11. 8 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

8 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

10-11 of Anan. ed.) and in the धवन्यालोक (p.278). In the latter these verses are introduced with the words तथा चेदमुच्यते and so it is argued that the ध्वन्यालोक is merely quoting from another work. But these verses are followed, by a brief dicussion which winds up with the words ध्वनिरेव प्राधान्येन काव्यमिति स्थितमेतत् (pp.278-9). In this connection it has to be remembered that on the very preceding.page.(277) the ध्वन्यालोक introduces two verses with the words तदिदमुक्तं which are explained by अभिनवगुप्त as मयैवेत्यर्थः, thereby showing that those verses are of आनन्दवर्धन himself. One fails to see any difference between तदिदमुच्यते and तदिदमुक्तम्· So the two verses on p. 278 of the saRT. should be deemed to be आानन्दवर्धन's own and and it should be held that the लोचन did not add 'by me the author of धवन्या.', because it had explained two verses occurring in the same context as composed by आनन्दवर्धन and because the occurrence of च (in तथा चेदमुच्यते) at the time of quoting the two verses on p. 278 and its non- Occurrence on p. 277 (तदिदमुक्तम्) indicate that the two verses on p. 278 are the author's own. Dr. De. (in H. S. P. vol. I. p. 103) holds, without assigning any substantial reason, that it is Anandavardhana that borrows from the Agnipurana. Dr. De ( H. S. P. vol. II p. 255 n. ) persisted in his view that Anandavardhana borrows the two verses on p. 278 from the Agnipurana, though it was brought to his notice by the late Prof. Sovani that Abhinava expressly ascribes the authorship of one of the two verses to Anandavardhana in his comment on the Nātyaśāstra VI. 36-37 (G. O. S. ed. vol. I p. 295) "afaf सामाजिकतुल्य एव। तत एवोकं 'शृङ्गारी चेत्कविः' इत्यादानन्दवर्धनाचार्येय". Therefore, I am of opinion that the Agnipurana not only knew the Dhvani theory but actually borrowed two verses from the Dhvanyāloka. Prof. Batuknath Bhattacharya (Department of Letters, Calcutta University, vol. IX p. 129) states that 'the Agnipurana shows no trace of the Dhvani theory.' But in this he is quite wrong as the above discussion will show. In chap. 339 (Anan ed) the अग्निपुराख names the Rasas, the sthayi-bhavas, sāttvika-bhāvas (i. e. the # theory) and in chap. 345. 18 it in- cludes ध्वनि under such alankaras as समासोकि, अपहनुति, पर्यायोक्त 'पर्यायोकं यदन्येन प्रकारेणाभिधीयते। एषामेकतमस्यैव समाख्या ध्वनिरित्यतः ।'. (g) In the 5th chap. of S. K. A. the first four verses present in a brief compass Bhoja's Rasa theory of one Rasa Śrngāra as Ānanda-Ahankāra-Abhimāna-Rasa, This is pro-