed against Ruyyaka p. 199, where the same verse is quoted in the same context. It appears, however, that Mammaṭa gives this verse as an instance of *śabdālaṃkāra-saṃkara* without any comment but with the simple statement that here we have a commixture of *yamaka* and *anuloma-pratiloma-citra* dependent on one another. Ruyyaka, on the other hand, citing the same verse and referring to the opinions of “other authors” comments on it at some length. He remarks that though the verse is given by some as an example of *śabdālaṃkāra-saṃkara*, such commixture of *śabdālaṃkāras*, in his opinion, is not possible, and the example is faulty. The verse itself occurs in Ratnākara’s *Hara-vijaya* (v 137). Jayaratha and Samudrabandha also remark in this connexion that the anonymous authors, referred to by Ruyyaka in his criticism, allude to “Mammaṭa and others.” Besides, Ruyyaka himself quotes (p. 102) Mammaṭa’s *kārikā* iv 15-16. Jayaratha expressly says that Ruyyaka wrote a commentary on Mammaṭa called *Kāvyaprakāśa-saṃketa* (p. 102). In several other places, both Jayaratha and Samudra- The other limit cannot be settled so satisfactorily. It has been maintained that Mammaṭa in one verse (*bhoja-nṛpates tat-tyāga-līlāyitam* x ad 29b ; B. S. S. ed. 1917, p. 684) eulogises Bhoja with whom he should be presumed to have been contemporaneous. This is sought to be supported by the story, related by a very late commentator Bhīmasena¹, that Mammaṭa was the son of Jayyaṭa and had two brothers Kayyaṭa and Uvvaṭa, of whom Uvvaṭa is taken to be the well-known commentator on the Vedic works, some of which, as he himself tells us, were composed in Avantī while Bhoja was still reigning. It is suggested on this ground that Uvvaṭa was probably the medium of the quotation referred to above relating to his royal patron; or, assuming it to have been composed by Mammaṭa himself, it might have obtained for its author an introduction into the munificent court of Bhoja². But this theory is untenable; for Uvvaṭa tells us that his father's name was Vajraṭa and not Jayyaṭa; and it is not clear that the stanza in question, given anonymously as an instance of the figure *udātta* (which consists in a description of the wealth and prosperity of an exalted personage) was composed by Mammaṭa himself, who certainly borrows similar illustrative verses from

v1.c30.7

¹ introd. to ed. *Kāv-prak.* in B. S. S. (3rd. ed. 1917) pp. 6-7: also extract in Peterson i p. 94.

v1.c30.8

² Gaṅgānātha Jhā in his introd. to his trans. of *Kāv. prak.* pp. vi-vii.

v1.c30.9

bandha point out that Ruyyaka is criticising Mammaṭa (e.g. Jayaratha pp. 77, 102, 107, 150, 163, 199, 204; Samudrabandha pp. 23, 25, 119, 156, 243, 249 etc.).

v1.c30.10

various sources. All that this anonymous verse may be taken to establish is that its allusion to king Bhoja indicates that Mammaṭa was not probably earlier than Bhoja.

v1.c30.11

We may, therefore, place Mammaṭa between Ruyyaka on the one hand and Bhoja on the other, if we may assume, on the authority of the commentators, the identity of this Bhoja with the Paramāra Bhoja of Dhārā, the reputed author of the Sarasvatī-k°. In other words, Mammaṭa probably belongs to the period between the middle of the 11th and the first quarter of the 12th century. Allowing two generations to intervene between him and Ruyyaka, we may assign Mammaṭa's literary activity roughly to the last quarter of the 11th century.

v1.c30.12

Although well-known for his *Kāvya-prakāśa*, which helped to establish finally and exclusively the doctrines of the Kashmiriian school of Ānandavardhana, Mammaṭa is also the author of a less known work entitled the *Śabdavyāpāra-paricaya* which, as its name implies, is a short dissertation on the expressive functions (*vṛtti*) of words. Mammaṭa, like most writers on Poetics, was also well-versed in the allied science of grammar, proficiency in which he also displays in the larger work.

v1.c30.13

On a summary examination of the contents of the *Kāvya-prakāśa*, it will appear that the work is carefully planned and systematically worked out.

