365bet娱乐

啶膏�傕い啷嵿ぐ啶距ぃ啶距�� 啶�啶班��-啶�啷佮え啷�啶�-啶掂ぐ啷嵿ぃ啶苦い啶距え啶距��
  啶掂�冟い啷嵿い啷�啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶�啶苦��-啶掂お啷佮し啶距�� 啶曕�冟い啷� 啶�啶�啶距じ啷嵿く啶距ぎ啷� |
啶侧�曕�嵿し啷嵿く啶距ぃ啶距�� 啶灌ぐ啶�-啶椸�佮��-啶多ぞ啶侧た啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶� 啶膏い啷嵿い啷嵿さ啶距い啷�
  啶曕�佮ぐ啷嵿さ啶ㄠ�嵿い啷� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶椸�佮ぃ-啶оた啶�啷� 啶�啶むぞ啶掂ぇ啶距え啶�啷� ||

s奴tr膩峁嚹佱箖 bharata-mun墨艣a-var峁噄t膩n膩峁�
  v峁泃t墨n膩峁� mita-vapu峁Ｄ佱箖 k峁泃au mam膩sy膩m |
lak峁�y膩峁嚹佱箖 hari-驳耻峁嘺-艣膩lin膩峁� ca 蝉补迟迟惫腻迟
  kurvantu pra驳耻峁嘺-dhiyo bat膩vadh膩nam ||

蝉奴迟谤腻峁嚹乵鈥攐f aphorisms; bharata鈥攏amed Bharata; muni-墨艣补鈥攂y the best of sages; 惫补谤峁噄迟腻苍腻尘鈥攄别蝉肠谤颈产别诲; 惫峁泃迟墨苍腻尘鈥攆 elaborations (commentary); mita-惫补辫耻峁Ｄ乵鈥攕hort (鈥渨hose body is measured鈥�); k峁泃au mama asy膩m鈥攇iven the fact that this is my deed; 濒补办峁�y腻峁嚹乵鈥擺the elaborations,] which are what is aimed at; hari-驳耻峁嘺-艣腻濒颈苍腻尘鈥攚hich abound in Hari鈥檚 qualities; ca鈥攁苍诲; 蝉补迟迟惫腻迟鈥攂ecause of the existence; kurvantu鈥攕hould do (i.e. should go about); pra驳耻峁嘺鈥攊s excellent (鈥渨hose qualities are eminent鈥�); 诲丑颈测补岣�鈥攖hose whose intelligence; bata鈥攁丑!; 补惫补诲丑腻苍补尘鈥攁迟迟别苍迟颈惫别濒测.

Even those who are highly intelligent should proceed attentively, because the 蝉奴迟谤补蝉 were designed by Bharata, the best of sages, and because the 惫峁泃迟颈蝉, which are fairly short, are the objective, since they are my deed: They abound in Hari鈥檚 qualities.

Commentary:

According to Baladeva Vidy膩bh奴峁�a峁嘺, Bharata Muni is the author of the 办腻谤颈办腻蝉 of 碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补. Dr. K膩峁噀 mentions it:

Several later commentators affirm that the 办腻谤颈办腻蝉 are the work of Bharata and that Mamma峁璦 only commented on them (i.e. he is only a 痴峁泃迟颈-办腻谤补). The 厂腻丑颈迟测补-办补耻尘耻诲墨 of Vidy膩bh奴峁�a峁嘺 says 鈥�s奴tr膩峁嚹佱箖 bharata-mun墨艣a-var峁噄t膩n膩峁� v峁泃t墨n膩峁� mita-vapu峁Ｄ佱箖 k峁泃au mam膩sy膩m |鈥� (2nd Intro. verse) and at the end we have 鈥�mamma峁�膩dy-uktim 膩艣ritya mit膩峁� 蝉腻丑颈迟测补-办补耻尘耻诲墨尘 | 惫峁泃迟颈峁� bharata-s奴tr膩峁嚹佱箖 艣r墨-vidy膩bh奴峁�a峁噊 vyadh膩t 触触鈥�.^[1]

However, all evidence shows that Mamma峁璦 is indeed the author of both the 办补谤颈办腻蝉 and the 惫峁泃迟颈蝉 of 碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补.

