Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c30.32

v1.c30.32

ommentators like Jayaratha, Vidyādhara, Mallinātha, Kumārasvāmin and Appayya. Vaidyanātha, commenting on *Pradīpa* (I 1), alludes to this tradition and rejects it expressly¹; and in this view most of Mammaṭa's other commentators agree. Apart from this, the evidence of the text itself goes directly against such a hypothesis. The *kārikās* iv 4-5 are expressly supported in the *vṛtti* by a dictum of Bharata (vi p. 87 ed. Grosset), and thus imply a distinction between the author of the *kārikā* and that of the *Nāṭya-śāstra*.² The *kārikā* x 8b, again, says *mālā tu pūrvavat*, implying from the context that the figure *mālā-rūpaka* follows the rule laid down for the figure *mālōpamā*, which, however, is not taught in any of the previous *kārikās*, but explained in the *vṛtti*. This apparently indicates that the *kārikā* and the *vṛtti* form one block which should be attributed to one and the same author³.