235. VAKROKTIJĪVITA 235

VAKROKTIJĪVITA 235

भवभूति, भामह, मञ्जीर (as a poet of the मध्यममार्ग), महाभारत, मातृगुप्त (as a poet of the मध्यममाग), मायापुष्पक, मालती०, मुद्रारा०, मेघ०, रघु०, राजशेखर, रामचरित, रामानन्द, रामाम्युदय, रामायख, रुद्रट, विक्रमो०, वोरचरित, वेखीसंहार, शाकुन्तल, शिशुपालवध, सवसेन (as a poet of the सुकुमारमार्ग), सेतुप्रबन्ध (a drama), हयग्रीववध, हर्षचरित (in which there are nume- rous charming descriptions of moonrise). The transcript in various places points out that there are large gaps (भत्र ग्रंथपातः)- Here and there certain kārikās (in all eight) occur which are styled अन्तसश्रोक (in some cases अनन्त०), which expression occurs in the व्यक्तिविवेक also (pp. 46.54.55, etc.) and is explained by हेमचन्द्र (विवेक p. 392) as अन्तरे मध्ये वक्तव्यशेषामिधायकौ शरोकौ अन्तरक्रोकौ'. One verse on p. 101 (of Dr. De's edition) is styled संग्रदश्लोक. There is no परिकरश्लोक. As the वक्रोक्तिजीवित quotes the ध्वनिकार, रुद्रट and the बालरामायणा of राजशेखर it is later than the first quarter of the 10th century. Therefore जयरथ is right when he says 'यदयपि वक्रोक्तिजीवितहृदयदपणकारावपि ध्वनिकारानन्तरभाविनावेव तथापि तौ चिरन्त- नमतानुयायिनावेवेति तन्मतं etc.' अलं. स. वि. (p. 15). The वक्रोक्तिजीवित is quoted and criticized by महिममट्ट in his व्यक्तिविवेक (pp. 28, 37, 58) and its views are summarised by the अलक्कारसवस्व and many verses from it are cited in the साहित्यमीमांसा. महिमभट्ृ's manner of referring to the वक्रोक्िजीवित (p. 28 सहृदयमानिनः केचिदाचक्षते) implies that 05 was his contemporary or only slightly older. He refers to the लोचनकार in a similar strain (व्यक्तिविवेक p. 19 अत्र केचिदिद्न्मानिन :... यदाङु:). It is further noteworthy that the लोचन contains no reference to the वक्रोक्ितिजीवित and कुन्तक does not refer to अभिनवगुप्त. Hence he was probably a contemporary of the लोचनकार also. Dr.P.C.Lahiri in 'Indian Culture'vol. III. 530-534 on Lakşaņas in Abhinavabhāratī and in 'Concept of Rīti and Guna' pp. 17-20 holds that Abhinavagupta's treatment of Laksanas is influenced by the वक्रोकि० and that अभिनव knew Kuntaka's work. Dr. Mookerjee in B. C. Law vol. I. at p. 183 says the same thing. On the other hand, Dr. Sankaran in 'the Theory of Rasa and Dhvani' pp. 119-120, while admitting that in the whole of the वक्रोक्तिजीवित there is no reference to the लोचन or अभिनवभारती, sets out passeges from Kuntaka and Abhinava which bear remarkably close resemblance and holds that there is a strong presumption in favour of the view that Abhinava was distinctly aware of the conception of vakratā according to the school represented by Kuntaka and possibly of the Vakroktijivita also, If the whole work was before