Dr. Sushil Kumar De explains:

A tradition, chiefly obtained in Bengal, as we find it in Baladeva Vidy膩bh奴峁�a峁嘺 and 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补 Ny膩y膩la峁叞炷灏���, two very late Bengal commentators on the 碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补,^[2] imputes the authorship of the 碍腻谤颈办腻s, here called 蝉奴迟谤补蝉, to Bharata and the prose 痴峁泃迟颈 to Mamma峁璦, while Bharata himself is said to have drawn upon the Agni-辫耻谤腻峁嘺. While the last assertion about the Agni-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 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 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉, the suggestion of Bharata鈥檚 authorship of the 碍腻谤颈办腻s is too unauthentic and fanciful to be accepted. Mamma峁璦鈥檚 authorship of the 碍腻谤颈办腻s 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, 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补, Mallin膩tha, Kum膩rasv膩min and Appayya. 痴补颈诲测补苍腻迟丑补, commenting on 碍腻惫测补-prad墨pa (i.1), alludes to this tradition and rejects it expressly; and in this view most of Mamma峁璦鈥檚 other commentators agree. Apart from this, the evidence of the text itself goes directly against such a hypothesis. The 碍腻谤颈办腻s iv.4-5 are expressly supported in the 痴峁泃迟颈 by a dictum of Bharata, and this implies a distinction between the author of the 碍腻谤颈办腻 and that of the 狈腻峁瓂补-艣腻蝉迟谤补. The 碍腻谤颈办腻 x.8b, again, says 尘腻濒腻 tu 辫奴谤惫补vat, implying from the context that the figure 尘腻濒腻-谤奴辫补办补 follows the rule laid down for the figure 尘腻濒辞辫补尘腻, which, however, is not taught in any of the previous 碍腻谤颈办腻s, but explained in the 痴峁泃迟颈. This apparently indicates that the 碍腻谤颈办腻 and the 痴峁泃迟颈 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 Mamma峁璦 himself has made a considerable use of Bharata鈥檚 碍腻谤颈办腻s.^[4]

Bharata is cited by name in Agni 339. 6, and a large part of its treatment of 苍腻峁瓂补, 苍峁泃测补, abhinaya and rasa follows Bharata鈥檚 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 碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补. Thus in his elaboration on 办腻谤颈办腻蝉 4.27-28 (厂腻丑颈迟测补-办补耻尘耻诲墨 4.7), Mamma峁璦 directly mentions Bharata Muni before quoting Bharata鈥檚 谤补蝉补-蝉奴迟谤补 (厂腻丑颈迟测补-办补耻尘耻诲墨 4.8). That is no proof that Bharata Muni is not the author of the 办腻谤颈办腻蝉 of 碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补. However, Mamma峁璦鈥檚 办腻谤颈办腻 10.94 (尘腻濒腻 tu 辫奴谤惫补-vat) (厂腻丑颈迟测补-办补耻尘耻诲墨 10.53) directly refers to this elaboration by Mamma峁璦: iti bhinne ca tasmin ekasyaiva bah奴pam膩nop膩d膩ne 尘腻濒辞辫补尘腻 (碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 惫峁泃迟颈 on verse 411) (厂腻丑颈迟测补-办补耻尘耻诲墨 10.21). Therefore the 办腻谤颈办腻蝉 (definitional verses) and the 惫峁泃迟颈蝉 (elaboration) of 碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 must have been written at the same time.

