Part 7 - Works of Maṅkhaka

Maṅkhaka has to credit the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita and the Maṅkhakośa as his genuine creations. Besides these, some other works are also attributed to him viz. the Śrīkaṇṭhastava (Śrīkaṇṭhastava), the Alaṃkārasarvasva (Alaṃkārasarvasva), a commentary on the Alaṃkārasarvasva, the Sāhityamīmāṃsā (Sāhityamīmāṃsā), Nāṭakamīmāṃsā (Nāṭakamīmāṃsā), Harṣacaritavārtika (Harṣacaritavārtika), Vṛhatī and Vyaktivivekavicāra (Vyaktivivekavicāra(-vyākhyāna)). Some isolated verses are also assigned to his authorship. Among these attributed works, it seems that the commentary on the Alaṃkārasarvasva as well as the Śrīkaṇṭhastava may be his creations, but others appear to be of Ruyyaka, his guru. Now, the genuine works and assigned works of Maṅkhaka may be discussed. However, as the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita is being discussed all through the thesis, therefore, here, only the issue concerning other assigned works of Maṅkhaka has been taken up for discussion. Again, the Maṅkhakośa, another genuine work of the poet, establishes Maṅkhaka as a lexicographer and it will be discussed in a separate chapter. Therefore, herein this section, the remaining works, mainly the ascriptions are to be dealt with.

The Alaṃkārasarvasva:

The Alaṃkārasarvasva deals with the Alaṃkāras or the figures of speech viz. śabdālaṃkāras, arthālaṃkāras and śabdārthobhayālaṃkāras. It has been written in sūtra and vṛtti. The author gives the definition of the alaṃkāras in the sūtra portion, while in the vṛtti, there is explanation of the sūtras, with apt examples. There is included, in the introduction, the views of the rhetoricians like Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa, Rudraṭa, Vāmana, Kuntaka, Ānandavardhana and others. In addition to that, there is the reference of two new figures of speech viz. Vikalpa and Vicitra.^[1] The Alaṃkārasarvasva is said to have four commentaries, however, the first commentary written by Alaka, referred in Ratnakaṇṭha’s Sārasamuccaya, a gloss on the Kāvyaprakāśa, has been lost.

The available commentaries are Jayaratha’s Vimarśinī, Samudrabandha’s Alaṃkārasarvasva-vyākhyā and Śrīvidyācakravartī’s Sañjīvanī. The later rhetoricians like Appaya Dīkṣita and Jagannātha as well as commentators on the Kāvyaprakāśa like Māṇikyacandra, Someśvara, Bhaṭṭagopāla etc. are indebted to the Alaṃkārasarvasva, for quoting few passages from it. Definitely, these facts proclaim the fame of the Alaṃkārasarvasva, however, there is controversy about the authorship of the Alaṃkārasarvasva among the scholars.

Regarding the authorship of the Alaṃkārasarvasva, the following views are extant among the scholars—

Firstly, some hold that the author of both the sūtra and the vṛtti is Maṅkhaka. Some southern manuscripts support this view. Samudrabandha, the commentator also ascribes the authorship to Maṅkhaka. However, not all the south Indian manuscripts mention Maṅkhaka as its author. Actually, some of them refer to Ruyyaka as its author, while, Appaya Dīkṣita mentions Maṅkhaka in one place and Ruyyaka, in other place as its author. Thus, this view is not justified because more weightage is to be given to the evidence of Jayaratha than to Samudrabandha. Though Jayaratha did not mention Ruyyaka directly as the writer of the Alaṃkārasarvasva, however, he refers to Kāvyaprakāśasaṃketa (Kāvyaprakāśasaṃketa) as another treatise of the writer of the Alaṃkārasarvasva, and thereby, it is proved that he knew Ruyyaka as the author of the Alaṃkārasarvasva^[2]

