282. RUYYAKA 283

RUYYAKA 283

ता०) on p. 119 and the passageof the वृत्ति in the 2nd उल्लास (p. 26 Vamanacarya) 'भाकांचासंनिधि ... समुल्लसति' is quoted on p. 85. The वक्रोक्िजीवित appears to have exerted a great influence over the साहित्यमीमांसा. The verse शब्दार्थों सहितावेव (वकरोकि० I. 17 p. 24) and the illustration ततोरुण० are both quoted on p. 13. On pp. 14-15 nine verses are quoted from the वक्रोक्िजीवित. On p. 117 the verses speaking of the six kinds of वक्रत्व are quoted from the वक्रोकिजीवित (I. 19-21), the same examples are cited (on p.116) and the words 'एतदेव वशविन्यासवक्रत्वं चिरन्तनेष्वनुप्रास इति प्रसिद्धं' (वक्रोक्ति० p. 28) are quoted in सा. मी. (p.117 एतदेव ... प्रसिद्धमिति व्याख्यातम्); many verses are quoted as from आचार्या: on pp. 21-25, 75, 85, 86, 94. Vide Dr. Rāghavan on 'Śrngāra- prakasa' vol. I. pp. 88-103, who shows that the साहित्यमीमांसा follows the शज्ञारप्रकाश, though it differs from it in some respects. He also doubts (pp. 99-100) whether it is the work of रुय्यक. The most important characteristics of the साहित्यमीमांसा are two, viz. that it does not speak of the व्यन्जना function of words at all, but of तात्पर्यवृत्ति whieh gives rise to the realization of rasa (भपदार्थोपि वाक्यार्थो रसस्तात्पर्यवृत्तितः । p.85). Secondly, it treats of only a few अर्थालक्कारs and includes such figures as समासोक्ि, अप्रस्तुतप्रसंशा, सहोक्ति under वक्रत्व. It does not appear to accept the theory of the शङ्गारप्रकाश when it says 'विशिष्टादृष्टजन्मन आात्मगुोन्ज् तिहेतोर नादिवासनारूपस्याहक्कारस्य च रसत्वमंक्यं घ निषिद्मस्माभिः। न तु कूटस्थात्मस्वरूपस्यानन्दस्यैकरूपस्य भेदो वकुं न सक्यते इत्यादि।' (p.161). The above characteristics of the साहित्यमीमांसा create a difficulty. A साहित्यमीमांसा was the work of रुय्यक author of the अलक्कारसवस्व, as stated by himself. The सर्वस्व was a staunch advocate of the ध्वनि theory and the व्यन्जना function, as stated on p. 16 (अस्ति तावद् व्यक्थनिष्ठो व्यन्जनाव्यापार:). It also enumerates about 75 अर्थालक्कारs beginning with उपमा and including समासोक्ति, अप्रस्तुतप्रसंशा, रमवद्, ऊर्जस्वि, प्रेय :. The only way in which this contradiction between the same author's view-point in two works can be explained is by supposing that the साहित्यमीमांसा was composed by him when the author was comparatively young and under the influence of the वक्रोक्तिजीवित, while the अलक्कारसवस्व was composed when he was of mature intellect and had come completely under the influence of the धवन्यालोक and अमिनवगुप्त. If this explanation be not accepted it would have to be held that the साहित्यमीमांसा in the Tri. S. Series is not the work of the author of the Alankarasarvasva, but of some one