193. DHVANYÂLOKA 191

DHVANYÂLOKA 191

लक्कार and ध्वनि also. Vide Cat.of. Govt. mss. at B. O.R. I. vol. XII p. 215, 216 for these names. The third introductory verse of the लोचन (यत्किश्विदप्यनुरयन् स्फुटयामि काव्यालोकं सुलोचननियोजनया जनस्य) seems to suggest that the author of the लोचन called the work काव्यालोक also. The second verse at the end of लोचन printed in Journal of Department of Letters, Calcutta vol. IX p. 42 is आानन्दवर्धनविवेक विकासिकाव्यालोकार्थतत्त्वघटनादनुमेयसारम् ।. This suggests that the work of आनन्दवर्धन was called काव्यालोक. अभिनव himself calls it सहृदयालोक in the अभिनवभारती quoted above p. 179. The penultimate verse at the end of the 4th उद्दोत (काव्याख्येऽखिलधाम्नि वियुधोद्याने ध्वनिदर्शित:) leads one to infer that काष्य formed part of the name of the original work (or was itself the name) on which आनन्दवर्धन commented (probably it was called काव्यध्वनि or simply काव्य or ध्वनि). ध्वनिकारिका III. 53 (वृत्तयोपि प्रकाशन्ते ज्ञाते- डस्मिन् काव्यलक्षे) speaks of the कारिकाड as काव्यलक्षण. It is therefore proper that the वृत्ति is called काव्यालोक or ध्वन्यालोक. But it is not so easy to say why the work should have been styled सहृदयालोक. Prof. Sovani (JRAS 1910 pp. 164-167) made the plausible conjecture that सहृदय was the name of the author of the कारिकाड. He relied upon the name सहृदयालोक and on the words of the लोचन in the 2nd introductory stanza (सरस्वत्यास्तत्वं कविसहृदयाख्यं विजय- ara). It may ultimately turn out that Prof. Sovani is right, but the reasons assigned by him are quite meagre and more substantial evidence ought to be adduced for the purpose. If भलोक is the name of a work (as in the case of प्रदीप, प्रकाश) it seems natural to argue that Haay is the name of a work and not of an author. So it is difficult to make सहृदयालोक yield by itself सहृदय as the name of the author of the कारिकाs. The words 'सरस्व .... विजयतात' may, for ought we know, contain a veiled allusion to सहृदय as the name of the author of the कारिकाs. But the words clearly mean that the real essence of सरस्वती is poets (कवि) and men of taste (सहृदय, literary critics). The last verse of the ध्वन्यालोक would seem to suggest that आनन्दवर्धन claimed for himself the position of the expounder of the real essence of poetry which lay almost dormant though alive (lit. throbbing) in mature minds (सत्काव्यतत्त्वविषयं स्फुरितप्रसुप्तकल्पं मनःसु परिपक्वधियां यदा- सीद। तद्ठ्याकरोत्सहृदयोदयलाभहेतोरानन्दवर्धन इति प्रथिताभिधानः ॥). The evidence so far advanced for holding that सहृदय was the author of the karikas is quite inadequate. But there is more evidence, which as far as my knowledge goes, had not been