Secondly, some opine that the sūtras are written by Ruyyaka and the vṛttis are written by Maṅkhaka. On the basis of the interpretation by Mahāmahopādhyāya T. Gaṇapati Śāstrī of the line gurvalaṃkāra-sūtrāṇāṃ vṛttyā tātparyamucyate, found in the very first verse in the vṛtti, the scholars like G. A. Jacob etc. ascribe the authorship of the sūtra to Ruyyaka and vṛtti to Maṅkhaka. According to the interpretation, gurvalaṃkāra-sūtrāṇāṃ refers to the preceptor of the author of the vṛtti. That Ruyyaka was the preceptor of Maṅkhaka, is certified by internal evidences found in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita also.^[3] S. Kuppuswami Sastri is also in agreement with the above view. But, this view is not reasonable because Samudrabandha also, does not accept the term guru as the preceptor, rather he takes it, in the sense of difficult.^[4] Besides, he is also of the opinion that the author of the vṛtti is the same person, who wrote the sūtras. Again, in the text of Jayaratha, there is the variant reading nijālaṃkārasūtrāṇāṃ instead of gurvalaṃkāra-sūtrāṇāṃ.^[5]

Thirdly, according to S.V. Iyer, both Ruyyaka and Maṅkhaka are the joint authors of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. That is to say that the ideas are of Ruyyaka’s and actual expressions are of Maṅkhaka’s.

It may be mentioned here that earlier, he was in favour of identical authorship of the sūtra and the vṛtti, for the reasons cited below—

All the commentators of the Alaṃkārasarvasva are in full conformity with the opinion that both the sūtra and the vṛtti are authored by an identical writer, though there is divergence of opinion, in taking the writer to be either Ruyyaka or Maṅkhaka. Samudrabandha bestows the authorship of both the sūtra and vṛtti to Maṅkhaka. Again, Śrīvidyācakravartī ascribes the authorship of the Alaṃkārasarvasva to Rucaka. Though Jayaratha does not mention the name, but indirectly refers it to be Rucaka and this Rucaka is none but Ruyyaka. Moreover, while quoting from both the sūtras and vṛttis, the subsequent authors like Vidyānātha, Mallinātha, Kumārasvāmin and Jagannātha, name the writer as Alaṃkārasarvasvakāra. Further, Mr. Iyer argues for combined authorship of the Alaṃkārasarvasva, on the following grounds, such as Maṅkhaka must have been connected with the work, as some verses are cited from the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, often with the word, madīye i.e. ‘in my work’. Some manuscripts of non-Kerala origin ascribe the authorship of the Alaṃkārasarvasva to Maṅkhaka.^[6] However, this view also has been discarded by the counter arguments of V. Raghavan. Besides, mere quotations of some verses from the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita of Maṅkhaka cannot guarantee the joint authorship of the work and the Alaṃkārasarvasva if, may be written at a later date, then the preceptor also can quote from a genius disciple, like Maṅkhaka.

Fourthly, Rewaprasad Dvivedi is of the opinion that Ruyyaka was the writer of the sūtra and of a smaller vṛtti, while Maṅkhaka authored a detailed vṛtti, taking the opening verse of Ruyyaka’s vṛtti viz. nijālaṃkārasūtrāṇāṃ and incorporated the smaller vṛtti of Ruyyaka in his elaborate one.^[7] Subsequently, Ruyyaka’s vṛtti had been merged into Maṅkhaka’s vṛtti. Dwivedi’s view comprises three parts, viz. view on Maṅkhaka’s authorship, Ruyyaka’s authorship and finally combined authorship. His view is based on the following reasons-when he gives the sūtras, Appaya Dīkṣita refers to Ruyyaka, again, when the sūtra is not quoted, he refers to Maṅkhaka. From this, it can be inferred that Appaya Dīkṣita regards Ruyyaka as the writer of the sūtras, and Maṅkhaka, that of the vṛttis. Besides, Tuṅgabhadra as well as Samudrabandha ascribe the authorship of the Alaṃkārasarvasva to Maṅkhaka. However, Samudrabandha insert Rucaka’s name with that of Maṅkhaka, thereby, considers Ruyyaka as the author of the sūtra and Maṅkhaka of the vṛtti. Regarding the joint authorship of the Alaṃkārasarvasva, some opine that a combined treatise of a teacher and a taught is normally known by the name of the teacher. The view of Appaya Dīkṣita has, however, been refuted by some. Again, Tuṅgabhadra and Samudrabandha’s ascription of Maṅkhaka’s authorship, is according to some not a crucial evidence to uphold Maṅkhaka’s authorship.

