161. RUDRAȚA 159

RUDRAȚA 159

ble coincidence of thought and phraseology between the two works, which cannot be explained away by the fact that the subject treated of is the same. There is also one very impo- rtant point to be noted. wz is the name by which the author of the काव्यालद्कार has been mentioned by writers from about 900 A.D. onwards and his काव्यालक्कार quoted by रावशेसर, प्रतीहारेन्दुराज, वल्लमदेव, धनिक, लोचन, नमिसायु (Intro. verse), मम्मट (on काव्यप्रकाश IX 'तथा एकं रुद्रटेन 'स्फुट मर्थालक्कारौ०' काव्यालक्कार IV. 32), भलं. स. p. 6 (रुद्रटेन तु भावालक्वारो द्विधवोक्तः). It is very rema- rkable that none of these writers names रुद्रभट्ट or शङ्गारतिलक. Even taa who is the earliest writer on Poetics to qucte from the शुङ्गारतिलक does not mention the name of the author. It is the anthologies that confuse the two names सद्रट and रुद्र. The सूकतिमुक्तावली of जल्हय (about 1258 A. D.) cites verses from the काव्यालक्कार (such as कि गौरि० II. 15, एकाकिनी यदबला० VII. 41) and from the शङ्गारतिलक only under रद् and does not even name a or cite a single verse under his name. On the other hand the सदुक्तिकर्यामृत of श्रीवरदास (composed in 1205 A. D.) cites almost all verses even from the शङ्गारतिलक under रुद्रट. As both these are among the earliest anthologies it follows that the confusion between the two names came to be made from about 1150 A.D. The editor of the भावप्रकाशन (Intro. p. 69) is wrong in thinking that the editor of the काव्यालक्वार of रुद्रट arbitrarily omitted fourteen verses as spurious after aper XII. 40. They are not com nented upon by नमिसाधु1 as seen from the mss. in the B. O. R. I. The mere fact that the भावप्रकाशन (p. 95) states that रुदट speaks of 384 varieties of नायिका and that the verses called spurious do refer to 384 varieties does not prove anything. That is begging the ques- tion. To those who hold that the two writers came to be confounded by about 1150 A. D. the words of the भावप्रकाशन do not at all matter. This merely shows that the भावप्रकाशन which was composed between 1175-1250 A. D. even acc. to the editor (Intro. p. 76) himself confounds the two authors

1. Vide Cat. of Govt. Mss. at the BORI, Poona, vol. XII. No. 133-135 pp. 147-151. One of the mss. was copied in aian 1471 (1415 A. D.). The editor was perfectly justified in rejecting fourteen verses as spurious when such an old ms. contained no commentary on them.