160. 158 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

158 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

On an examination of all that may be urged for and against the identity of the two authors, it must be conceded that there are very weighty grounds for holding that the two are distinct authors. The reasons may be briefly stated. Chapters XII-XIV of Ez cover almost the same ground as the wrnfms and very often in the same words. It does not seem very likcly that the same author would write two works in this manner, the only important addition in the शुभ्गारतिलक being that of the illustrative verses. The warfers in a few cases gives more details, such as the treatment of the four urttis, the definition of the ten stages of love, the sub-divisions of Nāyikā and their definitions. But there are some points where z gives more information e. g. 5a2 14. 22-24. There are some doctrines on which the views of the काव्यालक्वार and of the शृङ्गारतिलक conflict. It is not likely that the same author will impart conflicting directions on vital points. The शह्गारतिलक (I. 10) says that there are nine rasas in काव्य; while रुद्रट says there are ten (12. 3). शङ्ाo speaks of four वृत्तिः (कैशिकी etc. which are transferred from the realm of the drama to that of kavya in general), while ₹az speaks of five वृत्तिs (called मधुरा, प्रौढा etc. II. 19) and is silent about the कैशिकी and other urttis. रुद्रट first classifies नायिका into स्वीया, परकीया and वेश्या and then says that all the three may be अभि- सारिका or खसिडता and sub-divides स्वीया into स्वाधीनपतिका and प्रोषितपतिका; while the शहार० speaks of eight kinds of नायिका in one place (I 72-73, KM ed.). ₹E (12. 39-40) has not one good word to say about .courtesans, but the शङ्गारतिलक, while admitting the justice of the strictures passed by some against them, puts in a defence on their behalf. Compare 5z 12. 39 (सर्वाङ्गना तुवेश्या सम्यगसौ लिप्सते धनं कामात्। निर्गषगुखिनोस्तस्या न द्वष्यो न प्रिय: कश्चित् ॥) with शक्ार० I. 62-63 (सामान्यवनिता वेश्या सा वित्तं परमिच्छति। निर्गुरोपि न विद्वेषो न रागोस्या गुखिन्यपि। तत्स्वरूपमिदं प्रोक्तं कंशिचिय् बूमो वर्य पुनः ।' The शक्ार० winds up by saying about courtesans 'सर्वस्त्रमेतास्तदहो स्मरस्य (I. 69).' The words कैश्चित् in the TFrTo is very suspicious. It seems almost certain that ITFITO refers to az's words. There is a slight difference between the words of रुद्रट 'साच्षाचित्रे स्वप्ने स्यादर्शनमेवमिन्द्रजालेवा। देशे काले भङग्या साधु तदाकर्षनं च स्यात् ॥' (12. 31) and those of the शकार० 'साक्षाच्चित्रे तथा स्वप्ने तस्य स्याद्दर्शनं त्रिधा। देशे काले च भङ्ग्या च श्रवरं चास्य तथथा H' (I.51). Barring such points of difference there is a remarka-