172. 170 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

170 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

contain only a reference to what would be discussed in the afu later on. As to दर्शयिष्यते on p. 26 of the वृत्ति the लोचन does not mention even a कारिका. Again on p. 40 (अग्रे दशयिष्यामः ) the reference is to the elaborate treatment in four printed pages explaining III. 42-43 in which several verses of the fer himself are quoted. The two Doctors have not been able to shake the natural inference drawn from दर्शितमेवाग्र in the वृत्ति and have merely deluded themselves into thinking that the afe refers to the erfraTs by a verb in the future. Dr. Mookerjee (B. C. Law vol. I. pp. 187-188) in explaining these very inconvenient words 'दर्शितमेवाग्रे' makes this strange observation for which there is absolutely no authority beyond his own asser- tion 'the use of the future tense with the implication of personal identity as made out by M. M. Kane would be un- justifiable since the vrttikāra is required to behave as a diffe- rent person as a matter of form'. Where dose the learned Doctor get this ? A afr may speak of himself in the 3rd person but what law or rule lays down that he must do so. The only explanation that Dr. Satkari Mookerjee (in Dr. B.C. Law presentation vol. I. at pp. (180-182) puts forward is the plea that distinction between the author of sūtras or kārikars and a vrtti thereon by himself is 'a formal one' (p. 180) even when the same person is known to have composed both. Then he puts forward another proposition 'the role of the commentary is to explain what is implicitly contained in the original and it is an offence against the rules of exegesis to introduce matters foreign to the original. The offence is technically called 'utsūtravyākhyana.' On p. 181 he concedes that 'authors of sutras and karikas when they happen to be the same person have not been sufficiently on their guard in their observance of this rule'. Admitting for the present the rule stated above, I fail to see from where Dr. Mukerjee got the proposition stated by him on p. 182 (in B. C. Law vol. I.) 'All internal evidence embodied either in the original text or in the gloss purporting or alluding to personal identity will be regarded as an offence against the rules of the game.' I totally deny that there is any such ancient rule of exegesis anywhere prohibiting a commentator from showing that the author of the sūtras or kārikās and of the vrtti thereon are identical or different or any rule laying down that the violation of this supposed