166. 164 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

164 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

saale is one and the same person has been discussed at great length and it cannot be said that it has been settled beyond cavil. In the limited space at my disposal I cannot deal with all the material that has gathered round this question. Those who feel deeply interested in this problem may read Dr. De in Bulletin of the School of O. Studics, vol. I part 4 pp. 1-9, and his H. S. P. 107-116, Prof. S. P. Bhittachirya in the proceedings of the 6th O. Conference pp. 613-622, Mr. K. Goda Varma in New I. A. vol. V. pp. 265-272 for the view that the author of the karikas is different from that of the vrtti, while M. M. Prof. Kuppuswami (in his 4 p. 11), his pupil Dr. A. Sankaran in his 'The theories of Risa and Dhvani' pp. 50-60, Dr. Satkari Mookerjee in B. C. Law vol. I. pp. 179-194, Dr. K. C. P.ndey in his dissertation on 'Abhinavagupta' pp. 132-140, and Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy in I. H. Q. vol. 24. pp. 180-194 and pp. 300-311, Prof. Mankad in New Indian Antiquary vol.VI. p. 211 may be read for the theory of the identity of the two. I shall briefly reply to the important points raised by the latter group of scholars. Before procceding further I must make it clear that here and there some passages of the Locana and of the Abhinava- bharati do imply that Anandavardhana is the author of both the karikas and the vrtti. We know that eminent authors often follow the ancient or ordinarily accepted views. For example, compatre the अलं.स. and साहित्यद पण on समासोक्ति. But this does not dispose of the matter finally. There are other passages which clearly lead to the inference that the ataa felt that the authors were different. It would not do to gloss over such incoavenient passages not only in the लोचन, but in the वृत्ति, in the कारिकाs themselves and in writers like मुकुलभट्ट. So far as the Locana is concerned these passages that I quote below have not been satisfactorily explained by any of the scholars who are for the identity of the vrttikāra and kārikā- kara. All that Dr. Sank iran says after citing two passages from the अभिनवभारती and setting out a few passages which according to him indicate identity is as follows (in the 'Theories of Rasa and Dhvani' at p. 59): 'the only evidence which apparently favours the opposite view, viz. the distin- ction occasionally made by Abhinava betwcen kārikākāra and