159. RUDRAȚA 157

RUDRAȚA 157

भारमटी and भारती. रुद्रभद्ट says that he treats of rasas in their rela- tion to kavya, while Bharata spoke of them with reference to नाव्य; 'प्रायो ना्यं प्रति प्रोक्ता भरताथ रसस्थितिः । यथामति मयाप्येषा काव्यं प्रति निगयते।' I. 5. The last verses are 'कान्या काव्यकथा कीदृग्वैदग्धी को रसागमः । कि गोष्ठीमएडनं हन्त शृक्गारतिलकं बिना॥ त्रिपुरवधादेव गतामुल्ला- समुमां समस्तदेवनताम्। शरृङ्ारतिलकविधिना पुनरपि रुद्रः प्रसादयति ॥'. The last verse is not found in some mss. That verse has been inter- preted as meaning that m composed another work called त्रिपुरवध. There is no doubt that there is a pun on the words त्रिपुरवध, शृङ्गारतिलक and रुद्र (god Siva and the author रुद्र). It may be suggested as an alternative explanation that in त्रिपुरवध the author is not referring to his own work, but to a play (f) called त्रिपुरदाह said to have been performed by भरत before Siva and his attendants (vide नाट्य० 4. 10) and धनिक's quotation on दशरूप IV. 57-60 'इदं त्रिपुरदाहे तु लक्षणं ब्रह्मयोदितम्। ततस्तिपुरदाहश्व डिमसंज्ञः प्रयोजितः ii' इति भरतमुनिना स्वयमेव &c. The mss. of the शृङ्गारतिलक sometimes give the name of the author as रुद्रट (vide I. O. cat. p.321 No.1131 and Madras Government mss. cat. 1918 p. 8697 No. 12955). The antho- logies also make confusion and quote the verses of the aran- लक्कार as रुद्रट's and also as रुद्र's or रुद्रभट्ृ's. For example, शार्ङ्० No. 3773 ('एकाकिनी यदबला' रुद्रट VII. 41)and No. 3778 ('मलयानिल०' रुद्रट II. 30) are ascribed respectively to रुद्र and भट्टरुद्र; Nos. 575 and 3473 correctly ascribe them to रुद्रट. शाङ० Nos. 3567-68, 3579, 3670, 3675, 3754 are correctly ascribed to रुद्र (the author of शृम्गारतिलक). The examples contained in the शमार- faora appear to be the author's own and may be used for chronological purposes. The earliest authors who quote them are हेमचन्द्र (who quotes, for example, the verses यत्पाखिन निवारितो० under शo I. 44 on p.304 and गाढालिङ्गन० on p. 305 from the शुक्गार० under I. 68) and विश्वनाथ. The very first verse (शुङारी गिरिजानने ... इत्थं सर्वरसाश्रयः पशुपतिभयात् सतां भूतये) of the श० is quoted and found fault with by हेमचन्द्र (p. 110). Therfore, the शक्गारतिलक must have been composed about or before 1100. A. D. After the evidence I led in the History of Alankāra Literature in 1923, it should not have been necessary to go into details to say that ae and a are n.ot identical. But as even after that there are writers like the editor of the भावप्रकाशन (Pp. 68-73 of Intro. GOS) who persist in treating the two as identical I have again to set out the whole evidence.