Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature: Classical Period, Vol. I c10: Chapter I. Literary and Chronological Relations

A History of Sanskrit Literature: Classical Period, Vol. I c10

Language
English

Contents

Chapter I. Literary and Chronological Relations

The Vyākaraṇa School and the Alaṃkāra School

c10.s1.1

The word *alaṃkāra* is derived from the word *alam* (Gk. aurum—gold), which in Sanskrit primarily means adornment. *Alaṃkāra* thus means the making of adornments or ornaments or decorations. It is also used in relation to the *Alaṃkāraśāstra* or the Science of the Decoration of Speech, literary embellishments. The science of grammar deals with correctness of language or speech. Whatsoever development the Sanskrit language may have undergone since the time of the Vedas and whatsoever attempts may have been made in the various *śikṣā* literature and pre-Pāṇinian writers on Grammar, it attained a stability and is supposed to have fitted exactly to the scheme prepared for it by Pāṇini (5th or 6th century B. C.), Kātyāyana (probably 4th century B. C.), and Patañjali, the writer of the great commentary called the *Mahābhāṣya* (2nd century B. C.). The earliest systematic work on Alaṃkāra that has survived the ravages of time is that of Bhāmaha (who was in all probability a Buddhist of the 5th or 6th century A. D.), of which we shall have occasion to discuss later on. Bharata’s *Nāṭyasūtra*, which is essentially a work on histrionic art, incidentally makes reference to many topics which might better come under a work on Alaṃkāra and which shows that in all probability works on Alaṃkāra must have existed in the time when the relevant passages referring to Alaṃkāra topics were written. The date of this *Nāṭya-śāstra* is also uncertain as would be evident from relevant discussions that would follow in due course.

c10.s1.2

The close association of the grammar and the Alaṃkāra literature may well be expected and it is also justified by tradition. The former deals with correctness of speech and the latter with literary embellishments.

c10.s1.3

In most works on Alaṃkāra we find a chapter dedicated to the three-fold powers of words. We know that Pāṇini's *prātipadikārtha*, etc., implies that there were five opinions regarding the signification of a word. The word *parimāṇa* in the above-mentioned rule has been interpreted by Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita as *droṇarūpaṃ yat parimāṇaṃ tatparicchinno vrīhiḥ pratyayārthe prakṛtyartho'bhedena saṃsargeṇa viśeṣaṇam.*" If this interpretation is accepted, it becomes clear that what has been regarded as *lakṣaṇā* by the writers on Alaṃkāra is regarded by Pāṇini as being nothing but primary sense. The author of the *Tattvabodhinī* commentary, Jñanendra Bhikṣu, in trying to effect a compromise between the two views as to whether the first case-ending here is in the primary sense or in the secondary sense, and in computing the value of the two suggestions, says that the difference lies in the two different aspects in which the word may be supposed to significate (*śabdabodha-kṛta-vailakṣaṇyam*). Pāṇini makes no provision for *lakṣaṇā* even in the case of *siṃho māṇavakaḥ* or agnir *māṇavakaḥ*. This appears to me to show conclusively that Pāṇini himself was not aware of the view propounded by the writers of Alaṃkāra, that *lakṣaṇā* is a power of signification of words different from the primary sense.

c10.s1.4

We know that when a word contradicts its context in the primary sense of the word, as recorded in the lexicons, it may yet in many cases significate another meaning—such significations many either be due to customary practice or for implying a special suggestion. Thus if I say, 'The imperialistic states are bound to be cannibals,'—the word 'cannibal' means one who eats human flesh—certainly the imperialistic states cannot be eating human flesh; the word, therefore, simply means that they try to destroy one another. The use of the word 'cannibal' instead of simple expression that the imperialistic states destory one another, is intended to imply that their actions are as heinous and hateful as those of cannibals. Here the secondary sense of the word ‘cannibal’ has a relation with its primary sense, but this roundabout expression, on account of the force of its implication, contributes to the embellishment of the speech and hence comes within the province of Alaṃkāra. In witnessing a horse race, one may say that the black runs faster than the rest. Here the use of the word ‘black’ to denote the ‘black horse’ is a customary usage which may or may not add to the embellishment of speech.

c10.s1.5

The grammarians think that in the case of a primary sense the signification is due to the power of the word standing as the symbol (*saṃketa*) for the object. Here the fact that the symbol significates its object is due to the fact that there is really no distinction between the symbol and its connotation. This is the view of the grammarians as well as that of the Mīmāṃsaka and the Yoga authors. The writers of Alaṃkāra follow this view in preference to the Nyāya view which holds that it is by the will of God that from certain words we understand certain meanings. The understanding of a meaning is a subjective affair, while the significatory view as held by the grammarians and the Alaṃkāra authors is a purely objective view. The words significate certain objects and we learn it by practice. But however true it may be with regard to the primary-sense it would be obviously wrong to attribute the secondary or the indicatory signification as being due to the power of the word, for here the indicatory sense does not occur with the pronouncement of the word but after a long process of cogitation regarding its inappropriateness in the context and the possible manner in which this inappropriateness might be removed. For this reason *lakṣaṇā* can hardly be regarded as the significatory power of the word. The Alaṃkāra writers do not seem to be absolutely ignorant of this criticism, and we find them sometimes describing the operation of *lakṣaṇā* as an *āropita-kriyā* or an attributive function.

c10.s1.6

It is true no doubt that the older Alaṃkāra writer Bhāmaha does not treat these, but the later Alaṃkāra writers like Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha take their fundamental start with the three-fold division of the power of words. We have said before that Pāṇini does not seem to admit the *lakṣaṇā* as a separate function of words. With the conception that words objectively by their own power denote things and are as a matter of fact one with the things, seems to be a Pāṇinian view, at least as interpreted by Patañjali and Bhartṛhari, the older commentator of Patañjali's *Mahābhāṣya* and the writer of the *Vākyapadīya*. We know that all the three schools, Mīmāṃsā, Vyākaraṇa and Yoga, admit the philosophical doctrine that the power and the possessor of power are identical. The Alaṃkāra school, in adopting the same significatory theory of words, naturally adopts the same philosophical doctrine at least by implication. That this idealism forms the basis of the Alaṃkāra school of thought can be well apprehended from the words of Dhvanikāra (*apāre kāvyasaṃsāre kavireva prajāpatiḥ। sa yat pramāṇaṃ kurute viśvaṃ tat parivartate॥* In the infinite world of literature the poet is the creator, and whatever appears to him to be valid, the world also changes accordingly). The last line should be read with caution. It does not mean merely that the imagination of the poet is valid, but it means that the world changes its form in accordance with the value-sense of the poet. Or, in other words, the world transforms itself into that form which is approved as valid in the poet's creation. It assumes, therefore, that the beauty created by the poet does not merely make the world appear beautiful to our eyes but the world transforms itself into beauteous forms in accordance with the creation of the poet. The *vāṅmaya-jagat* or the world of words is in reality identical with the world of nature.