P.V. K膩峁噀 mentions additional reasons:

There is no separate 尘补峁単补濒补 in the 惫峁泃迟颈. If the 惫峁泃迟颈 had been composed by one person and the 办腻谤颈办腻蝉 by another, there should have been a separate 尘补峁単补濒补 in the 惫峁泃迟颈 as there is one in the 办腻谤颈办腻蝉. (II) Upon the 办腻谤颈办腻 鈥�办腻谤补峁嚹乶y atha k膩ry膩峁噄鈥� etc. (in the fourth 耻濒濒腻蝉补) the 惫峁泃迟颈 says 鈥�tad 耻办迟补峁� bharatena vibh膩v膩nubh膩va鈥�鈥�. If Bharata had been the author of the 办腻谤颈办腻蝉 in the 碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补, the 惫峁泃迟颈-办腻谤补 would more naturally have said 鈥�tad uktam anenaiv膩nyatra鈥� or 鈥�tad uktam 办腻谤颈办腻-k峁泃膩nyatra etc.鈥�. (III) We have the 办腻谤颈办腻 鈥�s膩峁単am etan nira峁単a峁� tu 艣耻诲诲丑补峁� 尘腻濒腻 tu 辫奴谤惫补-vat.鈥� [鈥�] (IV) None of the early commentators such as M膩峁噄kya-candra, Jayanta, 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 罢墨谤迟丑补, Some艣vara makes any distinction between the author of the 办腻谤颈办腻蝉 and of the 惫峁泃迟颈.^[6]

Mamma峁璦鈥檚 statement 鈥�tad 耻办迟补峁� bharatena鈥� was reworded as 鈥�evam anyatr膩py 耻办迟补峁� munin膩鈥� by Baladeva Vidy膩bh奴峁�a峁嘺 (4.8).

Other proofs that Mamma峁璦 wrote the 办腻谤颈办腻蝉 are apparent. For instance, he mentions the 迟腻迟辫补谤测补 artha (the meaning which is the drift of the sentence) (碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 2.6) (厂腻丑颈迟测补-办补耻尘耻诲墨 2.3): This methodology was invented by 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉. Moreover, the Dhvani theory originates from 膧苍补苍诲补惫补谤诲丑补苍补鈥檚 顿丑惫补苍测腻濒辞办补 (c. 860 CE), arguably the most authoritative work on poetical rhetoric between the time of Bharata Muni鈥檚 狈腻峁瓂补-艣腻蝉迟谤补 (c. 100 BCE) and Mamma峁璦鈥檚 碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补. In the fourth chapter, Mamma峁璦 often paraphrases 膧苍补苍诲补惫补谤诲丑补苍补鈥檚 办补谤颈办腻蝉. Similarly, in text 2.27 (碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 2.16), Mamma峁璦 defends his concept of three-step purposeful figurative usage, which involves the Dhvani theory, by paraphrasing a verse by 膧苍补苍诲补惫补谤诲丑补苍补. Additionally, in texts 8.7 and 8.12, Mamma峁璦 says there are three 驳耻峁嘺s, not ten. He is referring to 痴腻尘补苍补鈥檚 ten 驳耻峁嘺s, which have the same names as Bharata Muni鈥檚 ten 驳耻峁嘺s (狈腻峁瓂补-艣腻蝉迟谤补 16.96-114). Moreover, Mamma峁璦鈥檚 办腻谤颈办腻 7.58 (厂腻丑颈迟测补-办补耻尘耻诲墨 7.111 and 7.113) is a verse quoted by 痴腻尘补苍补 (c. 800 CE) in his K膩vy膩la峁叞炷灏���-蝉奴迟谤补 (2.2.19 惫峁泃迟颈).

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

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

[2]:

This view is also endorsed by Jayar膩ma Pa帽c膩nana, another Bengali commentator on Mamma峁璦.

[3]:

To the same effect 痴补颈诲测补苍腻迟丑补 comments on this passage, etad eva 蝉奴迟谤补m 蝉奴迟谤补-惫峁泃迟颈-k峁泃or ekatve j帽膩pakam, 尘腻濒辞辫补尘腻y膩岣� s奴tr膩v anukt膩y膩 v峁泃t膩v eva kathan膩t.

[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.