Indian Antiquary Vol 47

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 27

JANUARY, 1918)
THE GENUINENESS OF THE VRITTIS
23
AN ADDITIONAL PROOF FOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE VRITTIS
IN MAMMATA'S KAVYAPRAKASA.. .
BY ROBERT ZIMMERMANN, S.J.; BOMBAY. It has repeatedly been shown that Mamma a is the author both of the Karikas and the Vrittis of the Ka vyaprakása. (See The Kavyaprakåsa, ed. by Bh. V. B. R. Jhalakîkara, 2nd. erl., Bombay, 1901. Introduction, Nr. 7, pp. 14-151; for the literature on the question see Z.D.M.G. LXVI. "Miscellaneous Notes on Mammata's Kåvyaprakåsa," by V. Sukthankar, M.A., pp. 477-78, n. 2; Z.D.M.G., LXVII, " Indologische Studien," von Johannes Nobel, p. 35, n. 1. As an independent, internal, proof for the common authorship of the Kårikås and the Vpittis has been adduced so far: Atat gira, ullâsa x, Sloka 8, the Kârikä on the Mala Rapaka. Jhalakîkara gives the argument in the following words :
STRA wa TegrarTATTATAT: Tharkitaat Ar a ".... कारिकैवास्व प्रवादस्य [वृत्तिकम्मम्मट एवं कारिकामापि प्रणिनाब' इति ] प्रामाण्य व्यवस्थापबति । एषा हि पूर्ववत्'-इस्यनेन मालोपमायाः पूर्वोक्ततां व्यक्ति । न च मालोपमा कारिकया पर्वमुक्ता, किंतु वृत्वैवेति. Introd. p. 15.
There is, if I am not mistaken, another proof, though running on the same lines contained in the very same sloka. The beginning of sloka 8: aitafi t treats of the "Entire" and the "Partless"? Rûpaka. On the aim the Vritti remarks: Twitt सावयव ( सांगम् ). This express statement of the subdivision of the सांगं रूपकम् into two sorts is made only here in the Vritti, nowhere in the Kârika. It is true, the two kinds of सांग रूपकम्, the समस्तवस्तुविषयं and the एकशविति, have both in the Karikas and the Vrittis been trested of immediately before ; but there only their respective character, which discriminates one from the other, has been pointed out; the two figures of speech are not spoken of as the two kinds of the efi TT. Thus the Vitti contains a new, explicit, statement. The Kårikå continues : fata . It emphatically -lays stress on the difference of the forest 59 from the ai 690 by saying that it is only of one kind. . From here the argument is the same as that based on ATAT I TT. The Kårikå supposes the Vșitti; the Vritti, therefore, cannot have been written either later than the Karika, or—as we know on other grounds as well—by another hand. And as there is neither any internal nor external evidence for an interpolation, we have no reason to doubt the genuineness of the Karika or the Vritti on this point. The apparent deficiency of the Karika, on the other hand, is sufficiently explained by Mammata's style, which often enough approaches the Sätras in brevity. A doubt, moreover, about the genuineness of सांगमेततिरंगशुद्धम् could hardly be entertained without impunity' for माला पूर्ववत्, imperilling thus the traditional proof for the common authorship of Karikas and Vțittis.
But neither the traditional nor our proof evince that the whole Vritti, as we have it now, has been written by Manmata. Of. Nobel, “Indol. Stud." 2.D.M.G., LXVII, p. 35
The force of language used by Jhalakikara against the star, who hold the opposite view, is perhaps not quite in proportion with his argu nent. But it is only fair to say that, in spite of occasional mistakes in particular points, there cannot be two o pinions on the general merit and usefulness of this edition of the Kavyaprakasa.
2" Partless" for fit may be kept only for want of something better. There has the mean. ing of attributive or soundary part, auxiliary, dependent mo.nbor, serving to help the principal oo, if we refer in to the subordinate metaphor in tha aia , or, a: D. T. Chan lo:'car, T. Kinya. Prakash of Mammuts, u'll a X. 2al.el., 115, p. 45, tisas it to m i, a cuyo.Taus jutt moana that [ 4] whers ons mstaphor is the caus) of aiother metaphor," raforring to the principal metaphor.