c10.s1.7

Mammaṭa, again, classifies words as being of four kinds, as, meaning, *jāti* or class notion, quality or *guṇa*, *kriyā* or action, *dravya* or things, in accordance with the view of Patañjali. We thus find that there is a natural affinity of origin between the grammar school of thought and the Alaṃkāra school. It is also well-known that the Grammar school has always been referred to by the Alaṃkāra school as the wise men or *budha*.¹

c10.s1.8

¹ *See Dhvanyāloka.*

Alaṃkāra-Sāstra—Its Name

c10.s2.1

The ordinary treatises of Alaṃkāra like *Kāvya-prakāśa* or *Sāhitya-darpaṇa* generally consist of ten chapters and they deal generally with the following subjects:—(1) the definition of Kāvya, whether it is necessarily didactic or not; (2) the threefold signification of words, primary, indicatory, and implicatory; (3) the nature of poetic emotion; (4) the nature of the implicatory sense of a higher and lower order; (5) the special qualities of good literature, their defects, their style, their adornments or *alaṃkāra*. *Sāhitya-darpaṇa* treats along with it the various forms of Kāvya. In addition to this there are special treatises dealing only with a part of the subject.

c10.s2.2

Bhāmaha, the author of the oldest available treatise on Alaṃkāra, treats primarily of *guṇa*, *doṣa*, *rīti*, and *alaṃkāra*, and also makes incidental remarks on the usefulness of Kāvya. It may, therefore, naturally be asked why since a work on Alaṃkāra treats of so many subjects, it should be named as *alaṃkraśāstra*. The question acquires a point of force when we consider that in most of the recondite works on Alaṃkāra great emphasis is given on *dhvani* and *rasa* as the constitutive characteristics of a good Kāvya. The question is nowhere definitely faced in a work of Alaṃkāra, but it seems to me that the earlier works on Alaṃkāra that are now lost probably dealt with various types of literary ornaments or *alaṃkāras* which led, naturally, to the criticism and enquiry as to the further condition which would make the adornments really possess the adorning character. We find Bhāmaha actually raising such questions and introducing the topic of *rasa* or emotion as being the determinant factor of true adornments. All adornments are also regarded by him as consisting of exaggeration (*atiśayokti*) and the covert way of suggestion which may be called *vakrokti*.

c10.s2.3

The 16th chapter of Bharata's *Nāṭya-śāstra* enumerates four adornments or *alaṃkāras*, ten excellences or *guṇas*, and thirty-six characteristics or *lakṣaṇās* of a good Kavya. But I think that the first enquiry into the nature of poetic embellishments must have led the earliest thinkers to take note of the poetic imageries, spontaneous expressions of which are found also in the Vedas, and this must have given *alaṃkāra* its first title of importance.

c10.s2.4

In the time of Bharata there seemed to have been an excellent development of poetic literature and Bharata concerned himself particularly with one form of it, the Dramaturgy and the allied topics.

c10.s2.5

The word *upamā* or comparison is found in the *Ṛg-Veda* V. 34. 9; I. 31. 15, and Paṇini II. 3. 72 mentions the word *upamāna*. The term *alaṃkāra* in the form *alaṃkariṣṇu* is explained by Paṇini III. 2. 36, and the word occurs in *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* XIII. 8. 4. 7.; III. 5. 1. 36 and *Chāndogya Upaniṣad* VIII. 8. 5. But Yaska in his *Nighaṇṭu* III. 13 gives a list of particles for indicating *upamā*, which are illustrated in the *Nirukta* I. 4; III. 13-18, and IX. 6. These are such as, *iva*, *yathā*, *na*, *cit*, *nu*, *ā*, etc. These are called *nipāta* in the sense of *upamā*. He further mentions *bhūtopamā*, *rūpopamā*, and *siddhopamā* and *luptopamā* as varieties of *upamā*. The *luptopamā* is called *arthopamā* and is in essence the same as the *rūpaka* of the later Alaṃkara writers. Yaska also quotes the definition of *upamā* as given by an earlier grammarian Gārgya (*athāto upamā yad atat tatsadṛśam iti gārgyaḥ*). From the rule, *upamānāni sāmānya-vacanaiḥ* and the rule *upamitaṃ vyāghrādibiḥ sāmānyāprayoge* we can understand that the teachings of Gargya were already assimilated by Paṇini and we find there the various terms of imagery such as, *upamāna*, *upamita*, *sāmānya*, *aupamya*, *upamārtha*, and *sādṛśya* had all been used by Pāṇini in about fifty *sūtras* of his work. The place of *upamā* in modifying compounds and accents and in other grammatical constructions has been referred to by Pāṇini. Kātyāyana in his *Vārttika* and Śāntanava in his *Phiṭ-sūtras* follow Pāṇini. In the *Mahābhāṣya* II. 1. 55. Patañjali interprets Pāṇini's usage of the term *upamāna*, which is somewhat different from the later definition of the term.

c10.s2.6

My view that the Alaṃkāra school arose as an offshoot of the Grammar school, may be regarded to attain special point of force when the above facts are considered. The later definition of *śrautī* and *ārthī upamā* is based upon the fact as whether simile was based on a *kṛt* or a *taddhit* suffix and the distinction between the *śrautī* and the *ārthī upamā* was based on this criterion till the time of Udbhaṭa and this is controlled by Pāṇini's rule V. 1. 115-16. A *śrautī upamā* is supposed to be that where the comparison is indicated by *yathā*, *iva*, *vā*, or the suffix *vat* in the sense of *iva*. Again, Pāṇini II. 4. 71 inspires the *Vārttika*, which directs that *iva* may always be compounded as in *śabdārthāviva*. Pāṇini III. 1. 10 advises the *kyac* suffix in the sense of comparison.¹ It is needless to multiply examples but the above brief discussion seems to point to the view that poetic imageries had very largely evolved in the grammar school. Of the various *alaṃkāras* or the adornments of speech, imageries of divers types occupy practically more than three-fourths of the field. The high respect in which the grammarians were held by the Alaṃkāra writers is also evident from the remarks of Ānandavardhana.² Bhāmaha also devotes one whole chapter to the grammatical correctness of words and so does also Vāmana. It may also be pointed out that the discovery of the theory of *vyañjanā*, which is regarded as the high water mark of the genius of the great alaṃkāra writers, is also, on the pattern of the Sphoṭa theory of the grammarians, as elaborated in Vākyapadīya and other works.

c10.s2.7

¹ See S. K. De's *Sanskrit Poetics*, Vol. I, pp. 1-11.

c10.s2.8

² *prathame hi vidvāṁso vaiyākaraṇāḥ, vyākaraṇamūlatvāt sarvvavidyānāṁ*, p. 47, *Dhvanyāloka*.

