Text 1.2

सूत्राणां भरत-मुनीश-वर्णितानां
  वृत्तीनां मित-वपुषां कृतौ ममास्याम् |
लक्ष्याणां हरि-गुण-शालिनां च सत्त्वात्
  कुर्वन्तु प्रगुण-धियो बतावधानम् ||

sūtrāṇāṃ bharata-munīśa-varṇitānāṃ
  vṛttīnāṃ mita-vapuṣāṃ kṛtau mamāsyām |
lakṣyāṇāṃ hari-guṇa-śālināṃ ca sattvāt
  kurvantu praguṇa-dhiyo batāvadhānam ||

sūtrāṇām—of aphorisms; bharata—named Bharata; muni-īśa—by the best of sages; varṇitānām—described; vṛttīnām—f elaborations (commentary); mita-vapuṣām—short (“whose body is measured”); kṛtau mama asyām—given the fact that this is my deed; lakṣyāṇām—[the elaborations,] which are what is aimed at; hari-guṇa-śālinām—which abound in Hari’s qualities; ca—and; sattvāt—because of the existence; kurvantu—should do (i.e. should go about); praguṇa—is excellent (“whose qualities are eminent”); dhiyaḥ—those whose intelligence; bata—ah!; avadhānam—attentively.

Even those who are highly intelligent should proceed attentively, because the sūtras were designed by Bharata, the best of sages, and because the vṛttis, which are fairly short, are the objective, since they are my deed: They abound in Hari’s qualities.

Commentary:

According to Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Bharata Muni is the author of the kārikās of Kāvya-prakāśa. Dr. Kāṇe mentions it:

Several later commentators affirm that the kārikās are the work of Bharata and that Mammaṭa only commented on them (i.e. he is only a Vṛtti-kāra). The Sāhitya-kaumudī of Vidyābhūṣaṇa says ‘sūtrāṇāṃ bharata-munīśa-varṇitānāṃ vṛttīnāṃ mita-vapuṣāṃ kṛtau mamāsyām |’ (2nd Intro. verse) and at the end we have ‘mammaṭādy-uktim āśritya mitāṃ sāhitya-kaumudīm | vṛttiṃ bharata-sūtrāṇāṃ śrī-vidyābhūṣaṇo vyadhāt ||’.^[1]

However, all evidence shows that Mammaṭa is indeed the author of both the karikās and the vṛttis of Kāvya-prakāśa.

Dr. Sushil Kumar De explains:

A tradition, chiefly obtained in Bengal, as we find it in Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and Maheśvara Nyāyālaṅkāra, two very late Bengal commentators on the Kāvya-prakāśa,^[2] imputes the authorship of the Kārikās, here called sūtras, to Bharata and the prose Vṛtti to Mammaṭa, while Bharata himself is said to have drawn upon the Agni-purāṇa. While the last assertion about the Agni-purāṇa has no foundation in fact and is apparently prompted by the amiable but unhistorical imagination of late writers, which delights in exalting the antiquity of the Purāṇas, the suggestion of Bharata’s authorship of the Kārikās is too unauthentic and fanciful to be accepted. Mammaṭa’s authorship of the Kārikās has been declared by Hemacandra in the first quarter of the 12th century, as well as accepted by a succession of authors and commentators like Jayaratha, Vidyādhara, Mallinātha, Kumārasvāmin and Appayya. Vaidyanātha, commenting on Kāvya-pradīpa (i.1), alludes to this tradition and rejects it expressly; and in this view most of Mammaṭa’s other commentators agree. Apart from this, the evidence of the text itself goes directly against such a hypothesis. The Kārikās iv.4-5 are expressly supported in the Vṛtti by a dictum of Bharata, and this implies a distinction between the author of the Kārikā and that of the Nāṭya-śāstra. The Kārikā x.8b, again, says mālā tu pūrvavat, implying from the context that the figure mālā-rūpaka follows the rule laid down for the figure mālopamā, which, however, is not taught in any of the previous Kārikās, but explained in the Vṛtti. This apparently indicates that the Kārikā and the Vṛtti form one block which should be attributed to one and the same author.^[3] The source of this tradition is probably the unquestioned reverence paid to the sage Bharata, but it may also be due to the fact that Mammaṭa himself has made a considerable use of Bharata’s Kārikās.^[4]

