176. 174 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

174 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

133 admits 'here we might add that though there is considerable expansion, revision and modification of the views of the kārikā in the vtti, yet all that is of the nature of an addition to clear the ideas of the former, for that is the one purpose that the commen- tary is intended to serve'. Dr. Krishnamoorthy also admits this (I. H. Q. vol. 24 p. 301). But if the vrtti is composed by the author of the kārikās himself, then the edge of the reproach of 'utsūtravyakhyana' is altogether blunted. He can very well say 'my sūtra is brief and I am expanding its meaning for the sake of clear grasp of the subject'. Or he may sry in the vrtti that what he stated in the sütra in due only to his following old writers and that his own real opinion is different. I may give one or two striking examples. The अलं. सं. (p. 109) defines अर्थान्तरन्यास as 'सामान्य- विशेषभावकार्यकारखभावाम्यां निर्दिष्टप्रकृतसमर्थनमर्थान्तरन्यासः' and काव्यलिङ as 'हेतोर्वाक्यपदार्थता काव्यलिङ्गम्'। (p. 143). But on p. 148 the सर्वस्व observes in the वत्ति 'ततश्च सामान्यविशेषभावोर्ऽर्थान्तरन्यासस्य विषयः, यत्पुनर- र्थान्तरन्यासस्य कार्यकारणगतत्वेन समर्थकत्वमुक्तं तदुक्तलक्षयकाव्यलिङ्गमनाश्रित्य। तद्विषयत्वेन लक्षणान्तरस्यौद्धटरनाश्रितत्वात्।' &c. The सर्वस्व practically admits in the वृत्ति that he defined अर्थान्तरन्यास without adver- ting to his own definitioa of काव्यलिङ्र (in the सूत्र.). That is here the afanrT gives up the position taken by himself in the sutra. मम्मट defines काव्य as तददोषौ० according to the older rhetoricians, though he is a stunch advocate of the ध्वनि theory. If a वृत्तिकार can himself give up what he stated in the sūtra without any breach of any supposed rule of etiquette, much more therefore does it follow that a stranger commentator explaining a sūtra and vrtti by the same author is not tramelled by any rule of exegesis about stating anything about the sūtra and vrtti and is not bound to keep the sūtrakāra and vrttikāra in watertight compartments. I request Dr. Pandey, Dr. Mookerjee and Dr. Krishnamoorthy to produce eight (or even a lesser number of instances of clear apparent opposition of the views of the vrttikāra and kārikākāra (where the author of both is the same and where he belongs to the 9th or 10th century) and the commentator is a different person altogether and brings out the opposition. They have said that in Kashmir it was a practice in the 9th century for the same man to write kārikās and expla- natory commentary thereon. So it should not be difficult for them to give such instances from the commentator of a work