c10.s2.9

It is a known fact that the early *praśasti* writer, during the first few centuries of the Christian era, Aśvaghoṣa, in his *Buddha-carita* is well-acquainted with such figures of speech as *upamā*, *utprekṣā*, or *rūpaka*, *yathāsaṃkhya*, or *aprastuta praśaṃsa*, etc. The use of the various figures of speech by Kālidāsa is also too well-known. Subandhu takes pride in his skill of using *śleṣa* in every letter of his composition.¹ In Bhāmaha also we find a great aptitude and liking for diverse types of *alaṃkāra*. We hear also of Kaśyapa and Vararuci as early writers of *alaṃkāra*, as well as Medhāvin as referred to by Bhāmaha. All these seem to indicate that even before the other topics of the *alaṃkāra-śāstra* were developed there were probably treatises of Alaṃkāra dealing with manifest emphasis on the figures of speech, which had already developed in Pāṇini and the grammarians, who may be regarded as the inspirers of the *alaṃkāra-śāstra*.

c10.s2.10

¹ *pratyakṣara-śleṣamayaprapañca-vinyāsa-vaidagdhyanidhiṃ prabandham। sarasvatīdatta-vara-prasādāc cakre subandhuḥ sujanaika-bandhuḥ.* ।।

The Early Origin of the Alaṃkāra

c10.s3.1

Many writers have in modern times discussed the subject of Alaṃkāra.² It is admitted on all hands that the *alaṃkāra-śāstra* attained in India the position of a science in very early times. But the question is how early did the *alaṃkāra-śāstra* become really a *śāstra* or a science. From general considerations, since in our view the *alaṃkāra-śāstra* was inspired by the Grammar school of thought we expect it to have evolved slightly later than the middle of the 2nd century B.C., in the age of Patañjali. Let us see how far other considerations may justify this thesis.

c10.s3.2

² P. Regnaud, *La Rhetorique Sanskrite*, Paris 1884; R. Pischel, *Göttinger Gelehrtre Anzeigen* 1885; G. A. Jacob, *J.R.A.S.*, 1897; J. Nobel, *Beiträge zur älteren Geschichte des Alaṃkāra-śāstra*, Din., Berlin 1911, and *Z.D.M.G.*, 1912 1913, 1919; P. V. Kane, *Outlines of the History of Alaṃkāra Literature*, *Indian Antiquary* 41, 1912; his edition of *Sāhityadarpaṇa*; H. Oldenberg, *Die Literatur des alten Indien*, Stuttgart and Berlin 1903; Harichānd, *Kālidāsa et l'art poetique de l'Inde*, Paris 1917; H. Jacobi, *Über Begriff und Wesen Der poetischen Figuren in der indischen Poetik*; *Nachrichten von der Kgl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften*, Göttingen, *Philolog—Histor. Klasse* 1908; and *Die Poetik und Aesthetik der Inder* in der *Internat Wochenschrift*, 29th Okt. 1910; Sovani's article in *Bhandarkar Commemoration Vol.*; S. K. De's *Sanskrit Poetics*; S. N. Dasgupta's *Kāvya-vicāra* (in Bengali).

c10.s3.3

Rājaśekhara, a man of the tenth century, in his *Kāvyamīmāṃsā* speaking of the origin of the *alaṃkāra-śāstra* claimed that it was instructed by Śiva to Brahmā and from him it was handed down to others and then it became divided into 18 sections, each of which was taught by a particular teacher. Thus, Sahasrākṣa taught *Kavirahasya*, Muktigarbha, *Auktika*, Suvarṇanābha, *Rītinirṇaya*, Pracetāyana, *Anuprāsika*, Citrāṅgada, *Citra* and *Yamaka*, Śeṣa *Śabdaśleṣa*, Pulastya, *Vāstava*, Aupakāyana, *Aupamya*, Parāśara, *Atiśaya*, Utathya, *Arthaśleṣa*, Kuvera, *Arthālaṅkārikā*, Kāmadeva, *Vainodika*, Bharata, *Rūpakanirūpaṇīya* Nandikeśvara, *Rasādhikārikā*, Dhiṣaṇa, *Doṣādhikārikā*, Upamanyu, *Guṇaupādānikā*, Kucumāra *Aupaniṣadika*. It is interesting to note that the majority of the sections deal with figures of speech, and this lends support to our view that the earlier treatises on Alaṃkāra were mostly on the figures of speech. Of the writers mentioned above almost nothing is known to us except that Kucumāra and Suvarṇanābha are referred to in the *Kāma-sūtra* (I. 13-17) as the authors of the *Aupaniṣadika* and the *Sāmprayogika* sections of erotics. We do not know anything further of the time or the authenticity of the above-mentioned writers. According to the *Hṛdayaṅgama* commentary of the *Kāvyādarśa*, Kaśyapa and Vararuci had written works on poetics before Daṇḍin, whose works Daṇḍin had consulted. The Commentary *Śrutānupālinī* on the *Kāvyādarśa* mentions Kaśyapa, Brahmadatta, and Nandisvāmi as predecessors of Daṇḍin.¹ These works are no longer available.

c10.s3.4

¹ P V. Kane, *The Sāhityadarpaṇa*, 1923, Introduction (p. 1),

c10.s3.5

But nowhere in the earliest literature do we find any reference to *alaṃkāra-śāstra*. Thus the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad* gives a list of the old *śāstras* (VII, 1. 2. 4); but it does not refer to the *alaṃkāra-śāstra*. Āpastamba in II. 4. 11 refers to the six *aṅgas* and neither Yājñavalkya nor Viṣṇupurāṇa refers to the *alaṃkāra-śāstra*. In the *Lalitavistara* there is a reference to *Kāvya-karaṇa-grantha* and *Nāṭya*. *Kāvya-karaṇa-grantha* need not necessarily mean *Alaṃkāra*. The *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya also does not make any reference to *Alaṃkāra*. Kauṭilya's *Arthaśāstra* in advising the language of the King's Edicts recommends sequence of meaning (*arthakrama*), completeness of sense (*paripūrṇatā*), sweetness (*mādhuryya*), clearness (*spaṣṭatva*) and width of meaning (*audāryya*), as excellences of style, to be observed. But this has nothing to do with *alaṃkāra-śāstra*, at best it may refer only to style. It thus appeares that there is no evidence that there was any *alaṃkāra śāstra* before Patañjali.

c10.s3.6

It is true that Bharata's *Nāṭya-śāstra* contains elements of *alaṃkāra-śāstra*, but its date is uncertain. Macdonell assigns it to the 6th century A.D. and MM. Haraprasad Sastri to the 2nd century B.C., and Lé'vi to the Kṣatrapā period. The fact that Kalidasa in his *Vikramorvaśī* refers to Bharata as a *muni*, only shows that he was much earlier than Kalidasa. This would place the lower limit of Bharata to the 3rd or 4th century B.C. From the reference in Kalidasa we are compelled to say that Dr. De's view that the lower limit of Bharata in the 8th century A.D., seems quite untenable. In any case there is but little evidence that the present *Nāṭya-śāstra* was written earlier than the commencement of the Christian era. Many writers have written on Bharata's *Nāṭya-śāstra*.¹

c10.s3.7

¹ W. Heymann, basing on a South Indian MSS. wrote upon it in the *Nachrichten von der Kgl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften*, Göttingen, *Philolog—Histo. Klasse*, 1874; P. Regnaud published also the *adhyāyas* six and seven in *La Rhétorique Sanskrite*, Paris 1884, and *adhyāyas* 15 to 17 in the *Annals of the Musée Guimet*, and also the *adhyāyas* 20 to 22, and 34 have been published by F. A. Hall. The 28th *adhyāya* was published by J. Grosset in contribution *a' l'étude de la Musique Hindue*, Paris 1888; a critical foreword to *adhyāyas* 1-14 was also published by him is Paris in 1898. The whole work was published in the Kāvyamālā series in 1894 and later on with parts of the commentary of Abhinavagupta, in the Gaekwad Oriental Series; Pavolini in the *Giornale de la Societa Asiatic Italiana* discusses about the *Nāṭya-śāstra* in 1912 and refers to the work of F. Cimmino on the *Nāṭya-śāstra* published in Naples 1912; Prof. H. H. Dhruva also writes on the subject in *Asiatic Quarterly Review*, No. III, 2, 1896, and MM. Śāstrī in *J. A. S. B.*, 5, 1919. S. K. De's *Sanskrit Poetics* and Introductory Notes to P. V. Kane's edition of *Sāhityadarpaṇa*.

