182. 180 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

180 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Tota on rasa, abhinaya &c are quoted), 82 (द्विजवरतोतनिरूपितसन्ध्य- ध्यायार्थतत्त्वघटनेयम्। अभिनवगुप्तेन कृता शिवचरणाम्भोजमधुपेन॥) of vol. III. of अ. भा. The reference to उपाध्याया: (in अ. भा. vol. III. pp.3,10, 19, 47, 163) and to उपाध्यायपादा: on p. 71 (2 verses quoted) of vol. III. of अ. भा. are meant for भट्टतोत. Therefore, it is possible that Abhinava in the w. Tr. simply states the views of his teacher Tota about the authorship of the kārikās and vrtti. The fact that almost all writers who come long after the Dhvanyāloka (as shown by myself) identify the Kārikākāra and Vrttikara is not of great moment, if even a single writer contem- porary with or immediately coming after it states to the contrary and if there are other cogent reasons for holding the opposite view. Truth is not governed by mere majorities or is not necessarily in accord with what majorities believe. Dr. Mookerjee charges me with having failed to pay proper attention to the word Har in the passage quoted a few lines below and himself translates the words as 'by me, in the capacity of a vrttikāra'. If one has already made up one's mind that the authors of karika and vrtti are identical, then only this translation is proper. But it begs the whole question. There is no word for 'capacity,'. The literal translation is 'by me who am vrttikara'. But if one's mind is open and one reads the whole passage up to संमतमेव, a totally different conclu- sion has to be arrived at as shewn above and everything includ- ing 'sata' is quite explicable. The वृत्तिकार according to लोचन means to say : 'I being (सता) a वृत्तिकार expounded at length the two major divisions of eafa; I have not, in doing so, drawn purely on my own imagination (reading 36) but what I have said is implicit in the words of the कारिकाकार'. Let us examine how both Dr. Mookerjee (in B. C. Law vol. I. p. 184 n. 7) and Dr. Krishnamoorthy (I. H. Q. 24 pp. 188-189) lay great emphasis on the words of Locana in explaining the vrtti at the beginning of ध्व. II. 1 (एवमवि ... धवनिर्द्विप्रकारः प्रकाशितः). The लोचन as they quote it from the Banaras edition (p. 165) runs 'मया वृत्तिकारेख सतेति भावः। न चैतन्मयोत्सूत्रमुक्तमपि तु कारिकाकाराभिप्रायेगे- त्याह तत्रेति। ... भवति मूलतो दिभेदत्वं कारिकाकारस्यापि संमतमेवेति भाव: ।.' I do not know on what mss. the Banaras edition is based. Mss. or their sources or dates are nowhere mentioned in that edition. But in the first sentence the K. M. edition (p. 73 of 1935 ed.) omits the important word ar# and the editors who rely on three