Fifthly, some are of the view that both the sūtra and the vṛtti were written by Ruyyaka. Jayaratha indirectly supports the authorship of Ruyyaka^[8], however, he bestows the authorship of the Alaṃkārasarvasva to Rucaka, (which is a variation of Ruyyaka), by referring to the author’s other work Kāvyaprakāśasaṃketa Besides, Śrīvidyācakravartī also ascribes the authorship to Rucaka. Moreover, all the commentators opine that the sūtra and the vṛtti have been composed by identical author. In addition to that, there is no consistency of the southern manuscripts, who advocated in favour of Maṅkhaka’s authorship. To name a few scholars, who raise voice in support of this view are-P.V. Kane^[9], S.K. De^[10], V. Raghavan, Haricand Sastri, B.N. Bhatt. However, they all believe that Maṅkhaka must have endeavoured to popularize his preceptor’s work and therefore, he had a contribution in the Alaṃkārasarvasva^[11] This view is plausible, only with minor exceptions.

This way, it may be believed that both the sūtra and the vṛtti were composed by Ruyyaka and Maṅkhaka probably wrote a commentary on Ruyyaka’s Alaṃkārasarvasva and thus, might have made a revision of the Alaṃkārasarvasva The ascription of the authorship of the work to Maṅkhaka has happened because of interpolation of the indications of the source as well as mentioning of some verses from Maṅkhaka’s genuine compositions.

A commentary on the Alaṃkārasarvasva:

There is one commentary of Maṅkhuka on the Alaṃkārasarvasva, as mentioned by V. Raghavan. However, he is seemed to have been doubtful, regarding the authorship, as he uses question mark after the name of the author in his reference. This Maṅkhuka, in all probability, must have been identical with the author of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita and the Maṅkhakośa.^[12]

The Śrīkaṇṭhastava:

On the basis of different traditions on the authorship of the Alaṃkārasarvasva, scholars are divided into two distinct groups, regarding the authorship of the Śrīkaṇṭhastava too. That is to say, the two traditions were based on the interpretation of the readings madīye śrīkaṇṭhacarite, madīye śrīkaṇṭhastave and maṅkhīye śrīkaṇṭhastave. The indications of source and authorship were most probably wrongly appended to the text of the Alaṃkārasarvasva, either from Maṅkhaka’s commentary or from the subsidiary notes on the Alaṃkārasarvasva, therefore, these were mere interpolations. It may be mentioned here that at the time of inclusion of these indications of source and authorship, the expression for the verse āṭopena paṭīyasā etc. was madīye śrīkaṇṭhacarite and for the other verses, it was madīye śrīkaṇṭhastave. This variation occurs because of different interpretations of the term madīye, in connection with Ruyyaka as well as Maṅkhaka. The supporters of Ruyyaka’s authorship of the Alaṃkārasarvasva, take the term madīye in favour of them, similarly, the other group accepted it to mean Maṅkhaka’s authorship of the Śrīkaṇṭhastava. Thus, one group believed the Śs, to be Ruyyaka’s composition and the other considered it to be of Maṅkhaka. The supporters of Ruyyaka’s authorship of the Śs, launched the variation madīye śrīkaṇṭhastave, in lieu of madīye śrīkaṇṭhacarite, for the verse, āṭopena^[13] etc., (found in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita) and took the original reading madīye śrīkaṇṭhastave in other places. On the other hand, the second group, considering the Śs to be the composition of Maṅkhaka, become confused in finding the indication of the source as well as authorship of the verse, āṭopena etc. and omitted both the indication of authorship and source and introduced the reading maṅkhīye śrīkaṇṭhastave, in place of madīye śrīkaṇṭhastave, in other instances.

B.N. Bhatt is of the opinion that the writer of the Śrīkaṇṭhastava is Ruyyaka. In support of his view, he has put forwarded some arguments.^[14] However, Mandal refutes the arguments of Bhatt and provides his view.^[15] However, according to Mandal, the Śrīkaṇṭhastava is a work of Maṅkhaka, wrongly attributed to Ruyyaka. Whatever, this problem of authorship could have been solved from the internal evidences to be found in the Śrīkaṇṭhastava, but unfortunately, this treatise has been lost in oblivion.

Other works:

Viz., Sāhityamīmāṃsā, Nāṭakamīmāṃsā, Harṣacaritavārtika, Vṛhatī and Vyaktivivekavicāra (-vyākhyāna).