c10.s3.8

We thus see that there is no evidence that any *alaṃkāra-śāstra* existed beyond the commencement of the Christian era. Bharata, however, need not be regarded as the earliest writer on dramaturgy. We find references in Pāṇini of a *Bhikṣu-sūtra* and a *Naṭa-sūtra* and we do not know who is the original author of this *Naṭa-sūtra* and whether this *Naṭa-sūtra* is somewhat connected with our present *Nāṭya-śāstra*. We have also reference in Pāṇini (IV. 3. 110) of Kṛśaśva and Śilālin, who were recondite writers on dramaturgy. But we know nothing further of these two writers. Bharata's *Nāṭya-śāstra* is said to have many commentaries. The names of the commentaries referred to by Abhinavagupta and Śārṅgadeva are the followings:—Udbhaṭa, Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka, Bhaṭṭanāyaka, Rahula, Bhaṭṭatauta, Kīrtidhara, Mātṛgupta. Only fragmentary portions of Abhinavagupta's commentary are available and have been printed in the Gaekwad Oriental Series by the name *Abhinava-bhāratī*.¹ *Śārṅgadhara-paddhati* refers to some of the verses of Śaṅkuka. It is doubtful, however, whether Śaṅkuka the poet and Śaṅkuka the commentator is one and the same person. Kalhaṇa mentions a poet Śaṅkuka and his poem *Bhubanābhyudaya*. Śaṅkuka probably lived in the early ninth century. If the two are identical, Śaṅkuka's date becomes ascertainable, but we know nothing of the date of Lollaṭa, but he was probably later than Udbhaṭa as Lollaṭa controverts Udbhaṭa's view (9th century A.D.). There is a confusion as to whether Bhaṭṭanāyaka was the author of a work called *Hṛdaya-darpaṇa*, for while Hemacandra refers to it as belonging to Bhaṭṭanāyaka Abhinavagupta definitely seems to refer the work as belonging to a different person. So, though some scholars have maintained that Bhaṭṭanāyaka was the author of *Hṛdaya-darpaṇa*, I have definitely denied that in my *Kāvya-vicāra*. *Hṛdaya-darpaṇa*, however, though it may have supported Abhinavagupta in certain places, was in reality a work which had contradicted the *dhvani*-theory, and it was on this account that Mahima Bhaṭṭa to save his credit said that before writing his book he had not consulted *Hṛdaya-darpaṇa*.

c10.s3.9

But all this is a digression. *Hṛdaya-darpaṇa* does not appear to have been a commentary to Bharata's *Nāṭya-śāstra* as some maintain. Bhaṭṭanāyaka was in all probability conversant with the text of *Dhvanyāloka* and Ānandavardhana and was probably a contemporary of Abhinavagupta. But these discussions do not concern us here. We find that the *Nāṭya-śāstra* of Bharata was the earliest available work to us that contained *alaṃkāra* materials, and this work could not have been at least in its present form earlier than the 1st or 2nd century A.D.¹

c10.s3.10

¹ At the end of the work *Bharatiya Nāṭya-śāstra* the name of the author appears as **Nandi Bharata**. The same name occurs as the author of a work on music, and the name of **Nandi** or Nandikeśara occurs as the author of *Abhinaya-darpaṇa*. The word *Bharata* also stands for the director of the actor, and R. Pischel translates *Bharatiya Nāṭya-śāstra* as the book of instruction on the art of acting for the actors. In later literature the word 'Bharata' is also used in the sense of play-director, who appears on the stage at the conclusion of the play, and utters a benedictory verse called the *Bharatavākya*. In *Viṣṇupurāṇa* III. 6 Bharatamuni is said to be the author of the Gandharva-veda or the science of music. The *Nāṭya-śāstra*, as we have it, is the work of an encyclopaedic character. It is composed generally in verses of an epic nature and sometimes changes the metre, interspersed here and there with prose, and consists of 38 chapters or *adhyāyas*. It deals not only with the nature of the dramatic literature but also with the art of dancing and mimic and various other subject connected with the operation of acting. It deals also with the *rasa* and *bhāva* and *alaṃkāra* and the art of dramatic poetry and music. Regnaud and Oldenberg fix the date of *Nāṭya-śāstra* in the 1st century of the Christian era. Pischel, however, regarded this to be a work of the 6th or 7th century A.D. D. R. Bhandarkar thinks that the present *Nāṭya-śāstra* is based on an earlier work. Speaking of the chapter on music he says that it belongs to the 4th century A.D. or it may even be later. MM. Śāstrī regarded it to be a work of the 7th century A.D., and Jacobi places it in the 3rd century A.D. On this subject see the following literature:—(1) Oldenberg's *die Literatur des Alten Indien*, Stuttgart, und Berlin 1903. (2) R. Pischel in *Gottinger Gelehrte Anzeigen* 1886 (p. 763). (3) D. R. Bhandarkar in *Indian Antiquary* 41, 1912, (4) MM. Śāstrī's article in the J.A.S.B., 6, 1910, 307, (5) Jacobi in Bhavisatta Kahao. (6) P. V. Kane's Introduction to *Sāhitya-darpaṇa*, (7) Dr. S. K. De's *Sanskrit Poetics*.

