248. 248 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PORTICS

248 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PORTICS

Therefore, बनन्जवand बनिक were contemporaries of भनिनयगुप्त. At all events the two works do not refer to each other, though they differ in several important respects. The most striking points of difference are: (1) The दशरूप does not regard शान्त as a proper rasa in dramaturgy and does not recognize as a स्थायिभाव of शान्त 'रत्युत्साहजुगुप्साः क्रोधो हास: स्मयो भ्य शोकः । शममपि केचि- त्राङ्डः पुष्टिरनाटयेषु नैतस्य॥' दशरूप IV. 35, on which धनिक after stating several views remarks 'सर्वंथा नाटकादावभिनयात्मनि स्थायित्वमस्माभिः निविध्यते। तस्य ममस्तव्यापारप्रविलयरूपस्याभिनयायोगाठ्।. अमिनवगुप्त on the other hand looks upon ma as the ninth and the most important rasa (भ. मा. vol. I. p. 340) (2) धनञ्जय as interpre- ted by धनिक (on दशरूप IV. 37-39) is opposed to the theory of the ध्वन्यालोक, holds that rasa is not suggested by kauya and that it is experienced or enjoyed by the spectator or reader : 'अतो न रसादीनां काव्येन सह व्यक््थव्यञ्जकभावः । किं तर्हि भाव्यभावकसम्बन्धः । काव्यं दि भावकं भाव्या रसादय: । तेहि स्वतो भवन्त एव भावकेषु विशिष्टविभावादि- मता काव्येन भाव्यन्ते।' धनिक on IV.37. In this he follows भट्टनायक. Vide New I. A. vol. VI. pp. 272-282 (Dr. K. C. Pandey) for धन्जय and अमिनवगुप्त. 23 The व्यक्तिविवेक of राजानकमहिमभट्ट. This work has been published in the Trivandrum Series (1909) with a commentary that breaks off in the middle of the 2nd fanrrf. महिम् wrote the work for demolishing the theory of dhvani propounded by the ध्व्न्यालोक. He controverts the position of the ध्वन्यालोक that there is a third function of words called व्यब्जना (besides भभिवा and लक्षणा) and that the suggested sense is conveyed by this process. His own position is that words have a single power (अभिधा), that the suggested sense (प्रतीयमान) is conveyed by the expressed sense through the process of inference (भनुमान) and that word and sense are not व्यब्जक. He does not dispute that the soul of poetry is rasa etc. (as the खवन्यालोक would say) "वाच्पस्तदनुमितो वा यत्रार्थोर्थान्तरं प्रकाशयति। सम्बन्धतः कुतश्चित्सा काव्यानुमितिरित्युक्ता।इति। एतचानुमानस्यैव लक्षयं नान्यस्य। यदुकं 'त्रिरूपलिप्ारण्यानं परार्थानुमानम्' इति। केव्रलं संवाभेदः। काव्यस्यात्मनि संजञिनि रसादिरूपे न कस्यचिद्विमतिः। संच्ञारयां सा केव्रलमेषापि व्यक्त्ययोगतोस्य कुतः ॥" (व्यक्ति• p.22); the last verse is: 'प्राशभुता ध्वनेर्व्यक्तिरिति सैव विवेचिता। यख्वन्यतत्र विमितिः प्रायो नास्तीत्युपेचितम् ।'. जयरथ on अलं. स. (p. 15) quotes the verse वाच्यस्तरनुमितो वा०, a3 from ग्यक्तिविवेक. It is not to be supposed that महिममह was the first to advance this