258. 258 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

258 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Kavyadarsa, about two hundred verses being borrowed from the latter. arHr is very rarely drawn upon (e. g. the definition of प्रसाद from भामइ II. 3 occurs as सर. क. I. 129). The सरस्वती- कयठाभरय quotes over 1500 examples from former poets and therefore is valuable for the chronology of Sanskrit literature. But, as much earlier works like the काव्यालक्वारसूत्रवृत्ति of वामन, the धवंन्यालोक and लोचन have become available to all, its importance is now much less than in the days of Aufrecht. It draws upon कालिदास and भवभूति at every step. Besides the above it quotes अभिधानमाला, कादम्बरी, कामशाखत्र, छलितराम, जैमिनि, तापसवत्सराज, ध्वन्यालोक, बाय, भटि, भरत, भामह, भारवि, महाभारत, रत्नावलि, राजशेखर, रामायण, रुद्रट, विक्रान्तश द्रक (a drama), वेणीसंहार, शिशुपालवध. Though several verses are quoted in the Hr. . which also occur in the com. of Dhanika on 154, it cannot be said with certainty that Bhoja took the verses from the Avaloka (as Dr. De does in H. S. P. vol. I. p. 145). It is quite possible that Bhoja took them from works to which both धनिक and he had access. But there is one verse which धनिक claims as his own (under दशरूप IV. 72 यथा च ममैव-लक्ष्मीपयोधरोत्सङ्कुक्कमारुखितां हरेः । बलिरेव स येनास्य मित्षापात्रीकृत: कर: ॥), which is quoted in the सर. क. (IV. verse 98 p. 462 as an example of अन्योकि). In several respects his views are peculiar. There is a certain symmetrical arra- ngement in everything that ara treats of, as in the sixteen dosas and 24 figures of शब्द, अर्थ and उभय, the six varieties of रीति, वृत्ति, मुद्रा etc. He stands almost alone in regarding उपमा, आप्षेप, समासोक्ति, अपछ्नुति and several others as figures of both sabda and artha. In this he probably follows the Agnipurana (vide chap. 344) or some other prior work. He looks upon riti as marai- लक्कार and enumerates six ritis वैद्भी, पाश्लाली, गौडीया, भावन्तिका, लाटीया and मागधी. He raised all the six pramanas of Jaimini to the status of figures of speech. Although, following old writers, he speaks of eight rasas, from the way in which he treats of them, it seems that he looked upon Srngara as the only rasa. This accords well with what we are told by the Ekavali (p. 98) that in the "FIT9ETT composed by 'the king' a single rasa alone has been admitted (राजा तु शद्गारमेकमेव शङ्गारप्रकारो रसमुररीचकार, on which the तरल S4ys 'भोजराजमतमाह राजा स्विति'). In the रत्नापण also (p.221) कुमारस्वामी quotes the same view from the मदार- प्रकाश 'शकार एक एव रस इति शरशारप्रकाशकारः'. The भावप्रकाशन (pp. 12, 213, 219, 242, 245, 251) mentions the views of the Hart-