v1.c30.14

Peterson, however, on the indication given in Rājānaka Ānanda’s *Nidarśana*¹ commentary, first called in question the unity of the work, although his first erroneous impression², corrected afterwards by himself,³ was that the *kārikā*-text was composed by Mammaṭa, while the running prose-*vṛtti* was added by some other hand. There is enough evidence now to show that Mammaṭa composed nearly the whole work (*kārikā* and *vṛtti*), and only a small portion of the last chapter, left incomplete by him, was completed by another author, whose name is given by Ānanda as Alaṭa or Alaka. That the fact of joint-authorship is skilfully concealed is supposed to be alluded to in the last verse, given in most of the MSS⁴, which apparently says that “this way of the learned, though different yet appearing identical, is not strange, for here the only cause is a properly constructed (plan of) combination.” This may be explained, no doubt, as meaning that the author here claims the credit of having skilfully removed, in his systematic work, all conflict of opinions held by different authors on Poetics; but most commentators agree in finding here a hint implying that the work left incomplete by Mammaṭa was completed by some other person, and the traces of joint-authorship are ingeniously obliterated. Māṇikyacandra Sūri, one of the earliest commentators, does not comment on this verse¹, but Ruyyaka remarks in his *Saṃketa* commentary: *eṣa grantho granthakṛtānena katham apyasamāptatvād apareṇa ca pūritāvaśeṣatvād dvi-khaṇḍo’-pyakhaṇḍatayā yad avabhāsate tatra saṃghaṭanaiva hetuḥ*. In this view Ruyyaka is followed by Jayanta Bhaṭṭa, Someśvara, Narahari Sarasvatī-tīrtha, Kamalākara, Ānanda, Jajñeśvara and other early as well as late commentators. Rājānaka Ānanda, however, is more explicit and quotes a traditionary verse² to show that Mammaṭa composed the work up to the treatment of the figure *parikara* (x 32), while the rest, consisting of a small portion of the concluding chapter, was completed by Alaka, Alaṭa or Allaṭa³.

v1.c30.15

¹ The name of this comm. is *Śikaṇṭha-vibodhana* as well as *Kāvyaprakāśa-nidarśana*.

v1.c30.16

² *Rep.* i p. 21 f.

v1.c30.17

³ *Rep.* ii p. 13 f. Cf Bühler in *IA* xiii 30.

v1.c30.18

⁴ *ityeṣa mārgo viduṣām vibhinno’- | pyabhinna-rūpaḥ pratibhāsate yat | na tad vicitram yad amutra samyag | vinirmitā saṃghaṭanaiva hetuḥ.*

v1.c30.19

¹ Peterson iii p. 19.

v1.c30.20

² *kṛtaḥ śrī-mammaṭācārya-varyaiḥ parikarāvadhiḥ | prabandhaḥ pūritaḥ śeṣo vidhāyālaṭa (ºlaka or ºllaṭa) sūriṇā.*

v1.c30.21

³ This is perhaps the reason why in some MSS of the work, the colophon puts down the names of Mammaṭa and Allaṭa (or Alaka) as the authors, e.g. Bodleian MS (Hultzsch collection 172), which is a Kashmiri an MS in Śāradā character, reads: *iti kāvyaprakāśābhidhānam kāvya-lakṣaṇam samāptam, kṛtiḥ śrī-rājānaka-mammaṭālālakavoḥ.*

v1.c30.22

This statement about the joint-authorship of the *Kāvya-prakāśa* receives confirmation from an independent source. Commenting on *Amaru-śataka* (ed. Kāvyamālā 18, 1916, *śl.* 30), Arjunavarman who, flourished in the first quarter of the 13th century, quotes from the *Kāvya-prakāśa* vii ad 14 (the verse *prasāde vartasva*⁴ cited therein) with the remark *yathódāhṛtaṃ doṣa-nirṇaye mammaṭālāKābhyām*. In the same chapter on doṣa in the *Kāvya-prakāśa*, Amaru 72 is quoted as instancing the fault technically known as *jugupsāślīlā* (vulgarity causing disgust), because the word *vāyu* in the verse is supposed to connote vulgar associations. Arjunavarman defends Amaru from this fastidious criticism with the pointed remark: *kiṃ tu hlādaikamayī-vara-labda-prasādan kāvyaprakāśakārau prāyeṇa doṣa-dṛṣṭī, yenaivaṃvidheṣvapi paramārtha-sahṛdayānanda-padeṣu sarasa-karisamdarbheṣu doṣam eva sākṣāt akurutām*. Both these passages, which mention the dual authorship of the *Kāvya-prakāśa*, refer in particular to ch. vii where the *doṣas* or faults of composition are discussed. Unless the remarks be taken to imply a general reference to the fact of joint-authorship without particularly meaning collaboration of any special chapter, one may be led to the conclusion that Allaṭa (here mentioned as Alaka) had a hand not only in the 10th, as the the tradition makes it out, but also in the 7th chapter.

v1.c30.23

⁴ This verse is ascribed to Candraka in Śārṅgadhara 3565.—On this question, see Kane in *IA*, 1911, p. 208.

