Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c83.7

v2.c83.7

It would be extraordinary indeed that a work like Dhvanikāra’s could have sprung into existence without having had a previous history, although such earlier forms of the theory as might have enabled us to trace directly its origin and growth were either not committed to writing or had disappeared in course of time ; for at its first appearance as we have it in these kārikās, we find the theory in a relatively complete shape, the outlines of which, definitely settled, may require considerable filling up but no important or substantial modification. This is probably implied by Abhinavagupta’s gloss on the word paramparā in Ānandavardhana’s explanation of the phrase samāmnāta-pūrvaḥ used by the Dhvanikāra with reference to the previous existence of the theory. Abhinava explains (p. 3) that the theory was stated in unbroken tradition by previous thinkers without its being discussed in particular books (avicchinnena pravāheṇa tair etad uktam, vināpi viśiṣṭa-pustakeṣu vivecanāt). It is true that Mukula refers (p. 21) to a theory of dhvani being newly described by some men of taste (sahṛdayair⁵ nūtanatayópavarṇitasya) as something not comprehensible by the recognised function of lakṣaṇā, and does not discuss it for its over-subtelty (etac ca vidvadbhiḥ kuśāgrīyayā buddhyā nirūpaṇīyam...ityalam atiprasaṅgena); but he may in this passage be directly referring to the Dhvanikāra, who for the first time probably summed up in his memorial verses the floating traditions, or to Ānandavardhana to whom belonged the credit of fixing the theory into a new and complete shape.