Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya Shastra

SR No.: 007023
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology
Publication Year: 1983
Total Pages: 216
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 22 MB

Page 165

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
153
candra's own, but the fact is that in many cases at least, Hemacandra only repeats his masters' views faithfully in their own words. There are scores and scores of passages, some of them pretty long, common to Someśvara's Samketa and Hemacandra's KS. R.C. Parikho holds that Hemacandra borrows these passages from Someśvara. I have shown in my paper published in the Bulletin of the Chunilal Gandhi Vidyabhavan, Surat (1961-62) that probably the borrowing is the other way.In view of the uncertainty of the mutual relation between Hem acandra and Someśvara it will only be right to leave out Someśvara's Samketa while considering the present problem. Parikh® and Dhruva consider Hemacandra's KS to be unique in that it brings for the first time, Poetics and Dramatics within the compass of a single work. The work of Hemacandra, however, is not the first of its kind. Hemacandra takes the lead from Bhoja's SP which treats of both Poetics and Dramatics. 10 The method of noting the sources of the illustrative verses and quotations in the KS adopted by the editor of the SMJV edition, although unexceptionable, is apt to lead one to believe that Hemacandra has drawn them directly from original sources but it is evident that in most cases Hemacandra has drawn them indirectly through the sources utilized by him in writing the KS.
It is clear from what has been said above that Hemacandra's work does not constitute an original contribution to the subject. It is, however, not quite correct to describe the Kāvyānuśāsana as a compilation exhibiting hardly any originality as Kane11 does or to charge Hemacandra of plagiarism as Del2 does. Instead of briefly summarising or paraphrasing or describing in his own language the theories and doctrines of his predecessors too illustrious to be mentioned by name, if Hemacandra preferred to present them in their original form we need not find fault with him. Besides we cannot forget the fact that his writing was of a scientific nature and in scientific books such quotations are justified. We will only be betraying poverty of our imagination and scant respect for Hemacandra's intelligence if we were to insinuate that Hemacandra pretended that all the passages and excerpts which he quoted would pass as his own. The truth of the matter is that Hemacandra regards the
6. Kāvyaprakāśa (Part II), Rajasthāna Purātana Granthamālā, No. 47, Jodhpur. 7. In addition to the arguments set forth in my paper in favour of my thesis the following one
may be stated : the treatment of Sravya type of literature in the KS (and Someśvara's Samketa) is clearly based on Bhoja's SP (XI. pp. 469-480). The SP, however, does not mention Sakalakathā. Since Hemacandra adds its definition and example (the Samarādityakathā, a Jaina work) and Somesvara omits this example, it is reasonable to hold that Someśvara bor
rows not directly from Bhoja but from Hemacandra. 8. Introduction to Kāvyānuśäsana (p. CCC XXV) 9. Foreword to Kāvyānuśāsana (p. 10) 10. Bhoja's Śrngāraprakāśa by V. Raghavan : Detailed Notice of the Contents (Ch. V) 11. History of Sanskrit Poetics (1961 ed.), pp. 288-89.
12. Studies in the History of Sanskrit poetics Vol. I (P. 203) 20 .