The Earlier Writers on Alaṃkāra-Śāstra

c10.s4.1

Bhāmaha, of whom we shall treat later on, refers to a writer, Medhāvin, regarding the defects of *upamā* as pointed out by him. He also refers to him on the subject of the *alaṃkāras*, *yathāsaṅkhya* and *utprekṣā*.¹ But Medhāvin's work on *alaṃkāras*, has not come down to us and we do not know of any MSS. also of Medhāvin's work.

c10.s4.2

¹ *yathāsaṃkhyamathotprekṣām alaṃkāradvayaṃ viduḥ। saṃkhyānamiti medhāvinotprekṣābhihitā kvacit।।* 2.88. As it stands it means that Medhavin styles *utprekṣa* as *saṃkhyāna* but Daṇḍin has told us in the *Kāvyādarśa* II, 273 that *yathāsaṃkhya* has been styled as *saṃkhyāna* by other writers. Kane, therefore, suggests that in the second line the reading *medhāvinotprekṣā* should read as *medhāvī notprekṣā*. The meaning under such a reading would be that Medhāvī calls *yathāsaṃkhya saṃkhyāna* and has not mentioned *utprekṣā*. Such a meaning tallies with that of Daṇḍin as above. Namisādhu in commenting on Rudraṭa's *Kāvyālaṁkāra*, 1. 2. refers to the name of one Medhāvi-rudra along with Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha as authors of *alaṁkāra-śāstra*. But it is difficult to guess whether Medhāvirudra is one name or two names, Medhāvī and Rudra. We know of no Alaṁkāra author of the name of Rudra, and we know also that there were many names with Rudra as the second member, such as, Mālavarudra, Kapilarudra, etc. (See Kane's article in J.R.A.S., 1908). Namisādhu further quotes from Medhāvin on the subject of the defects of simile and on the four divisions of *śabda* that Medhāvin has not counted the *karmapravacanīyas*. The *Trikāṇḍaśeṣa* regards Medhāvirudra and Kālidāsa as synonymous and Rājaśekhara in his *Kāvyamīmāṃsā* calls Medhāvirudra a blind poet and Kālidāsa a writer on *alaṁkāra* (see Kane's *Sāhityadarpaṇa*).

c10.s4.3

P. V. Kane, referring to the *anuvamśa* verses of the *Nāṭya-śāstra* mentions the name of Kohala, Vātsya, Śāṇḍilya and Dhūrtila, as persons stated there as destined to spread the *Nāṭya-śāstra*. The name Kohala as a writer of *Nāṭya-śāstra* occurs in *Kuṭṭanīmatam* of Damodaragupta of the 8th century A.D. A work on *tāla*, attributed to Kohala, exists in the India Office Library, and Hemacandra in his *Kāvyānuśāsana* speaks of Kohalācāryya as a writer on dramaturgy. The *Rasārṇava-sudhākara* of Siṁha-bhūpāla mentions Bharata, Śaṇḍilya, Kohala, Dattila, and Mataṅga as authors of works on *Nāṭya-śāstra*.

c10.s4.4

Rāghava Bhaṭṭa, in his commentary on *Śakuntalā*, quotes chapters and verses from Bharata's *Nāṭya-śāstra*, and refers to the commentary *Abhinava-bhāratī* by Abhinavagupta. This commentary occurs also under the name of *Nāṭyaveda-vivṛti*. Someśvara, a commentator of *Kāvya-prakāśa*, refers to a commentator of *Nāṭya-śāstra* by the name of Maṅgala. Māṇikya-candra also in his *Kāvya-prakāśasaṅketa* refers to Maṅgala. Maṅgala is referred to also by Hemacandra and Rājaśekhara. Sundara Miśra in his *Nāṭya-pradīpa*, composed in 1613 A.D. refers to a passage of *Nāṭya-śāstra* and speaks of Mātṛguptācāryya as having written a *Vyākhyāna* on it. Rāhula Bhaṭṭa also refers to the passage of *ārambha* and *vīja* in the *Nāṭya-śāstra* and supports the view of Mātṛguptācāryya on it. Mr. Kane suggests that Mātṛgupta probably wrote a *vārttika* of the *Nāṭya-śāstra*. It is difficult to say whether this Mātṛgupta was the poet who was made King of Kashmir by Harṣavikramāditya of Ujjain as stated in *Rājataraṅgiṇī* III, 128-189.

c10.s4.5

Bhamaha's *Kāvyālaṃkāra* is the earliest work on *alaṃkāra* that has come down to us. The existence of the work was at first guessed from a few quotations given by Colonel Jacob in J.R.A.S., 1897, and the work has been published by Mr. Trivedi as an appendix to his edition of his *Pratāparudra-yaśobhūṣaṇa* in the Bombay Sanskrit Series.¹ He is supposed to have been the son of Rakrilagomin and his work is written in verse. It is divided into six chapters and contains 398 verses. The first chapter, containing sixty verses, deals with the qualifications of a poet, the differentiation and division of Kāvya as prose and poetry, and as work in Sanskrit prose or *apabhraṃśa*, as epic poetry, drama, *ākhyāyikā* and *anubandha*, and also treats of the *Vaidarbhī* and the *Gauḍī* styles, and speaks of some literary defects. In the second chapter he deals with three *guṇas*, *mādhurya*, *prasāda*, and *ojas*, and takes up the subject of *alaṃkāra* which he continues through the third chapter. The *alaṃkāras* of which he speaks are two kinds of *anuprāsa*, five kinds of *yamaka*, *rūpaka*, *dīpikā*, *upamā* with its seven defects, *prativastūpamā* as a variety of *upamā*, *ākṣepa*, *arthāntaranyāsa*, *vyatireka*, *vibhāvanā*, *samāsokti*, *atiśayokti*, *yathāsaṃkhya*, *utprekṣā*, *svabāvokti*, *preyas*, *rasavat*, *ūrjasvi*, *paryāyokta*, *samāhita*, *udātta*, *śleṣa*, *apahnuti*, *viśeṣokti*, *virodha*, *tulyayogitā*, *aprastutapraśaṃsā*, *vyājastuti*, *nidarsanā*, *upamārūpaka*, *upameyopamā*, *sahokti*, *parivṛtti*, *sasandeha*, *ananvaya*, *utprekṣāvayava-saṃsṛṣṭi*, *bhāvika*, *āsīḥ*—thirty-nine in all. He denies the status of *alaṃkāra* to *hetu*, *sūkṣma*, *leśa*, and *vārttā* as they contain no *vakrokti*. These were counted as *alaṃkāra* by some of the predecessors of Bhamaha. In the fourth chapter he deals with eleven kinds of defects of Kāvya and defines and illustrates them. In the 5th chapter he deals with logic and treats of the defects of Kāvya as arising from logical hiatus. In the 6th chapter he gives some practical hints to poets for observing grammatical purity, as Bhamaha also did. Whether Bhāmaha was Buddhist in faith or not has been the subject of much discussion among many scholars, and while his being the son of Rakrilagomin and his adoring Śarva, a name of Buddha, has been the ground of suggestion that he was a Buddhist, Kane has given many arguments in favour of the view that he was not a Buddhist, but this does not concern us here. It appears from his writings that he had benefited himself by the works of his predecessors. The expressions given in his work may have been mostly composed by him but it would be too much to say that all the expressions were composed by him as could be said of Jagannātha, the author of *Rasagaṅgādhara*. Up till now no commentary on Bhāmaha's work has been found but Udbhaṭa has worked a commentary on it called *Bhāmaha-vivaraṇa*, but this work is not now available. He mentions many authors, such as Rāmaśarmā, Kaṇabhakṣa, Pāṇini, Salaturīya, Medhāvin, Rājamitra, Śākhavardhana, Aśmakavaṃśa and Ratnāharaṇa. But Ratnāharaṇa may well be the title of a book than of a man. Bharata's work has been referred to but he has not been mentioned by name. He also refers to the story of Vatseśa and Naravahanadatta which were the principal chapters of *Bṛhatkathā*. He highly praises Pāṇini's grammatical system and is conversant with *daṇḍanīti* and *sphoṭavāda*. The *Kāmadhenu* quotes many verses from Bhāmaha which are not available in *Kāvyālaṃkāra* and Nārāyaṇa in his *Vṛttaratnākara* quotes long passages from Bhāmaha, which shows that Bhāmaha had also work on metrics. There is a Bhāmaha, who had written a commentary on Vararuci's grammar, but whether all these three Bhāmahas are one, is more than we can say.

