Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c70: Additions And Corrections

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c70

Language
English

Additions And Corrections

v1.c70.1

P. 2, *fn* 2 at *p.* 3.—The *Abhinaya-darpaṇa* has been translated into English by A. Coomarsvamy and G. K. Duggirala (Cambridge, Mss. 1917).

v1.c70.2

P. 4, *l.* 13.—Undue emphasis appears to have been laid on the use of poetic figures in Vedic literature by Kane in *IA* xli, 1912, pp. 120f., and following him, by B. K. Bhaṭṭācārya in the *Journal of the Dept. of Letters*, Calcutta University, vol. ix, 1923, pp. 100f.

v1.c70.3

P. 11, *fn.* 1.—The passage occurs in the *Mahābhāṣya*, ed. Kielhorn p. 19, *l.* 20.

v1.c70.4

P. 22.—Add Bibliography to Ch. I: Kane in *IA* xli, 1912, pp. 120f; Sovani in the *Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute*, January 1920; Winternitz in *Geschichte der Ind. Lit.* iii p. 4f; Jacobi in *ZDMG* lvi p. 392f, in *Sb. der Preuss. Akad.* xxii, 1922, p. 220f. For general remarks on the subject, see Oldenberg in *Die Lit. des Alten Indien*, Berlin 1903, pp. 203f, Jacobi in *Internat. Wochenschrift*, October 29, 1910.

v1.c70.5

P. 23, *fn* 1.—Add H. P. Śāstrī in *JASB* vi, 1910, 307; Kane in *IA* xlvi, 1917, p. 177f; Jacobi in *Bhavisatta kaha* p. 54, fn; Winternitz, *op. cit.* iii p. 8, fn 3.

v1.c70.6

P. 26, *fn* 1, at *p.* 27 (also *p.* 37).—A poet Rāhulaka is quoted in *Śārṅgadhara* 3875. Hemacandra (p. 316) quotes Rāhula, along with Śākyācārya, as an authority presumably on the dramatic *rasa* with the pointed remark that as a follower of Bharata he himself has ignored their views. Rāhula is also cited by Sarvānanda on Amara (ŚyŚ ii p. 30).

v1.c70.7

P. 28.—Bharata mentions Śāṇḍilya and Dhūrtila as two of his predecessors in the treatment of the subject of dramaturgy. Of these, Śāṇḍilya is mentioned as a nāṭyaśāstra-kāra by Siṅgabhūpāla i 51.

v1.c70.8

P. 32, l. 5.—Winternitz (op. cit. p. 5, fn 2, at p. 6) notes that in the Viṣṇupurāṇa iii 6, the muni Bharata is called an early teacher of the Gāndharvaveda (i.e. music). Winternitz also appears to accept the view (op. cit. p. 9) that Mātṛgupta wrote a commentary on Bharata.

v1.c70.9

P. 36.—B. N. Bhaṭṭācārya (op. cit. p. 113) argues from a reference to Vātsyāyana’s Kāma-sūtra and the portions of the Nāṭya-śāstra which deal with erotics, the more elementary character of the former work, inasmuch as certain minute details of classification indulged in by the latter are not to be met with in the former work. But the illustration he adduces (viz. the classification of heroes and heroines) does not appear to be very much to the point; for the two writers approach the topic from entirely different standpoints and adopt different principles of classification. The same writer also argues (p. 116) with reference to Bharata and the so-called works of Bhāsa, that the dramaturgic treatise, if any, which existed in the latter’s time, was not Bharata’s Nāṭya-śāstra, but one of its forerunners. We have avoided a discussion of this point, in view of the doubts which have been raised as to authorship of these dramas, and the correctness of the attribution to Bhāsa.

v1.c70.10

*P. 38.*—The only direct quotation from Lollaṭa (and not a mere consideration of his views) is to be found in Hemacandra p. 215 (two verses).

v1.c70.11

*P. 42.*—Sovani in *JRAS*, 1909, pp. 450f substantially agrees with our conclusion as to the nature of the *Hṛdaya-darpaṇa* which he considers to be an independent metrical treatise with prose-*vṛtti*.

v1.c70.12

*P. 44.*—Add in the Bibliography: Max Lindenau in *Beitraege zur altindischen Rasa-lehre, mit besonderer Beruecksichtigung des Nāṭyaśāstra* (Diss.) Leipzig 1913. An article by the present writer of the outlines of the *rasa*-theory from Bharata to Jagannātha (with the text of Abhinava’s commentary on Bharata’s *sūtra* on *rasa*) is being published in *Sir Asutosh Mookerjee Commemoration Volume*, Calcutta University, vol. iii (orientalia).

v1.c70.13

*P. 48, fn 1.*—Add Nobel in *ZDMG* lxxiii p. 192 and Winternitz *op. cit.* iii p. 11, fn 1. T. Gaṇapati Śāstrī (introd. to ed. Bhāsa), referring to this passage in Bhāmaha, contends that “Bhāmaha lived much prior to Kālidāsa” who, in his opinion, defends in his *Meghadūta* i 5 the poetic propriety of employing the clouds as messengers. This theory, as well as the conclusion that Bhāmaha’s date is much earlier than Guṇādhya’s, advanced by that scholar, appears to be very doubtful.

