165. DHVANYĀLOKA 163

DHVANYĀLOKA 163

of the qfu: That the afu and the citation of the examples proceed from the same author admits of no doubt. The real difficulty is about the authorship of the कारिकाs and the वृत्ति. The evidence on the subject of the identity of the arfiarar and the afdarT is both internal and external and further it is voluminous, I cannot go into all such evidence in detail for want of space. But the issue has been so much obscured by several half-digested, superficial and rather partisan writings, that I am reluctantly compelled to devote considerable space to this question. The learned reviewer of my 'History of Sanskrit Poetics' (1951) in JAOS vol. 72 (1952) pp. 129-130 finds fault with me for contentious repetitions about the karikas and vrtti (though he himself agrees that they are by different authors); but as even in the latest work of Dr. K. Krishnimoorthy [p. XVII of Introduction to the translation of the Dhvanyaloka, Poona, 1955) strong belief in the identity of the authors of the kārikā and vrtti is affirmed, I have retained all the arguments advanced in the edition of 1951. The first Uddyota of the Dhvanyaloka with an English exposition by Prof. Bishnupada Bhattacharya has been published by the firma K. L. Mukhopadhyaya (Calcutta). It was I who first collected almost all important external evidence which was almost unanimous in holding the identity of the two. I should be glad if ultimately it be proved that the same person is the author of both arftars and afa. I have pursued this subject in as detached a manner as I could. There are three stages in the case of a hypothesis, it is either proved, or not proved, or is disproved. I still hold that the hypothesis of non-identity cannot in the language of the law be said to be disproved. It is very near to being proved. It should not be supposed that the rem irks of the antaa are the mainstay of those who question the identity. All that they claim is that the araa is not helpful to the other side and rather goes against identity. The लोचन which was composed about 150 years after the sarrete is very frequently at great pains to distinguish between the author of the arfiars and the author of the afa. The following quotations will make this clear. From the days of Bühler (in Kashmir Report p. 65) about seventy-five years ago up to the présent day the question whe- ther the author of the karikas and that of the vrtti in the