c10.s4.6

¹ Colonel Jacob, in Z.D.M.G., 64.

c10.s4.7

Pratīhārendurāja, the commentator on Udbhaṭa, informs us that Udbhaṭa had written a commentary on Bhāmaha and this statement is confirmed by Abhinavagupta (see the *Locana*, pp. 10, 40, 50, and Hemacandra, Commentary, pp. 17 and 110). Ruyyaka also refers to this commentary (pp. 183). Vāmana also betrays his acquaintance with Bhāmaha as his definition of *upamā* is a mere paraphrase of that of Bhāmaha. Dr. De points out clearly (*Sanskrit Poetics*, Vol. I, pp. 16) Vamana's acquaintance with Bhāmaha's work. Bhāmaha, therefore, preceded Vamana and Udbhaṭa and belonged probably to the 8th century A.D. Bhāmaha also refers to *Nyāsa* of Jinendrabuddhi (Bhāmaha VI. 36). Jinendrabuddhi probably lived in 700 A.D. Bhāmaha therefore, must be anterior to Jinendra. But various doubts can be raised as to the exact date of Jinendrabuddhi, who has been placed by Kielhorn as being later than Haradatta, the author of *Padamañjarī*, who died in 878 A.D. So the date ascribed to Jinendra by Paṭhaka cannot be regarded as certain. Trivedi in I.A., XLII has shown that the reference to Nyāsakāra need not necessarily be a reference to Jinendrabuddhi. Thus the hypothetic reference to the above regarding the date of Bhāmaha on the strength of his reference to Nyāsakāra is smashed to pieces. The supposition of Haricand in his *L'art Poetique de l'Ind*, that Bhāmaha in I. 42 refers to *Meghadūtam*, is as untenable as Paṭhaka's view that Māgha II. 86 refers to Bhāmaha I. 16. We have already seen that no hint as regards Bhāmaha can be attained on the supposition that he was a Buddhist. Jacob, however, has shown that in Chapter 5, Bhāmaha makes a lot of reference to Dharmakīrtti. If this is correct then Bhāmaha was anterior to Dharmakīrtti who lived in the 7th century A.D. Bhāmaha then probably lived in the beginning of the 8th century A.D. and might have been a senior contemporary of Udbhaṭa.

c10.s4.8

Bhaṭṭi tells us in XXII. 35 that he composed his poem in Valabhī, ruled over by Śrīdharasena or Śrī Dharasena,¹ where Śrī is a decorative word, the last of whom was living in 651 A.D., that being the date of his latest grant. Bhaṭṭi therefore lived in the 7th century A.D. and might have continued to live in the 8th century A.D. and can thus be an earlier contemporary of Bhāmaha.¹ As it appears from Bhāmaha II. 20 that he covertly criticises Bhaṭṭi XXII. 34 (see foot-note) he probably have seen Bhaṭṭi's work, which is in confirmation with the date of Bhāmaha as adduced here.²

c10.s4.9

¹ *Kāvyam idaṁ vihitaṁ mayā valabhyāṁ śrīdharasena-narendra-pālitāyām.* The *Jayamangalā* commentary reads '*Śrīdharasūnu*'! It appears that there were four Śrīdharasenas who ruled in Valabhī between 550 and 650 A. D. Whether the king be Śrīdharasena or Śrīdharasena's son we find that Bhaṭṭi lived in the first half of the 7th century A.D. He was probably slightly older than Bhāmaha, or if he was a young poet living in the court of Śrīdharasena and attained a long life, he might have lived also in the 8th century A.D., in which case he might have been a senior contemporary of Bhāmaha. In his tenth canto he gives illustrations of 38 *alaṁkāras* including *anuprāsa* and *yamaka* and in the eleventh he illustrates *mādhuryya guṇa*, in 47 verses and the twelfth canto is dedicated to the illustrations of *bhāvika*, which Bhāmaha describes in III. 52. In the thirteenth canto he illustrates *bhāṣāsama*, where the same verse may be regarded as composed both in Sanskrit and in Prākṛta. Now in the illustrations of the figures Bhaṭṭi mentions the same figures that are dealt with by Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin. His illustrations of the figures are also in the same order in which Bhāmaha defines the figures, with some deviations. These deviations show that probably both Bhaṭṭi and Bhāmaha drew upon the same sources and according to their individual liking.

c10.s4.10

¹ Bhaṭṭi in XXII. 34, in describing his work, said :—

c10.s4.11

² As for the modern attempts regarding study of Bhāmaha, see as follows :—Jacobi Z.D.M.G. 64, 1910 ; John Nobel, *Beiträge zur älteren Geschichte des Alaṅkāraśāstra* ; also Z.D.M.G. 73, 1919, K. P. Trivedi, *Pratāparudra-yaśobhūṣaṇa* (appendix, where the book is published), and also Introduction, page 28, etc.; *Indian Antiquary* 42, 1913 ; R. Narasiṁhacāra, *Indian Antiquary* 1912, 1913 ; T. Narasimghiyengar and P. V. Kane, J.R.A.S., 1905 and 1908, hold Bhāmaha as being younger than Daṇḍin. Gaṇapatiśāstrī in his Introduction, page 25, of Bhāsa's *Svapna-Vāsavadattā* holds that Bhāmaha lived in the 1st century B.C., but he was, probably as late as Kālidāsa. On this point see Nobel Z.D.M.G. 73 already referred to ; see also Haricand's *Kālidāsa*, p. 70 ; P. V. Kane's Introduction to *Sāhityadarpaṇa* and S. K. De's *Sanskrit Poetics*. It is curious to notice that several passages, which are quoted in the *Kāmadhenu* Commentary on Vāmana on *Kalās*, are not available in the present work. Probably these are chapters which are now lost.

c10.s4.12

Daṇḍin's *Kāvyādarśa* is a well-known work on Sanskrit Poetics.³ The 1st chapter differentiates Kāvya as *gadya*, *padya*,

c10.s4.13

³ It has been often printed in India since its Calcutta edition of 1863 with the commentary of Premcand Tarkavāgīśa of the Calcutta Sanskrit College. It has been printed with to commentaries, in Madras in 1910, and in Poona by Dr. Belvalkar and Śāstrī Raṅgācāryya Reddi. The work is divided into three chapters. In Professor Raṅgācāryya's edition there are four chapters, the third being split up into two. There are in all 660 verses in the Calcutta edition and 663 verses in the Madras edition.