v1.c30.24

Of the three forms of the name, Alaka, Alaṭa and Allaṭa, the last, which is given in Stein's Jammu MS, seems to be the most authentic. The *ṭa* is a well-known suffix to Kashmiri names, and Stein says that "this form of the name is the only one known to the tradition of Kashmiri Paṇḍits, to whom the double authorship of the *Kāvya-prakāśa* is otherwise perfectly familiar."[1] This Allaṭa or Alaka is supposed to be the same as Rājānaka Alaka who wrote a commentary on Ruyyaka, and is quoted by Ratnakaṇṭha as such¹. If this identification, which was suggested by Peterson but disfavoured by Stein, is correct, then we must also ascribe to him the *Viṣamapadóddyata* commentary² on Ratnākara’s *Haravijaya*, where Alaka is described as the son of Rājānaka Jayānaka. It appears strange, however, that Allaṭa, the continuator of the *Kāvya-prakāśa*, should also be the commentator of Ruyyaka, who in his turn commented on the same work. This will make the two writers commentators on each other’s text; and if this were so, we may naturally expect a reference to this fact by Ruyyaka, who otherwise alludes to the dual authorship of the *Kāvya-prakāśa*, but does not mention the name of Allaṭa as the continuator³.

v1.c30.25

¹ See *Jammu Cat.*, pp. xxiii f.

v1.c30.26

¹ Peterson ii p. 17f.

v1.c30.27

² i pp. 13 17. Cf. Bühler, *Kashmir Rep.* p. 45. The work, extending over 50 cantos, has been printed in Kāvyamālā 22.

v1.c30.28

³ It is clear, however, that the combination of names in the colophon to a MS of the *Kāv. prak.* (containing, in the same codex, the text and Ruyyaka’s *Saṃketa* commentary), viz., *iti śrīmadrājinakallaṭa-mammaṭa-rucaka-viracite nija-grantha-kāvyaprakāśa-saṃketaḥ prathama ullāsaḥ*, should not lead us to think, as Peterson and Stein do, that the *Kāv. prak.* is a joint-compilation of Allaṭa, Mammaṭa and Rucaka

v1.c30.29

A tradition, chiefly obtaining in Bengal, as we find it in Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and Maheśvara Nyāyālaṃkāra, two very late Bengal commentators on the *Kāvya-prakāśa*¹, imputes the authorship of the *kārikās* (here called *sūtras*²) to Bharata and the prose-*vṛtti* to Mammaṭa, while Bharata himself is said to have drawn upon the *Agni-purāṇa*. While the last assertion about the *Agni-purāṇa* has no foundation in fact and is apparently prompted by the amiable but unhistorical imagination of late writers, which delights in exalting the antiquity of the *Purāṇas*, the suggestion of Bharata's authorship of the *kārikās* is too unauthentic and fanciful to be accepted. Mammaṭa's authorship of the *kārikās* has been declared by Hemacandra (Comm. p. 109 = *Kāv. prak.* v 1-2b) in the first quarter of the 12th century, as well as accepted by a succession of authors and (or Ruyyaka), but it only indicates the names of the authors of the original work (viz, Mammaṭa and Allaṭa) as well as the name of the author of the *Saṃketa* commentary comprised in the codex.

v1.c30.30

¹ Vidyābhūṣaṇa's *Sāhitya-kaumudī* on Mammaṭa, ed. *Kāvyamālā* 63, 1897, p. 2, and comm.; also comm. p. 1. and text p. 189. Cf. Peterson ii p. 10f. Maheśvara's comm. (ed. Jīvānanda, 1876) p. 1. This view is also endorsed by Jayarāma Pañcānana, another Bengal commentator on Mammaṭa (see Peterson ii pp. 21-22, 107).

v1.c30.31

² The term *sūtra* should not mislead us to think that the work might have been originally composed in that form, upon which the later *kārikā*-verses were based; for it is not unusual for the commentators to refer to Mammaṭa's *kārikās* themselves as *sūtras*: e.g. *Pradīpa*, ed. *Kāvyamālā* 1912, p. 378 *sūtre vibhāga upalakṣaṇa-paraḥ*; p. 384 *sūtram upalakṣaṇatayā yojyam*; *Prabhū* p. 381 *sūtraskardānusārataḥ*; *Uddyota* ed. Candorkar, x p. 123.

v1.c30.32

ommentators like Jayaratha, Vidyādhara, Mallinātha, Kumārasvāmin and Appayya. Vaidyanātha, commenting on *Pradīpa* (I 1), alludes to this tradition and rejects it expressly¹; and in this view most of Mammaṭa's other commentators agree. Apart from this, the evidence of the text itself goes directly against such a hypothesis. The *kārikās* iv 4-5 are expressly supported in the *vṛtti* by a dictum of Bharata (vi p. 87 ed. Grosset), and thus imply a distinction between the author of the *kārikā* and that of the *Nāṭya-śāstra*.² The *kārikā* x 8b, again, says *mālā tu pūrvavat*, implying from the context that the figure *mālā-rūpaka* follows the rule laid down for the figure *mālōpamā*, which, however, is not taught in any of the previous *kārikās*, but explained in the *vṛtti*. This apparently indicates that the *kārikā* and the *vṛtti* form one block which should be attributed to one and the same author³.

