197. DHVANYĀLOKA 195

DHVANYĀLOKA 195

3, 7, 13, 14, 26, 28, 68, 254. The ध्वन्यालोक (p.198) holds a discussion about the meaning of सहदयत्व and the लोचन defines सहृदय as 'येषां काव्यानुशीलनाभ्यासवशादिशदीभूते मनोमुकुरे वर्नीयतन्मयीभवन- योग्यता ते हृदयसंवादभाज: सहृदयाः' (p.13) and again (at p. 68) 'हृदयसंवादापरपर्यायसहृदयत्वपर वशीकृततया etc.' हेमचन्द्र in his विवेक (p. 3) merely copies the words of the लोचन. It is to be noted that the लोचन speaks of भानन्दवर्धन aS 'सहृदयचरवती खल्वयं ग्रन्थकृदिति भांवः' (p. 14). One may hazard the conjecture that it was due to the profuse use of the word सहृदय in the ध्वन्यालोक and to making the aery the final court of appeal in all matters of literary appreciation that the founder of the safa theory earned the epithet सहृदय (par excellence). Apart from the use of the word सहृदय or सचेतस in the रामाय (भयोध्या 13.22) and कालिदास (सचेतसः कस्य मनो न दूयते in कुमारसम्भव V. 48) in a general sense (viz. one who has a feeling or sympathetic heart), the word Hry in the technical sense occurs more than a hundred years before आनन्दवर्धन in वामन's काव्यालक्कारसूत्रवृत्ति (I. 2. 21 where the following is one of two verses quoted with the caption "तथाचाङगु: -'वचसि यमधिगम्य स्यन्दते वाचकश्रीर्वितथमपि तथात्वं यत्र वस्तु प्रयाति। उदयति हि स तादृकू कापि वैदर्भरीतौ सहदयहृदयानां रब्जकः कोपि पाकः ॥". Therefore, the emergence of the word HEry in a technical sense must be placed long before ara. There is nothing unusual in a person being called by a word that has a general sense (such as Hers) as we have authors in the अलक्वारशास itself named मेवाविन्, दखिडन्, धनिक and so on. Dr. Krishnamoorthy (in Annals B. O. R. I. vol. 28 at p. 190 n. 1) tries to explain away the occurrence of the word Her in Vamana's work by saying that he was a contemporary of the new critics (whom he postulates without any sound reason). Further, he does not prove when and where those critics flou- rished. I do not understand what Dr. Krishnamoorthy means when he says 'But Vamana was a Kashmirian who was perhaps a contemporary of the new critics ; hence Vamana's usage does not alter the position.' Vamana merely quotes a prede- cessor, who may have flourished for aught we know several hundred years before Vamana., Hence the position about the use of the word sahrdaya in a technical sense will be very much altered, Anandavardhana's work cannot be placed earlier than about 875 to 900 A. D. Vamana flourished be- tween 775-810 A. D. And the author of that verse flourished