Like the other ascriptions, on the basis of two different views on the authorship of Alaṃkārasarvasva, these afore-mentioned works also, have been ascribed both to Ruyyaka and Maṅkhaka. That is to say, the followers of Maṅkhaka’s authorship of the Alaṃkārasarvasva, consider that these books were composed by Maṅkhaka, on the contrary, the followers of Ruyyaka’s authorship of the Alaṃkārasarvasva, believe that these were written by the preceptor of Maṅkhaka. In the vṛtti of the Alaṃkārasarvasva, there are references of the Sāhityamīmāṃsā as well as the Harṣacaritavārtika^[16] Moreover, in the Vvv, the commentary on the Vyaktiviveka (Vv) of Mahimabhaṭṭa, the concerned author, along with the Nāṭakamīmāṃsā and Vṛhatī, referred to the above-mentioned two books to be his compositions. In his commentary, Jayaratha too mentioned the Sāhityamīmāṃsā and the Vyaktivivekavicāra(-vyākhyāna) as to be the creations of the writer of the Alaṃkārasarvasva. Therefore, all the afore-mentioned treatises came from the same cup of ink. As, it has been noticed that both the sūtra and the vṛtti of the Alaṃkārasarvasva had been written by Ruyyaka, hence, all these works were also, most probably written by Ruyyaka, but ascribed to the authorship of Maṅkhaka.^[17]

In addition to these books, ascribed to Maṅkhaka, there are some verses, those had been credited to the authorship of Maṅkhaka. These verses were, viz. ahīnabhujagādhīsa, bhujaṅgakundalī, dāruṇaḥ kāṣṭhato etc. Actually, these were quoted in the Alaṃkārasarvasva with the words udāharaṇaṃ madīye śrīkaṇṭhastave and yathā tatraiva.^[18] Some give the authorship of these verses to Ruyyaka. Again, there is a verse kim nāma dardura, also quoted in the Sūktimuktāvalī (verse 49, page 128) of Jalhaṇa, regarding the source of which, the author of the Alaṃkārasarvasva keeps quiet. However, Jalhaṇa names him Maṅkhana, who may be identified with Maṅkhaka, the composer of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita and the Maṅkhakośa. And, if, this verse was not to be found in the Śrīkaṇṭhastava, then it is also possible that there were some other poems also of this author, about which no authentic information is available.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 69

[2]:

Ibid., Mandal, B.C., page 77

[3]:

taṃ śrīruyyakamālokya sa priyaṃ gurumagrahīt/
sauhārdapraśrayarasasrotaḥsambhedamajjanaṃ// Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XXV. 30

[4]:

gurvityanena vivakṣitasya tātparyasyāvaśyavaktavyatāṃ darśayati/
Alaṃkārasarvasva (Trivendrum Sanskrit Series), page 3, Commentary

[5]:

Bhatt, B.N., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 31

[6]:

Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 72

[7]:

Ibid., Mandal, B.C., page 73

[8]:

Bhatt, B.N., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 30

[9]:

Kane, P.V., History of Sanskrit Poetics., pages 277-279

[10]:

De, S.K., History of Sanskrit Poetics., pages 178-181

[11]:

Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 77.

[12]:

Ibid., pages 91-92.

[13]:

āṭopena paṭīyasā yadapi sā vāṇī kaverāmukhe khelantī prathate tathāpi kurute no sanmanorañjanaṃ/
na syādyāvadamandasundaraguṇālaṃkārajhāṃkāritaḥ sa prasyandilasadrasāyanarasāsārānusārī rasaḥ// Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., II. 49

[14]:

“….it is very unlikely that the whole work viz. Śrīkaṇṭhastava had it been a work of Maṅkha who was besides a poet, an eminent official of the king of Kashmir should go unnoticed by everyone including himself.”Also, “….it is very likely that Śrīkaṇṭhastava must be Ruyyaka’s work, wrongly attributed to Maṅkha because of the popularity that was enjoyed by Śrīkaṇṭacarita and that suffered the same lot which many other works of Ruyyaka did.” Bhatt, B.N., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 32

[15]:

“the citations in the Alaṃkārasarvasva from the Śrīkaṇṭhastava themselves prove that the Śrīkaṇṭhastava was not unnoticed by everyone. There is also enough probability for finding some verses, likely to be cited from the Śrīkaṇṭhastava in M.’s commentary on his own Ak. Since, it quotes from various sources including Śc. But we have no scope for identification of such verses, for the Śrīkaṇṭhastava is lost to us.” Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 95

[16]:

Dvivedi, Rewa Prasad, Alaṃkārasarvasva, page 201

[17]:

Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 97

[18]:

Bhatt, B.N., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 33