________________
-12
more informative and precise. On the other hand, K's note is likely to mislead an uninformed reader to the anachronistic conclusion that Kurtaka quotes from Mammaṭa!
The original extent of the VJ has been a problem for a long time. In the mss. known at present the work extends to four unmes as. The fourth unmesa looks incomplete; any remark (colophon, benedictory verse, etc.) which would indicate its conclusion beyond doubt is not available. On the other hand, De (1961: vi-vii) was informed by Ramakrsna Kavi that the owner of the Malabar ms. knew the work as consisting of five unmesa as. K is inclined to the view that the work as available at present is nearly complete. (In other words, we should not trust Kavi's information.) As far as I can see, he (pp. XII-XIII) gives only two arguments to support this conclusion. One is based on the premise that he has been able to arrange properly the leaves misplaced in the "Madras manuscript." I have indicated above that there is no substance in this premise. Even if it were valid, K has not demonstrated how the rearrangement of leaves serves to dispell the impression that the available VJ is incomplete. The second argument (expressed 246 with precision by De 1961: vi) is that with the fourth unmesa the discussion of all the varieties of vakrata is nearly over; why would Kuntaka need another chapter? This argument, while better than the first one, can hardly be called conclusive. It is possible, for example, that Kuntaka compared his view of literature with those of others in an additional chapter or that he tried to establish that additional varieties of vakrata are not needed. After all, Kuntaka does not say that discussing kavi-vyapara-vakratva is his sole objective. He (1.2) has declared it to be writing of a work of poetics. He would have been perfectly justified, for example, in discussing artha-vai citrya after discussing sabda-vai citrya in the form of the varieties of vakrata.
