276. RUYYAKA 277

RUYYAKA 277

occur in the काव्यप्रकाश is not conclusive as to the priority of the काग्यप्र. over रुय्यक ; for, some of the कारिकाs in the काव्यप्र. are borrowed from others. Still, there are other passages from the वृत्ति in the काव्यप्र. quoted above, which are conclusive on this point. Vide also विमर्शिनी (pp. 189, 204). It is further to be noted that the definitions of several अलक्दारs are the same in both काव्यप्र. and अलं. स. e. g. चित्र, काव्यलिक, व्याजोक्ति, उत्तर, मीलित, समाधि and that about 76 illustrations are the same in the 10th gra of मम्मट and in the सर्वस्व. About the authorship of the तृत्ति in the अलक्कारसवस्व a very perplexing question arises. In the K. M. edition the first verse reads 'निजालारसूत्राणां वृत्त्या तात्पर्यमुच्यते ।'. जयरथ who flou- rished within about 75 years of रुय्यक commented upon the words निजालक्कार &c .; hence according to him रय्यक is the author of the वृत्ति also. Later writers also regard रुचक (or रुय्यक) as the author of the वृत्ति. For example, the रत्नापण says 'तदुककं रुचकेन एषार्थाश्रयापि धर्मविषये क्रिष्टशब्दहेतुका क्वचिद्दृश्यते' (p. 393: this occurs on p. 72 of सर्वस्व): 'न चेदं विषमाधमेदेन्तर्भवति। इह हि स्वनिषेधो वैपरीत्यं गमयति विषमे तु व्यत्यय इति भेदस्य रुचकेनोक्त्तत्वात्' (p.425; this is सर्वस्व p. 168); काव्य- ग्रहयं त्कव लक्षएयार्थम् । तेन व्याप्तिपक्षध्मतादयो न क्रियन्ते इति रुचकः' (p. 448; this is on p. 181 of सर्वस्त्र); चित्रमीमांसा (p. 72) 'ये तु उद्धिन्नवस्तुनिगूहनं व्याजोक्ति :.. तेषामिहापि व्याजोक्तिरेव नापहूनुतिरिति रुचकादयः' (vide अलं. स. p. 219). But a ms. described in Burnell's Tanjore cat. (p. 54) reads the first verse as गुवलक्कारसूत्राणां वृत्त्याo. The Triva- ndrum edition of the सर्वस्व with the commentary of समुद्रबन्ध reads the first verse similarly and adds at the end of the work the verse 'इति मङखुको वितेने काश्मीरक्षितिपसान्धिविग्रहिकः । सुकविमुखालक्कारं तदिदमलक्कारसवस्वम् ॥'. The com. of समुद्रवन्ध ends with the words 'मङ्खुकनिबन्धविवृतौ विहितायामिह समुद्रबन्धेन' and in several other places (p. 2 कदाचिन्मङखुकोपशं and p. 4 'व्यक्तिविवेक काराभिमतस्त्वनुमानपत :... मङखुकस्य पूर्वपत्षत्वेनाप्यनभिमत इत्याहु:) ascribes the urtti to मङ्खुक. मक्खुक is an incorrect form of मङ्गक. We know from the श्रीकएठचरित (25. 26-30) of मङ्ग that रुय्यक was the teacher of मङ्ग or मङ्तक (III. 63 and 72 for the form मङ्गक and I. 56 for मङ्ग) and the राजतरद्विणी says that awas made minister for peace and war by king जयसिंह of काश्मीर 'सान्धिविग्रहिको मङ्ककाख्योलक्वारसोदरः। स मठस्याभवतपष्ठः श्रीकएठस्य प्रतिष्ठया ।' (VIII. 3354). Vide श्रीकरठचरित III. 66 also. Therefore, it appears that a tradition arose in southern India that मक्कक had a hand in the अलक्धारसवस्व. For several reasons this tradition must be discarded. Except age,