Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c30.5

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-