Bharata is cited by name in Agni 339. 6, and a large part of its treatment of nāṭya, nṛtya, abhinaya and rasa follows Bharata’s exposition, even to the literal borrowing and paraphrase of some of his well known verses.^[5]

Above, Dr. De gives two reasons againt the authorship of Bharata Muni. Dr. De refers to the alternative numbering system of Kāvya-prakāśa. Thus in his elaboration on kārikās 4.27-28 (Sāhitya-kaumudī 4.7), Mammaṭa directly mentions Bharata Muni before quoting Bharata’s rasa-sūtra (Sāhitya-kaumudī 4.8). That is no proof that Bharata Muni is not the author of the kārikās of Kāvya-prakāśa. However, Mammaṭa’s kārikā 10.94 (mālā tu pūrva-vat) (Sāhitya-kaumudī 10.53) directly refers to this elaboration by Mammaṭa: iti bhinne ca tasmin ekasyaiva bahūpamānopādāne mālopamā (Kāvya-prakāśa vṛtti on verse 411) (Sāhitya-kaumudī 10.21). Therefore the kārikās (definitional verses) and the vṛttis (elaboration) of Kāvya-prakāśa must have been written at the same time.

P.V. Kāṇe mentions additional reasons:

There is no separate maṅgala in the vṛtti. If the vṛtti had been composed by one person and the kārikās by another, there should have been a separate maṅgala in the vṛtti as there is one in the kārikās. (II) Upon the kārikā “kāraṇāny atha kāryāṇi” etc. (in the fourth ullāsa) the vṛtti says “tad uktaṃ bharatena vibhāvānubhāva…”. If Bharata had been the author of the kārikās in the Kāvya-prakāśa, the vṛtti-kāra would more naturally have said “tad uktam anenaivānyatra” or “tad uktam kārikā-kṛtānyatra etc.”. (III) We have the kārikā “sāṅgam etan niraṅgaṃ tu śuddhaṃ mālā tu pūrva-vat.” […] (IV) None of the early commentators such as Māṇikya-candra, Jayanta, Sarasvatī Tīrtha, Someśvara makes any distinction between the author of the kārikās and of the vṛtti.^[6]

Mammaṭa’s statement “tad uktaṃ bharatena” was reworded as “evam anyatrāpy uktaṃ muninā” by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (4.8).

Other proofs that Mammaṭa wrote the kārikās are apparent. For instance, he mentions the tātparya artha (the meaning which is the drift of the sentence) (Kāvya-prakāśa 2.6) (Sāhitya-kaumudī 2.3): This methodology was invented by Mīmāṃsakas. Moreover, the Dhvani theory originates from Ānandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka (c. 860 CE), arguably the most authoritative work on poetical rhetoric between the time of Bharata Muni’s Nāṭya-śāstra (c. 100 BCE) and Mammaṭa’s Kāvya-prakāśa. In the fourth chapter, Mammaṭa often paraphrases Ānandavardhana’s karikās. Similarly, in text 2.27 (Kāvya-prakāśa 2.16), Mammaṭa defends his concept of three-step purposeful figurative usage, which involves the Dhvani theory, by paraphrasing a verse by Ānandavardhana. Additionally, in texts 8.7 and 8.12, Mammaṭa says there are three guṇas, not ten. He is referring to Vāmana’s ten guṇas, which have the same names as Bharata Muni’s ten guṇas (Nāṭya-śāstra 16.96-114). Moreover, Mammaṭa’s kārikā 7.58 (Sāhitya-kaumudī 7.111 and 7.113) is a verse quoted by Vāmana (c. 800 CE) in his Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra (2.2.19 vṛtti).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Kane, P.V. (1998), History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 269.

[2]:

This view is also endorsed by Jayarāma Pañcānana, another Bengali commentator on Mammaṭa.

[3]:

To the same effect Vaidyanātha comments on this passage, etad eva sūtram sūtra-vṛtti-kṛtor ekatve jñāpakam, mālopamāyāḥ sūtrāv anuktāyā vṛttāv eva kathanāt.

[4]:

De, S.K. (1988) History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I, pp. 152-153.

[5]:

De, S.K. (1988) History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I, pp. 97-98.

[6]:

Kane, P.V. (1998), History of Sanskrit Poetics, pp. 270-271.