c10.s4.14

vyākhyāgamyam idaṁ kāvyam utsavaḥ sudhiyāmalam ।
hatā durmedhasaś cāsmin vidvatpriyatayā mayā ॥

c10.s4.15

Bhāmaha apparently referring to the above contention of Bhaṭṭi criticises him as follows :—

c10.s4.16

kāvyānyapi yadīmāni vyākhyāgamyāni śāstravat ।
utsavaḥ sudhiyāmeva hanta durmedhaso hatāḥ ॥ Bhāmaha II. 20

c10.s4.17

and *miśra*. *Gadya* (prose) is again subdivided into *ākhyāikā* and *kathā*, though there is no real distinction between the two. A division of literature is also made of Sanskrit Prose into *apabhraṁśa* and *miśra*. He also speaks of the two styles, *vaidarbhī* and *gauḍī*, and the ten *guṇas*. He differentiates and illustrates *anuprāsa* and regards erudition (*śruta*), genious (*pratibhā*) and constant application (*abhiyoga*) as the constitutive qualities of a poet. The second chapter is dedicated to the treatment of *alaṁkāras* in the following order:—*svabhāvokti*, *upamā*, *rūpaka*, *dīpaka*, *āvṛtti*, *ākṣepa*, *arthāntaranyāsa*, *vyatireka*, *vibhāvanā* *samāsokti*, *atiśayokti*, *utprekṣā*, *hetu*, *sūkṣma*, *leśa*, *yathāsaṁkhya*, *preyas*, *rasavat*, *ūrjasvi*, *paryyāyokta*, *samāhita*, *udātta*, *apahnuti*, *śleṣa*, *viśeṣokti*, *tulyayogitā*, *virodha*, *aprastuta-praśaṁsā*, *vyājokti*, *nidarśanā*, *sahokti*, *parivṛtti*, *āśīḥ*, *saṁkīrṇa*, and *bhāvika*, thirty-five in all. In addition to this in the third chapter he deals with *yamaka* and defines and illustrates the *citrakāvyas*, *gomūtrikā*, *ardhabhrama*, *sarvatobhadra*, *svarasthāna*, *varṇaniyama* and the *prahelikā*.

c10.s4.18

Kane suggests that as in his illustrations the southern countries are often referred to, he most probably was a man from the Deccan.¹ He is said to have written thirteen works of which *Daśakumāra-carita* is belived to be one.² Regarding the ascertainment of Daṇḍin's date there has been much discussion and opposition among the scholars. There is a number of passages in *Kāvyādarśa* which agree with Bhamaha word for word. P. V. Kane, for instance, wishes to place Daṇḍin before Bhamaha, while most other scholars regard Bhāmaha to be earlier than Daṇḍin.¹

c10.s4.19

¹ He mentions the following works by name:—*Chandoviciti* (I. 12), *Bṛhatkathā* (I. 38), *Setubandha* (I. 39). Though he does not mention by name he shows acquaintance with the *Mahābhāṣya* (*Kāvyādarśa* II. 227), Bharata's *Nāṭya-śāstra* (II. 367). He also, like Bhāmaha, speaks of *Pūrvācāryyas* or great writers of the past whom he had consulted in writing his work. He holds a discussion on the verse *limpatīva tamo'ṅgāni* which Pratīhārendurāja thinks as referring to Udbhaṭa. The verse in question is a quotation from *Mṛcchakaṭika* and is also in Bhāsa's *Cārudatta* and *Bālacarita*. In *Śārṅgadhara paddhati* a verse of Rājaśekhara is quoted to show that Daṇḍin wrote three works which were widely known.

c10.s4.20

² On this point, however, doubts have been raised by Mr. Trivedi (Introduction, *Pratāparudra-yaśobhūṣaṇa* p. 31), Mr. Agase, I.A. 1915 and in his Introduction to *Daśakumāra-carita*, p. 35, holds that the author of *Kāvyādarśa* cannot be the author of *Daśakumāra-carita* on the ground that the author of *Kāvyādarśa* was a fastidious critic and as such could not have been the author of *Daśakumāra-carita* which abounds in faults of grammar and good taste. But as Kane points out, this is no serious argument for practice is more difficult than preaching, as Mahimabhatṭa also says in his *Vyakti-viveka*,—

c10.s4.21

¹ Mr. Trivedi (Introduction to *Pratāparudra* and *Indian Antiquary* 1913, and Bhandarkar Commemoration Vol.; Dr. Jacobi. Z.D.M.G. 1910; Prof. Raṅgācāryya, Introduction to the edition of *Kāvyādarśa*; Mr. Ganapati Śāstri, Introduction to *Svapna-Vāsavadattā*; Prof. Pāṭhak, Introduction to *Kavirājamārga*; and Dr. S. K. De's *Sanskrit Poetics* place Bhāmaha before Daṇḍin; Prof. M. T. Narasimhiyengar (J.R.A.S., 1905) places Daṇḍin before Bhāmaha and Prof. Pāṭhak changes his former view in J.B.R.A.S. 23 and I.A. 1912 and places Daṇḍin before Bhāmaha.

c10.s4.22

*svakṛtiṣu ayantritaḥ katham anuśiṣyād anyam ayam iti na vācyam, vārayati bhiṣag apathyād itarān svayamācarannapi tat.* Kṣemendra in his *Aucitya-vicāra-carccā* finds fault with his own composition. The argument on the ground of the difference of style between *Daśakumāra-carita* and *Kāvyādarśa* also does not hold water for the one is written in poetry and the other in prose.

c10.s4.23

The ascertainment of the reference of Bhāmaha in Daṇḍin or *vice versa* and the ground of agreement of views is difficult as both of them had utilized the works of their predecessors, and the views common between the two may be due to the existences of common sources. Both Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha are very early writers and are always referred to by later writers and therefore it is difficult to decide the priority between the two. Daṇḍin had preceded both Udbhaṭa and Vāmana by a considerable period and he cannot be placed later than the 8th century A.D.

c10.s4.24

Trivedi and Raṅgācāryya have pointed out that Bhāmaha has been referred to as *cirantana* in *Alaṃkāra-sarvasva* (p. 3) as ākara or source by Rāghava Bhaṭṭa (commentary to *Śakuntalā*, p. 14) and that it is only in Namisādhu's commentary on Rudraṭa that Daṇḍin has been placed earlier than Bhāmaha. The reference to Bhāmaha as very old does not determine the question of the priority of either Daṇḍin or Bhāmaha. Namisādhu wrote his commentary on Rudraṭa, as he himself declares in Saṃbat 1125 or 1061 A.D. The statement of Namisādhu that Daṇḍin preceded even Medhāvirudra referred to by Bhāmaha is regarded by Kane as being decisive of the priority of Daṇḍin over Bhāmaha. The reference to Bhāmaha in *Alaṃkārasarvasva* as being *cirantana* proves nothing, for the same epithet has been also applied to Udbhaṭa. It has been argued that Daṇḍin has an elaborate treatment of *yamaka* and *śabdālaṃkāra* and had made an elaborate subdivision of *upamā*, while Bhāmaha treats them only in the general manner, and for this reason Bhāmaha should be regarded as being earlier. But comparing Bharata and Bhāmaha we find that Bharata gives ten varieties of *yamaka* and Bhāmaha only five. *Yamaka* was highly praised even in much earlier times, as it occurs in Rudradamana's inscription in A.D. 150. In later times *yamaka* was not so much appreciated, and Udbhaṭa ignores it and Mammaṭa is exceedingly brief. Daṇḍin's treatment of *upamā* follows Bharata while Bhāmaha's scheme is that what has been followed by Udbhaṭa and Mammaṭa. But from this no conclusion is possible. The commentator Taruṇa Vācaspati, a late writer, says that in many The upshort of the discussion, which has briefly been summed up (see P. N.), is that Bhamaha lived after the 5th century

c10.s4.25

places Daṇḍin criticises Bhāmaha. Thus Namisādhu and Taruṇa Vācaspati hold different opinions regarding the priority or posteriority of Daṇḍin.

