365bet娱乐

Udbhata himself was a commentator as we have seen above. He had written a gloss on Bhamaha's Kavyalankara. But his original and creative genius could not be satisfied with having commented upon others' views merely; so he wrote the present work which has since become

landmark in the development of the science of poetics. Judging from the tributes paid to him and from the references made to him and to his opinions by alankara-writers we can say without the least fear of exaggeration that his influence on alankara literature was second to none till the time of Mammata's Kavyaprakasa. It is true that owing to the great advance effected during the three centuries that intervened between them and owing to the absorbing genius of Mammata, Udbhata's works were thrown rather into the background after Mammata's time. Yet as facts are being brought to light gradually the real state of things has begun to force itself upon us and we are becoming aware of the fame and popularity that our author once enjoyed. Commensurate with his fame and popularity the number of his commentators must have been large, and from the facts that are now available we can assert that his work was commented upon by more than three exegetes at least. As far as our knowledge goes the first commentator that Udbhata had was Induraja. It does not appear either from the contents of Induraja's Laghuvritti or from any external evidence that Udbhata had another commentator before Induraja. After Induraja we find that one is mentioned as having written an udbhataviveka or vicara . The commentary vimarsini of jayaratha on Ruyyaka's alamkarasarvasva states in more than one place that wrote a gloss on Udbhata called udbhataviveka, and that the sarvasvakara himself generally followed the views propounded in fan. (Vide Kavyamala edition of Ruyyaka composed his pp. 115, 205 etc.) Now about A. D. 1150. And relying upon the facts which seem to prove that Ruyyaka was the same person as Ruchaka who mentions as the name of his father we may place before A. D. 1150. Of this do a little no MS. has as yet been discovered. But another MS. containing a commentary named : has been discovered at Kudalur Mana, in Malabar in A.D. 1919-20. A copy of it has been deposited in the Government

Oriental MSS. Library, Madras. The text of Udbhata adopted by this commentator is the same as that of Induraja and from its contents the commentary appears to be written after Induraja. We can even assert that the commentator came after Mammata as he derives a deal of matter directly from Out of about 50 extra quotations that the commentator has taken to elucidate his points, about 20 are drawn from and many times he almost verbally borrows passages from that great work. In his treatment of he gives the illustration nayanandadayindoh given by Mammata in his ka . pra . and puts his argument on it thus:- 'nayananandadayindorbimbametatprasidati | iti mukhyasyadhyavasanat kimatisayoktih, kimetaditi mukham nirdisya indusamaropana- dupakam kim mukhanairmalyaprastave'prastutaprasamsa, kim dipakam, kim tulyayogita, kim pradosavarnane visesanasamyatsamasoktih, kim madanoddipakah kalo vartata iti paryayoktamiti bahulamkarasamdeho bhavati ... | kavyaprakasa The whole of this passage so closely resembles the corresponding passage in (p. 760) and the few changes that are made appear to be so deliberate and mechanical that no one will deny that the passage is borrowed from kavyaprakasa . Such adaptations exist throughout the whole of this commentary; many of them are pointed out or quoted in extracts in our Notes. From this we can decide that the author of this came after Mammata, although how long after, we have at present no means O decide. The writer mentions by name udbhata, bhamaha, rudrata, and vamana but not mammata, We are inclined to think that he must have lived shortly after mammata . This udbhatalamkaravivrti is evidently a distinct work from udbhataviveka or vicara of rajanakatilaka mentioned by jayaratha . There is no mention of the author of the in the MS. From the numerous references to previous interpretations of the Karikas of Udbhata, that exist in the udbhatalamkaravivrti one is led to infer that several other commentaries must have existed before this . In comment- vivrtikara . ing upon punaruktabhasamabhinnavastvivodbhasibhinnarupapadam, the vivrtikara refers

to five different views on the interpretation of this definition of the figure punaruktavadabhasa His words are (1) iti kecidyaca caksire ; ( 2 ) ... samase samkhya na vivaksitetyanye ; ( 3 ) tasmadekasmadanekasmadyatretyapare ; ( 4 )... bhinnarupam yatretyeke vivrnvate ; ( 5 )... iti tulyakaksyadrsah ( See our extract from the vivrti in the notes on the definition of punaruktavadabhasa p. 2, 1. 7 ) None of these references point to anything contained in Induraja's Laghuvritti and we must conclude that there were several other exegetes who had tried their hand on Udbhata's famous work.