v1.c30.33

¹ *Prabhā* ed. Kāvyamālā p. 2.

v1.c30.34

² Cf Vaidyanātha on i 1; *granthakṛd iti mammaṭabhaṭṭākhyasya kārikākartur nirdeśaḥ . . . . . bharata-saṃhitāyāṃ kāsāṃcit kārikānāṃ darśanāt sa eva granthakṛd iti na yuktam ; caturthe—"kāraṇānvatha kāryāṇi sahakāriṇī" (iv 4) ityādi kārikārthe "tad uktaṃ bharatena" iti bharata-sammati-pradarśanasyāsaṃgatitvāpatteḥ*.

v1.c30.35

³ To the same effect Vaidyanātha commenting on this passage, ed. Kāvyamālā 1912, p. 329: *etad eva sūtraṃ sūtravṛttikṛtor ekatve jñāpakam, mālōpamāyāḥ sūtrāvanuktāyā vṛttūveva kathanāt*. Also cf other agreeing opinions quoted in Jhalakikara's comm, ed. B. S. S. 1917, p. 599

v1.c30.36

The source of this tradition is probably the unquestioned reverence paid to the sage Bharata, but it may also be due to the fact that Mammaṭa himself has made a considerable use of Bharata’s kārikās. Thus Bharata vi 15, 17-21 = Mammaṭa iv 6-11. Mammaṭa, however has also made a similar use of kārikās and illustrative verses of many of his predecessors. Thus the kārikā in Mammaṭa vii 10 (karṇāvatamsādi-pade) appears as a saṃgraha-śloka in Vāmana’s vṛtti on II. 2. 19; while the definition of the figure ākṣepa in Mammaṭa x 20 is taken from Bhāmaha ii 67a and 68a, or Udbhaṭa ii 2a and 3a as found quoted in Abhinava’s Locana p. 36. Again, Mammaṭa iv 1 and 3 are clearly paraphrases from the Dhvanyāloka ii 1 and 3. Mammaṭa also makes a large use of Rudraṭa’s illustrations.

a. Kāvya-prakāśa

v1.c30.s1.1

Editions. (1) The Text only.—(a) by Nāthurāma, Calcutta 1829 (b) by Jīvānanda 1867 etc.
(2) Text with commentary (a) with Tātparya-vivaraṇa by Maheśacandra Nyāyaratna, Calcutta 1866 (b) with ºĀdarśa of Maheśvara Nyāyālaṃkāra, Calcutta 1876 (by Jīvānanda) (c) with comm. of Kamalākarabhaṭṭa, ed. Pāpā Śāstrī, Benares 1866 (d) with Bālabodhinī of Vāmanācārya Jhalakīkara in B. S. S. 1889, 1901, 1917 (e) with ºPradīpa and ºPrabhā, Kāvyamālā 24, 1891, 1912 (f) with ºPradīpa and ºUddyota (ch. i, ii, vii and x) by D. T. Candorkar, Poona 1896, 1915 (g) with ºPradīpa and ºUddyota (complete) in Ānandāśrama Series, 1911 (h) with ºPradīpa in Pandit x-xiii (i) with Budhamanorañjanī by Mallāri Lakṣmaṇa Śāstrin, Madras 1891 (j) with Sāhitya-kaumudī of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Kāvyamālā 63, 1897.

v1.c30.s1.2

Translations. (a) into English by Gaṅgānātha Jhā in *Pandit* xviii-xxi, separately published, Benares 1918 (b) into English by Pandurang P. Joshi (ch. i ii, and x), Bombay 1913.

v1.c30.s1.3

Our references are to the *pages* of B. S. S. ed. 1914 and in the case of *kārikās* to the text in *Kāvya-pradīpa* (ed. Kāvyamālā 24, 1912) where the *kārikās* are properly numbered to facilitate reference. MSS. Aufrecht i 101b, 778b; ii 19b, 193b; iii 22b. *SCC* vii 9, 10 12, 59; *WBod* 1158, 1159; *KBod* 500; *SCB* 1535, 1894, 2485, 2486; *Madras Cat.* 12816-18, 12819 (with Pradīpa and Prabhā); *WRAS* 128 (1)

v1.c30.s1.4

The commentaries are dicussed and enumerated in next chapter, below.

b. Śabdavyāpāra-paricaya

v1.c30.s2.1

Edition. by M. R. Telang N. S. P. 1916. MSS. See Bühler's *Kashmir Rep.* pp. xvii, cxxxiii; *Oudh Cat.* xi 10 (with comm.)

Linked texts (11)