c10.s4.26

Again, the distinction between *kathā* and *ākhyāyikā* as given by Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin are different. This distinction between *kathā* and *ākhyāyikā* is also found in the *Mahābhāsya* and Daṇḍin's treatement of the distinction between *kathā* and *ākhyāyikā* need not be regarded as a criticism of Bhāmaha. Daṇḍin speaks of four defects of *upamā* while Bhāmaha speaks of seven, following Medhāvin. Some illustrations that have been regarded as good poetry by Daṇḍin have been regarded as being no poetry at all but merely as *vārtā* or information by Bhāmaha. But this can hardly be regarded as determining the priority of Bhāmaha. The examples are old ones and on them two different opinions have been given by the two writers. Such and other arguments based on the different treatment of some of the *alaṁkāras* or *doṣas* by the two writers cannot be regarded as leading to any difinite conclusion.

c10.s4.27

But Bhāmaha has a part of a passage of which the whole is found in Daṇḍin, and if Sārṅgadhara is to be believed, Daṇḍin is prior to Bhāmaha. In many passages Bhāmaha refers to the view of other writers without mentioning names and criticises them, e. g., the distinction between *Vaidarbhī* and *Gauḍī*, and this distinction is found in Bhāmaha. Daṇḍin mentions ten *guṇas*, following Bharata, but Bhāmaha says nothing about the *guṇas*. He ridicules the view of the division of *guṇas* and reduces them to three like the author of the Dhvanikāra. But such a comprehensive view of Bhāmaha cannot be reduced to an argument for his anteriority, for Vāmana, who was posterior to both Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha also counts the ten *guṇas*. Again, Bhāmaha reduces *upamā* to three types, the same is done in *Kāvyādarśa* (II. 30-32). Of these three, i.e., *nindopamā*, *Praśaṁsopamā*, and *ācikhysāu-upamā*, *Nāṭya-śāstra* gives the first two only. Daṇḍin not only gives the three *upamās* of Bhāmaha but many more types of *upamās*. There are also divergences of view on the subject of other *alaṁkāras*. But from this nothing can be argued.

c10.s4.28

But though the above arguments are inconclusive regarding the point at issue there are some other considerations which seem to throw further light. It is very probable that both Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin lived in more or less the same age, probably in the same century and probably they both derived their materials from older sources so that it is difficult to say anything as to which of them borrowed from whom. But in spite of the fact that Kane thinks that there is no evidence, that Bhāmaha was a Buddhist, it cannot be gainsaid that his definition of perception as *kalpanāpoḍha*, is borrowed directly from Dharmakīrtti. Bhāmaha in V. 6 says:—*pratyakṣaṁ kalpanāpoḍhaṁ tato'rthāditi kecana, kalpanāṁ nāma-jātyādi yojanām pratijānate*. Now, this is exactly the view of Dharmakirtti, who defines perception in his *Nyāyabindu* as *pratyakṣaṁ kalpanāpoḍham abhrāntam*. The definition of *anumāna* also agrees with that of *Nyāyabindu*. It may therefore be conveniently inferred that Bhāmaha was anterior to Dharmakīrtti. Dharmakīrtti in all probability lived in the 5th century A.D. and Bhāmaha, therefore, was anterior to that date.

c10.s4.29

About the date of Daṇḍin we are not so fortunate. Kane points out that the poetess Vijjakā may be identified with the Vijayā Bhaṭṭārikā, the queen of Candrāditya, the eldest son of Pulakeśin II, who lived about 660 A.D. ; and since Vijjakā quotes from *Kāvyādarśa*, Daṇḍin must be earlier than or at least contemporary of Vijjaka ; but the identification on which the ascertainment of the date rests is itself shaken.

c10.s4.30

A.D. and that he was in all probability a Buddhist. Daṇḍin lived in all probability more or less in the same century as Bhāmaha, but there is no direct means by which we can conclusively fix the date of Daṇḍin, but on the whole the weight of evidence, though not conclusive, seems to tend to the conclusion that is generally adopted that Bhāmaha was prior to Daṇḍin. Though Kane holds the opposite view, Daṇḍin's work *Kāvyādarśa* is very popular and has many commentators.¹

c10.s4.31

¹ These commentaries are :—(*a*) by Taruṇa Vācaspati (probably of the 11th century A.D.), (*b*) *Hṛdayaṅgama* by an anonymous author, (*c*) *Mārjjanā* by Harinātha, who wrote also a commentary on Bhoja's *Sarasvatīkaṇṭhabharaṇa*, who was not only later than Bhoja but also later than Keśavamiśra ; (*d*) *Muktāvalī* by Narasiṃha Sūri ; (*e*) *Candrikā* by Triśaraṇataṭabhīma ; (*f*) *Rasikarañjanī* by Viśvanātha ; (*g*) *Vivṛti* by Kṛṣṇakānta Tarkavāgīśa. There are also commentaries by Vādijaṅghāla, Bhagīratha, Vijayānanda, *Vaimalyavidhāyinī* by Tribhuvanacandra, Dharmavācaspati ; and two commentaries of unknown authors. Almost all these commentaries are in MSS. form except the commentary by Premcānd Tarkavāgīśa, published in Calcutta ; Taruṇa Vācaspati's commentary edited by Prof. Raṅgācāryya and *Hṛdayaṅgama* edited by the same professor. Among the modern scholars who have contributed to the study of Daṇḍin the following names may be mentioned :—Jacobi in *Z. D. M. G*, 1910, argues that Daṇḍin lived probably in the 7th century A. D. ; G. A. Jacob, *J. R. A. S.*, 1897 ; L. D. Barnett, *J. R. A. S.*, 1905 ; Bern Heimer, *Z. D. M. G.* 63, 1909 ; P. V. Kane, *Indian Antiquary*, 1912 ; Gray's *Vāsavadattā* (pp. 111) ; there exists also a Tibetan translation of Daṇḍin's *Kāvyādarśa* in the Tanjore collection as noticed by G. Huth in *Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften* 1895 and *Z. D. M. G.* 49, 283 ; see also Dr. De's *Sanskrit Poetics* and Dr. Dasgupta's *Kāvya-vicāra* (in Bengali) ; *Kāvyādarśa* was translated in German by O. Böhtlingk, Leipzig 1890.

First 59 of 202 passages. Read on

Linked texts (114)