162. 160 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

160 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

just as the anthologies do. The number (384) is given in the शाङ्ारतिलक of रुद्र also (इत्थ' शतत्रयं तासामशीतिश्रतुरत्तरा। I.88]. The भावप्रकाशन practically quotes the शकारतिलक I. 162, omits I. 63 and again quotes श. ति. I.64 and ascribes them to रुद्रट (साधारय- खी गगिका सा वित्तं ... गुशिन्यपि। शृक्गाराभास एव स्यान् शुक्ारः कदाचन। इति द्विषन्तमुदिश्य प्राह श्रीर्द्रट : कविः। भावप्र० p. 95). The भावप्रकाशन (p. 96) quotes सर्वस्व्रमेतास्तदहो स्मरस्य from श. ति. I. 69. The रसायवसुधाकर (pp.30, 87) falls into the same confusion and ascribes the verses ईर्ष्या कुलस्त्रीषु (शरृ. ति. I. 69) and शङ्गारहास्यकरुण- रसातिशयसिद्धये (शृः ति. III. 39) to रुद्रट. The editor of the भावप्रकाशन (p. 70 Intro.) makes light of the difference in the number of rasas mentioned by mz and ; but that will not appeal to those who know the acute and long-standing controversies about the number of rasas. To say that the वृत्तिs कैशिकी and others are अर्थवृत्तिs while the five वृत्तिs of रुद्रट are शब्दवृत्तिs does not deserve much weight on the question of identity. The शङ्गारतिलक also (III. 38 and 40) in defining कैशिकी and आरभटी does emphasize the importance of proper letters, words and compounds : माधुययुक्ताल्पसमासरम्या वाखी स्मृतासाविह कैशिकीति ॥. ओजस्विगुर्वक्षरबन्धगाढा कया युधः सारभटीति afa: Il. Besides, there is no apparent reason why when Rudrata spoke of ten rasas, referred to vyabhicāribhāvas like nirveda, set out Śrngara and heroes &c. (12-3-9 &c.) and prescribed (in 14. 37) the वृत्तिs मधुरा and ललिता and वैदर्भी and पाज्चाली for शुक्ार, he should not have spoken of कैशिकी and other वृत्तिs, which are described in the शङ्गारतिलक immediately after the enumera- tion of व्यभिचारभाव s in relation to each rasa. The only alternative is to suppose that one of the works is based on the other. Taking all the above circumstances together I think that is later than रुद्रट, elaborates the dicta of रुद्रट with illustrations, bases his शुकारतिलक on the काव्यालक्कार and flourished between 950-1100 A. D. धनिक in his comment on दशरूपक (IV. 60) says 'उत्स्वप्रायितो यथा रुद्रस्य-निर्ममन मयाम्भसि०; this is found in neither of the two works. The प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण cites two quotations from रुद्रभट्ट (p.11 and p. 335), which are found in neither of the two works. It cannot be ascertained whether the who is mentioned as author of the त्रैलोक्यसुन्दरीकथा in the तिलकमअरी of धनपाल (verse 35) is the same as the author of the शद्ार० (the verse is स मदान्धक- विध्वंसी रद्र: कैर्नाभिनन्धते। सुरिष्टललिता यस्य कथा त्रैलोक्यसुन्दरी ॥).