History of Sanskrit Poetics c5.s1.t1.559

c5.s1.t1.559

It will have been noticed how मम्मट deals with all topics of Poetics except dramaturgy. He casts his net over a wide area. He quotes about 620 verses from other authors to illustrate his teachings. For want of space it is not possible to set out in detail all the authors and works from which quotations are taken. The following are mentioned by name:—आचार्याभिनवगुप्त, कालिदास, कामशास्त्र, उद्भट, ध्वनिकार or ध्वनिकृत्, बाण, भट्टनायक, भरत, महाभाष्यकार, मयूर, रुद्रट, लोल्लट, वाक्यपदीय, शङ्कुक, श्रीहर्ष. Among those which are not named are the following:—the works of कालिदास and भवभूति, अमरुशतक, कर्पूरमञ्जरी, कुट्टनीमत, चण्डीशतक, नवसाहसाङ्कचरित, नागानन्द, बालरामायण, भट्टि, भर्तृहरि, भट्ट, भामह, भास, माघ, रत्नावली, राघवानन्द, विज्जका, विद्धशालभञ्जिका, विष्णुपुराण, वेणीसंहार, हयग्रीववध, हरविजय. Thought much of मम्मट's treatment is based upon the works of his predecessors, such as the ध्वन्यालोक, उद्भट, भामह, रुद्रट (from whose work about 30 verses are quoted), वामन, अभिनवगुप्त, yet he is a man of independent views and his respect for these ancient authorities does not preclude him from criticizing them when occasion demands. For example, he strongly criticizes (in 9th उल्लास pp. 516-527) महोद्भट for the latter's view about श्लेष. He finds fault (towards the end of the 7th उल्लास, pp. 448-449) with the remarks of the ध्वन्यालोक on the verse सत्यं मनोरमा रामाः सत्यं रम्या विभूतयः । किं तु मत्ताङ्गनापाङ्गभङ्गललं हि जीवितम् ॥ (ध्व० p. 224), which say that the first half begins with the विभावs of शृङ्गार and the' atter half culminates in शान्त and yet there is no विरोध, as this mode of treatment is adopted for inducing the instructed to be ready to receive instruction and for lending charm to the verse. Though मम्मट borrows several verses from रुद्रट, he differs from the latter on several occasions. For example, मम्मट's remark on समुच्चय (धुनोति चासि तनुते च कीर्तिमित्यादेः, कृपायपाणिष्व भवान्खचितौ । ससाधुवादाश्च सुराः सुरालये इत्यादेश दर्शनात्, 'व्यधिकरये' इति, 'एकस्मिन् देशे' इति च न वाच्यम् । p. 691) are directed against रुद्रट's words 'व्यधिकरये वा यस्मिन्नुक्रिये' &c. (VII. 27); similarly, his words on कारयमाला ('हेतुमता सह हेतोरभिधानमभेदतो हेतुः' इति हेत्वलङ्कारो न लक्षितः... 'अविरलकमलविकासः...कालः' इत्यत्र काव्यरूपतां कोमलानुप्रास- महिम्नैव समाम्नासिपुर्नहेत्वलङ्कारकल्पतया pp. 706-707) refer to रुद्रट's definition of हेतु and his example thereof (VII. 82-83). So also the dictum under अनुमान 'साध्यसाधनयोः पौर्वापर्यविकल्पे न किञ्चिद्व्यभि- व्यमिति न तथा दर्शितम्' (p. 698) has in view रुद्रट VII. 56. He criticizes (in the 8th उल्लास pp. 471-72) वामन's distinction between guṇas and alaṅkāras (काव्यशोभायाः कर्तारो धर्मो गुणाः । तदतिशय- हेतवस्त्वलङ्काराः । काव्या. सू. III. I. 1-2). Similarly, he finds fault with वामन's explanation of ओजः as प्रौढि 'पदार्थे वाक्यरचनं वाक्यार्थे च पदामिधा । प्रौढिव्याससमासौ च साभिप्रायत्वमस्य च ॥ इति या प्रौढिरोज इत्युक्तं तद्वैचित्र्यमात्रं न गुणः, सदभावेपि काव्यव्यवहारप्रवृत्तेः' (VIII उल्लास pp. 480-81). वामन says: 'अर्थस्य प्रौढिरोजः' (काव्या. सू. III. 2. 2) and quotes the verse पदार्थे० in the वृत्ति. Thought he quotes three verses from भामह (I. 13-15) in the sixth उल्लास and the famous verse of भामह (II. 85 सैषा सर्वैव वक्रोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते ।...कोलङ्कारोनया विना ॥) in the 10th उल्लास (under विशेष p. 744), yet he appears to find fault with भामह (श्रव्यं नातिसमस्तार्थं काव्यं मधुरमिष्यते । II. 3) when he says (8th उल्लास p. 474) 'आह्लादकत्वं माधुर्यं शृङ्गारे द्युतिकारणम् ।...श्रव्यत्वं पुनरोजः- प्रसादयोरपि'. मम्मट does not scruple to find fault with the greatest of poets, e. g. he says that in मृदुपवनविभ्रष्टो (विक्रमो० 4. 22) there is the fault भग्नलाक्षील, in दिवाकराद्वति (कुमार० I. 12) there is अनुचितार्थता, in अतिथि नाम (रघु 17. 1) there is भग्नप्रक्रमदोष, in गाहन्तां महिषा (शाकुन्तल II. 6) also there is भग्नप्रक्रम, in वपुरिरूपाच्चमलचयजन्मता (कुमार० V. 72) there is अविमृष्टविधेयांशादोष.