v1.c70.14

*P. 48, fn 3.*—On Bhāmaha’s date, see also Sovani in *Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume* p. 392f, Trivedi in *ibid* p. 401f. Also see *IA* xli, 90f, and Jacobi in *Bhavisatta kaha* p. 54, fn 1.

v1.c70.15

*P. 50, l. 18.*—Read “500 and 650 A.D.”

v1.c70.16

*P. 50 fn 2.*—Add “p. 130f” in the reference.

v1.c70.17

The date assigned by Jacobi to Bhāmaha in this article is now abondoned by him.

v1.c70.18

*P. 57 fn 1.*—Winternitz (*op. cit.* iii 405) thinks that the two Bhāmahas are probably identical. But it may be submitted that there is no material either to prove or disprove the identity.

v1.c70.19

*P. 55-6.*—Winternitz (*op. cit.* iii p. 71, fn 2) does not appear to have come to any conclusion as to the question regarding the source which Bhaṭṭi utilised for his illustration of poetic figures.

v1.c70.20

*P. 62, fn 1.*—A résumé of the Tibetan version of Daṇḍin's text is given by Thomas in *JRAS* 1903. An edition of this text is undertaken by the Calcutta University.

v1.c70.21

*P. 63, fn 3.*—Add "pp. 143-146" after the reference to Kielhorn. See also *JRAS*, 1908, p. 497f. But D. R. Bhandarkar (*EI* ix p. 187f) and Klatt (*WZKM* iv, 1890, p. 61f; also Jacobi in *ibid* p. 236f) place Māgha in the beginning of the 8th and beginning of the 10th century respectively. There are several other verses in Māgha which betray an acquaintance with Poetics and Dramaturgy, e.g. ii 8, 86, 87; xiv 50; xix 41; xx 44 (where he refers to Bharata).

v1.c70.22

*P. 64, fn 1, l. 1.*—Add (after *IA*) "xli"; *l. 2*, add (after *ibid*) "1908". The question has also been briefly discussed by Nobel (in *ZDMG* lxxiii, 1919, pp. 190f) who maintains the priority of Bhāmaha to Daṇḍin. See also his *Beitraege zur aelteren Geschichte des Alaṃkāra-śāstra* (Berlin 1911) p. 78.

v1.c70.23

*P. 66, l 30.*—Read "i śl 7".

v1.c70.24

*P. 73, l. 19.*—Stein gives the form Vādighaṅghala.

v1.c70.25

*P. 81.*—Vāmana quotes also (*dordaṇḍāñcita*°, *l. 2, 12 vrtti*) from Bhavabhūti's *Mahāvīra-carita* i 54 (ed. N. S. P. 1910). He also quotes (IV. 3. 10 *vrtti*, *uthau yadi vyomni*) from Māgha iii 8, and also from Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa. On Vāmana's date, see also *JRASBom* xxiii p. 92f.

v1.c70.26

*P. 85, l. 3.*—Add the reference “on II. 2. 21” after *Vidagdha-mukha-maṇḍana*.

v1.c70.27

*P. 86.*—Abhinavagupta (p. 45) also quotes anonymously a *kārikā*-verse of Rudraṭa's (vii 38)—a fact which confirms the lower limit given by us for Rudraṭa's date.

v1.c70.28

*P. 88, fn 1.*—Add the reference “p. 130f”.

v1.c70.29

*P. 89, fn 3.*—Add (after *ZDMG*) the reference xxxix p. 314.

v1.c70.30

*P. 95, fn 1, at p. 96.*—The verse *ambā sete'tra* is quoted by Ānandavardhana p. 105; so the attribution to Rudraṭa is doubtful. Śiṅgabhūpāla quotes from and refers to the *Śṛṅgāra-tilaka* under the name Rudraṭa. Sukthankar in *ZDMG* lxvi (1912) maintains the identity of Rudra and Rudraṭa.

v1.c70.31

*P. 97, fn 3.*—Peterson (*Subhāṣ* p. 114) thinks that the anthology-compiler Vallabhadeva could not have flourished before Jainollabhadīna whose date is given by Cunningham as 1417-1467 A.D.

v1.c70.32

*P. 99.*—Winternitz (*op. cit.* ii p. 354, fn 5) assigns 1236-1244 A.D. as the date of Āśādhara's literary activity. See also Kielhorn in *EI* ix p. 107f.

v1.c70.33

*P. 117.*—Both the *Arjuna-carita* and the *Viṣama-bāṇa-līlā* are mentioned and quoted by Hemacandra (pp. 213 and 15) and by Abhinavagupta pp. 176, and 152, 222.

