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