काव्यमीमांसा (महाकवि राजशेखर - कवि-रहस्य एवं देश-विभाग सटीक)

FIRST ADHYĀYA 121
the nature of Dhvani in this chapter of औक्तिक which, as he says, was
composed by उक्तिगर्भ; but he does not expressly mention the school
of Dhvani as the subject of any one of his Adhikaraņas, probably
because it had recent origin in his time and also because he
belonged to the Rasa school of Bharata. He knew, however, the
view of Ānandavardhana, the chief exponent of the Dhvani school,
as he quoted a verse from his Dhvanyāloka (See p. 16. of this work).
Vakrokti which is included by Rudrața as a Śabdālaṅkāra must
have also been treated in this chapter of औक्तिक along with different
kinds of उक्तिs as explained by Bhojadeva in his Sarasvatīkaṇṭhā-
bharaṇa. (2. 39).
l. 8. रीतिनिर्णयम्। Discussions regarding the nature of the Rītis
are current from the very early stages of the science of poetics as
both Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, the earliest writers on this subject,
mention them as already existing since a very long time (see
Bhāmaha's, K. A. 31-33 and Daṇḍin's K. A. 1-40). Vāmana, the
author of the Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra, improved upon them and stated
that Rīti alone is the soul of the Kāvya. (रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य। 1. 2. 6.).
l. 9. प्रचेतायनः। The earliest authors on poetics accept अनुप्रास
as one of the Alaṅkāras or figure of speech. Bhāmaha treats this
at the very outset while dealing with Alaṅkāras and divides it into
two kinds as Grāmya and Lāṭīya. Daṇḍin characterizes Anuprāsa
as an inferior method of writing which he attributes to the writers
in the Gauḍa country (see K. A. 1. 44-60). But the followers of
Bhāmaha have been able to discover several varieties of it in their
works. The original writer on अनुप्रास, as Rājaśekhara mentions, is
प्रचेतायन, very probably a member in the family of Pracetas, one
of the ten Prajāpatis. But the word प्रचेतायन does not seem to be
grammatically correct according to the rules of Pāṇini. Vālmīki,
the author of the Rāmāyaṇa, also is a Prācetasa. Rājaśekhara
perhaps means that Vālmīki was the original writer on Anuprāsa as
we frequently come across examples of this figure of speech in his
Rāmāyaṇa. It is curious, however, that Pracetas does not find
any place among the gotras and pravaras of the Brāhmins.
l. 9. यमकानि। The name of the original inventor of यमक is
omitted in all MSS. of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. Citrāṅgada cannot
be taken as the teacher of both the Yamaka and Citra. Firstly
because, the name is not in keeping with the Anuprāsa which
१६