170. 168 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

168 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

तदिदमुक्तम्, the लोचन remarks मयैवेत्यर्थ: i. e. states explicitly that those verses are the composition of the vrttikara himself. On p. 293 at the end of the 3rd Uddyota the K. M. edition read the words अनाख्येयांश० as a कारिका, but that was corrected in the ed. of 1935. The वृत्ति quotes that verse after तदिदमुक्तं (as on p. 277) and the लोचन explains उक्तमिति संग्रहार्थ मयैवेत्यर्थ: About the expression अस्मन्मूलग्रन्थकृता which is very inconvenient for the theory of identity, Dr. Mookerjee says (B. C. Law vol. I. 191) 'my thesis has been that the distinction is a matter of form, lapse from which was very seriously regarded as an unpardonable offence'. Where does the learned Doctor get this rule which he expresses in such strong language ? Dr. Krishnamoorthy who through- out take his cue from Dr. Mookerjee, remarks (on अस्मन्मूल- ग्रन्थकृता) that those words 'need not trouble us since the diffe- rentiation is but formal in accord ince with the etiquette of exegesis'. I request the learned doctors to site at least one instance from their vast reading wh're the sūtras or kārikās and the vrtti thereon being admittedly composed by one man, a commentator of the vrtti explains some words of the afe resembling प्रतिपादितमेवषामालम्बनम् with the words अस्मन्मूलग्रन्थकृता. Otherwise, all their remarks about the etiquette of exegesis and 'rules of the game' are entirely in the air and utterly baseless. Dr. Mookerjee complains (B. C. Law, vol. I, p. 190) that too much capital has been made of the words 'अस्मन्मूलग्रन्थकृता'. I do not understand why it should not be made. This sentence is one of the most critical passages that determine the real attitude of the लोचन on the identity or non-identity of authorship. In this connection we have to find out the exact meaning of the word ग्रन्थकृत् or ग्रन्थकार used by the Locana in numerous places. On p. 44 we have a decisive passage of the Locna on the verse अनुरागवती सन्ध्या cited in the vrtti. The लोचन says 'वामनाभि- प्रायेशायमादेप :... एकमेवोदाइरएं व्यतरद्ग्रन्थकृत्। ...... इत्यत्राशयोत्र अन्थेऽस्मद्- गुरुभिर्निरूपितः ।'. Here it is absolutely clear that the word ग्रन्थकृत् applies only to the afuar, since the example occurs only in the वृत्ति. I hold that अन्थकृत is everywhere used by the लोचन for the afdarT. I request those who are for the theory of identity to point out some examples where the लोचन undoubtedly applies the word ग्रन्थकृत् to the कारिकाकार. Dr. Mookerjee protests (B.C. Law vol. I. p. 189) against equating वत्तिकार with अ्रन्थकृत् and against holding that both have the same meaning or applicat-