199. DHVANYĀLOKA 197

DHVANYĀLOKA 197

ideas of men of literary appreciation' or 'mirror that will show Sahrdaya (in his true light)'. The भभिनत्रभारती (vol. I. p. 173) states: अत एव सहृदया: स्मरन्ति 'वध (स) म चूडामशिभा.' The text of the verse is corrupt, but there is hardly any doubt that HEar: here stands for an author. The कौमुदी of उदयोत्ता gives several expla- nations of the last pada of the मङल to the लोचन 'सरस्वत्यास्तत्वं कवि- सहृदयाख्यं विजयते', one of which is as follows: 'यदि वा कविशग्देन सर्वेंपि कवयः सहृदया गृहीता: सहृदयशबदेनानन्दवर्षनाचार्य: ततश्च देवतात्मत्वे गुरुनम- स्कारोपि अनुसंहितो भवति।. This shows that to the कौमुदी the idea of holding that Sahrdaya was a proper name did not appear far-fetched. There is one more reference which is interesting and would have some bearing on the question of the author of the कारिकाs and वृत्ति. The व्यक्तिविवेक at the beginning of the 2nd विमर्श (Tri. ed. p.37) remarks: इह खलु द्विविधमनौचित्यमुक्तमर्थविषयं शब्दविषयं च। तत्र विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिणामयथायथं रसेषु यो विनियोगस्तन्मात्र- लक्षणमेकमङ्गमाधरेवोक्त्तमिति नेह प्रतन्यते।'. On this the com. (of रुय्यक) remarks "उक्तमिति सहृदयः । अन्तरभ्गमिति साक्षाद्रसविषयत्वाद्। भाधैरिति ध्वनिकारप्रभृतिभिरिति । तदुक्तं 'अनौचित्या ... परा' ॥ इत्यादिना।". It may be noted that ध्वनिकारिका III. 10 is विभावभावानुभवसव्वार्योचित्यचारुयः । विधि: कथाशरीरस्य वृत्तस्योत्प्रेत्षितस्य वा ॥।'. So the words उक्तमिति सहृदयः refer to this कारिका. The verse अनौचित्यादृते occurs in the वृत्ति on p. 180 explaining the ध्वनिकारिका III. 10. So here at least the commentator ascribes the कारिका to सहदय and the वृत्ति to ध्वनिकार Dr. Mookerjee has again come forward to the attack in 'Indian Culture' vol. 12 pp. 57-60. But he has advanced hardly any new arguments which would require any fresh reply. He has, however, indulged in two remarks which I cannot allow to pass unchallenged. On p. 60 he is pleased to observe 'I am categorically definite that all right thinking men will be convinc- ed that the theory of dual authorship of the Dhvanyaloka is a canard and a figment of misconception due to lack of careful appraisal of the rules of exegesis. I am definite that the pro- blem is set at rest finally and once for all' (Italics are mine here and below). I ask all scholars to mark the abusive epithets in the first sentence. Abuse of one's opponents or of their arguments is held by all discerning judges to be a sure sign of the weakness of the case put up by one who indulges in abuse and vituperation. I may assure Dr. Mookerjee that several persons can use far more abusive language than he has indulged in, but that is not the way of a true scholar who is in