254. 254 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

254 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

In the third विमर्रा he takes about forty examples cited by the ध्वन्यालोक and shows that they are really cases of भनुमान. For example, the verse भम धम्मिभ (्व. p. 19) contains nothing but अनुमान 'केवलं योसौ भ्रमसविधौ हेतुभावेन दृप्तपश्जाननव्यापारस्तन्ोपातः स एव विमृश्यमान: परम्परया धार्मिकस्य तन्निषेधे पर्यवस्यति तयोर्षोध्यवाधकभावेनाव- स्थानाव' (p. 113). As regards rasas he says that their apprehen- sion also comes under अनुमान 'यापि विभावादिन्यो रसादीना प्रतीतिः सानु- मान एवान्तर्भावमदृति। विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिप्रतीतिर्दि रसादिप्रतीतेः साधन- मिष्यते' (p. 119) and concludes by saying 'तदेवं सर्वस्यव ध्वनेरनुमाना- न्तर्भावाभ्युपगम: श्रेयानिति।' (p. 137). महिममट्ट was a Kashmirian as the title राजानक indicates. His father was शषर्यं and he was the pupil of श्यामल, a great poet. वेमेन्द्र in his सुवृत्ततिलक and भौचित्य quotes verses from a श्यामल and so does सुभाषितावलि (No. 2292). A श्यामिलक is the author of a भाष called पादताडितक (vide भ. भा. vol. I. p. 178), which has been edited by Mr. Kavi. महिमभट्ट wrote the work for his grandsons, who were the sons of भीम. The latter was probably his son-in-law 'आधातुं न्युत्पतति नप्तर्यां त्षेमयोगभाजानाम्। सत्स प्रथितनयानां भीमस्यामितगु सस्य तनयानाम् ।।'. 'The word च्षेमयोगभाजानाम् is probably double-meaning and ब्ेम, योग and भाज (?) were probably the names of the grandsons. If they were his son's sons he could have used the word पौत्राwt without spoiling the metre. He wrote another work called तत्त्वोक्तिकोश on Poetics 'इत्यादि प्रतिभातत्त्वमस्माभिरुपपादितम्। शाख्जे तरवोक्तिकोशाल्य इति नेर प्रपश्चितम् ।' (p.108). His work is one of the masterpieces. of the Alankara Literature and deserves to be saved from the unmerited oblivion in which it has fallen. His work contains brilliant arguments and exhibits great erudition, logical acumen, fastidious criticism and deep insight. Among later Alankara writers he found no follower and being pitted against the famous भानन्दवर्षन, he does not receive his due. Though he tries to disarm all critisism against his boldness in finding fault with great poets by saying 'स्वकृतिष्वयन्त्रितः कथ- मनुशिष्यादन्यमयमिति न वाच्यभ्। वारयति भिषगपथ्यादितरान् स्वयमाचरञ्नपि॥' (p. 37), yet he seems to have been proud and self-confident c.g.p. 97 'अन्रोदाहर ण प्रत्युदाहर ण प्रतीत्योर्यंदन्तरं तन्मतिमतामेवावभासते, भन्येषा वु शपथप्रत्येयमेव'; p. 109 'ता पता दोषजातयो महाकवीनामपि डुलचा इत्यव- सीयन्ते'. He seems to have followed राब्कक in regarding even rasa as inferred. His views are quoted at length and seve- rely criticized in the साहित्यदपंथ (under V.4). Vide also पक़ावती