v1.c70.34

*P. 120, l. 12.*—Add the reference “vol. ix”

v1.c70.35

*P. 123, fn 2.*—The editors of Rājaśekhara's *Kāv. mīm.* report an opinion that the apperciatory verses attributed to Rājaśekhara by Jalhaṇa are to be found in another work of our poet, named *Kavi-vimarśa*. But this so-called *Kavi-vimarśa* might have been another name for his *Kāvya-mīmāṃsā kavi-rahasya*, in the published text of which, however, the verses do not occur. The date of Rājaśekhara by the editors is 880-920 A.D.

v1.c70.36

*P. 126.*—One Aparājita-rakṣita is also quoted in the *Kavi. vacana. samuc.*; but the name implies that he was probably a Buddhist, and is possibly not identical with Rājaśekhara's contemporary Aparājita (see Thomas, introd. to *ibid* p. 20).

v1.c70.37

*P. 150, para 4, l. 3.*—Add “and Stein p. 275”.

v1.c70.38

*P. 162.*—Sukthankar in *ZDMG* lxvi, 1912, p. 477f has considered the question of the dual authorship of the *Kāvya-prakāśa* in detail. He attempts to demonstrate by a comparison of the “two parts” of the work that while Allaṭa (author of the latter end) depends for his whole material upon Rudraṭa, Mammaṭa, although borrowing a great deal from the same source, follows older authors like Udbhaṭa. The point, however, appears to have been a little over-worked. Sukthankar's contention loses much of its force when we consider that *both* Mammaṭa and Allaṭa have made use of Rudraṭa's definitions and illustrations, and that a distinction in their respective treatment cannot, therefore, be very pointedly based on this consideration alone. The same scholar also argues (p. 533f) that a portion of the *vṛtti* to the definition of the poetic figure *samuccaya* in the *Kāvya-prakāśa* does not originate either from Mammaṭa or Allaṭa but must be regarded as an interpolation.

v1.c70.39

*P. 216.*—A Pakṣadhara Upādhyāya is cited, apparently as a commentator on Mammaṭa, by Bhīmasena (see above p. 184); it is not known if this Pakṣadhara has anything to do with the logician Pakṣadhara.

v1.c70.40

*P. 217 footnote 3 at p. 218.*—The attribution of the *Pañcāśikā* to Bilhaṇa is generally accepted (Winternitz *op. cit.* iii p. 117), and the poet Cora or Caura may not have anything to do with the *Pañcāśikā*; but it is curious to note that a verse from the *Pañcāśikā* (ed. Solf. no. 36) is quoted anonymously by Dhanika (ed. N. S. P. 1917, p. 85, on iv 23). The same verse is also quoted by Kuntala (i 49 *vṛtti*) who, like Bhoja (who quotes the *Pañcāśikā*, see above p. 144), may have been one of Bilhaṇa's contemporaries: but Dhanika certainly lived in the reign of Bhoja's predecessor Muñja and thus flourished presumably before the date generally assigned to Bilhaṇa. The same verse is attributed to one Kalaśa in *Subhāṣ* 1280 and in *Jalhaṇa* 74a. These facts may raise the doubt that the text as well as the authorship of the *Pañcāśikā* is by no means an absolutely settled fact.

v1.c70.41

*PP. 217, 223.*—On *Kandarpa-cūḍāmaṇi* see Schmidt *Ind. Erotik*, 1911, pp. 33f. It is nothing more than a treatment of Vātsyāyana's teachings in *āryā*-verses.

v1.c70.42

*P. 234, fn 1.*—M. Chakravarti in *JASB*, 1906, p. 167 points out that Jayadeva is quoted in the *Saduktikarṇāmṛta* of Śrīdhara and therefore must be placed before 1206 A.D.

v1.c70.43

P. 249-50.—B. N. Bhaṭṭācārya (op. cit. p.163) refers to a tradition among Bihar Pandits that Bhānudatta's father wrote the Rasa-ratna-dīpikā, and that his grandfather Śaṅkara Miśra, who wrote a commentary on Śrīharṣa's Khaṇḍana-khaṇḍa-khādya, flourished about 1405 A.D. But this tradition is unreliable in view of Bhānu's genealogy given by himself in his Kumāra-bhārgavīya, which tells us that the name of Bhānu's grandfather was Mahādeva and not Śaṅkara (see above p. 250), although the name of the fathers of both Śaṅkara and Mahādeva appears to be Bhavanātha.

v1.c70.44

P. 251.—On *Parimala* by Śeṣa Cintāmaṇi, add at the end of the paragraph "Extract in Mitra 3115, Bhandarkar Rep. 1883-84, p. 365."

v1.c70.45

P. 296, no. 34.—Although the commentary by Rāmakṛṣṇa Paṇḍita on the Nāṭaka-dīpa is placed by Rice under Alaṃkāra as a commentary presumably on Tryambaka's work, Aufrecht (i 791a) points out that it is undoubtedly a commentary on the Nāṭaka-dīpa in the Pañcadaśī. So delete the entry here, and correct this error copied in Schuyler's Bibliography p. 18 and in Haricānd Śāstrī p. 35, no. 369.

v1.c70.46

P. 325, no. 30.—Add "See above p. 293."

Linked texts (27)