Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c17.28

v1.c17.28

All these indications make it highly probable that Rudraṭa and Rudra were two different persons; but if this is so, how are we to explain the fact that most of the verses in the *Śṛṅgāra-tilaka* are, but for their difference in metre (*anuṣṭup* and *āryā* respectively) identical almost word for word with the corresponding verses in the *Kāvyālaṃkāra*? This point has been emphasised with some plausibility by the advocates of the identity of the two writers. But it should be noticed that this extraordinary verbal coincidence does not extend beyond those verses which give the rules and definitions; for the illustrative stanzas in the *Śṛṅgāra-* tilaka, composed in a variety of metres, and forming a distinctive feature of this more poetical work, do not occur in the *Kāvyālaṃkāra* at all. It is not unusual to find similar treatment and terminology in technical treatises, abounding in standardised and conventional rules and definitions; but this is not enough to explain this extraordinary plagiarism, tempered, it is true, by the presence of highly poetical and presumably original¹ stanzas composed to illustrate these dry rules and definitions. Nor is the explanation, which is based on the supposed identity of the two writers, at all free from considerable doubt in view of the discrepancies noted above. The real explanation probably lies in the supposition that Rudra, apparently a later writer and chiefly a poet, and never pretending to be an original teacher of Poetics, found in these ready-made rules of Rudraṭa enough poetic possibilities, as well as an opportunity of displaying his own poetic powers, and proceeded forthwith to furnish the missing poetic illustrations.² As he did not apparently aspire to write an original thesis on the topics concerned, he did not trouble to alter the wording of the fixed canons and made only enough changes to suit the metre. While Rudraṭa is concerned directly with rules and prescriptions, Rudra is more practical in his object and treatment, and intends his treatise on love apparently to serve as a psychologico-poetical guide to the gay science, furnishing it, as he does, with and elaborate analysis of the various moods and sentiments, which belong to the province of Erotics as well Poetics¹.