Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c12: IV Dandin

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c12

Language
English

IV Dandin

v1.c12.1

The date of Daṇḍin is one of the most difficult problems in the chronology of Alaṃkāra literature. Anandavardhana does not directly cite him, as he cites Bhāmaha, and the earliest mention of Daṇḍin's name occurs in Pratīhārendurāja (p. 26). Daṇḍin's own work gives us hardly any clue. His references to the *Bṛhatkathā* written in *bhūtabhāṣā* (i 38), or to the *Setubandha* known to him in *māhārāṣṭrī* version (i 34) throw little light on the question; and no definite chronological conclusion is deducible from the verses ii 278-79, which express, under the form of the figure *preyas*, the supreme gratification of a certain king, Rājavarman (or Rātavarman), on the occasion of his obtaining the much-coveted beatific vision of his adored deity.¹ The solution proposed to the *prahelikā* in iii 114 (also cf iii 112) by Taruṇavācaspati and other commentators that it refers to the Pallava kings of Kāñcī¹ only supports the Tamil tradition that Daṇḍin was probably a South Indian author. The allusion to Daṇḍin i 1, again, in a verse attributed by Śārṅgadhara (no. 180) to Vijjā or Vijjakā (whose date is unknown but who is tentatively supposed by some to be Vijayā, wife of Candrāditya and daughter-in-law of Pulakeśin II, about 659 A. D.)², implies merely a pleasant raillery at the expense of Daṇḍin by some later boastful poetess.

v1.c12.2

¹ Rājavarman is conjectured by some (Raṅgācārya's preface p. 8; also Agashe's preface to *Daśakumāra* ed B. S. S. pp. lvii f ) to be Rājasimhavarman, otherwise known as Narasimhavarman II of Kāñcī (end of the 7th century), one of whose *birudas* (viz, *kālakāla* which is also a name of Śiva), Daṇḍin is supposed to have alluded to in iii 50; while iii 25 is presumed to imply a pun referring to the royal token (*mahā-varāha*) of Cālukya Pulakeśin II. But the passage under discussion looks like a reference to a legendary rather than a contemporary prince; and, as Pischel suggested, the entire verse 278 may have been taken directly from a work referring to his story. Cf Jacobi *op. cit.* p. 214.

v1.c12.3

¹ The phrase *aṣṭa-varṇa* occurring in the *prahelikā* is also found, as Mr. G. K. Śaṅkara points out in the Mamandur Inscription of Mahendravarman I. Premacandra on Daṇḍin interprets *puṇḍraka* instead of *pallava* in the verse, which fact indicates that it is capable of a different interpretation.

v1.c12.4

² See Agashe *op. cit.* pp. lix f.

v1.c12.5

The only definite terminus to Daṇḍin’s date is obtained from references in South Indian vernacular works on Alaṃkāra, belonging in all probability to the 9th century A.D., which cite him as an established authority. The Sinhalese treatise *Siya-bas-lakara*, which Barnett thinks cannot "in any case be later than the 9th century A.D."³, cites Daṇḍin in v 2 as one of its authorities. The Kanarese work *Kavirājamārga*, attributed to the Rāṣṭrakūṭa prince Amoghavarṣa Nṛptuṅga (who flourished about the first half of the 9th century), gives six verses⁴ which are exact translations of corresponding verses in Daṇḍin. Pāṭhak, in the introduction to his edition of this work (p. 19), further adds that in ch. iii most of the verses "are either translations or adaptations from the Kāvyādarśa", and that there are also convincing indications of Daṇḍin's "influence on other parts of the work" as well.

v1.c12.6

³ *JRAS*, 1905, p. 841. The work has been edited by Hendrick Jayatilaka, Colombo 1892.

v1.c12.7

⁴ viz., those defining *asādhāraṇôpamā*, *asambhavôpamā*, *anuśayâkṣepa*, *viśeṣôkti*, *hetu* and *atiśavôkti* respectively.

v1.c12.8

This will give us the 9th century as the lower limit to Daṇḍin's work, a conclusion which may also be established by showing that Daṇḍin was probably earlier than Vāmana, who may be assigned to the beginning of the same period. We need not enter into this point in detail here, but there are several unmistakable indications which show that Vāmana's work betrays a further progress in the elaboration of some of the fundamental ideas which are dealt with by Daṇḍin. The stress which Daṇḍin puts on the theory of *rīti* (which he calls *mārga*) is carried to its furthest extreme by Vāmana, who elevates *rīti* to the rank of the very essence of poetry. While Daṇḍin mentions two types of *mārga*, Vāmana adds an intermediate third *rīti*; and from Mammaṭa ix 4 we learn that Vāmana was the first to suggest this three-fold division.¹ Again, while Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin apparently engage in a controversy over the classification of *kāvya* into *kathā* and *ākhyāyikā*, Vāmana peremptorily brushes aside all discussion and refers the curious reader to the works of "others."¹ Daṇḍin is also anxious to show, in the course of a long digression, that the word *iva* is indicative of *utprekṣā* (which figure itself is admitted by Bhāmaha only in deference to the views of Medhāvin²); but to Vāmana (IV. 3. 9, *vṛtti*) it is already an established fact. Such instances can be easily multiplied, but what is given here will be enough to indicate Daṇḍin's priority to Vāmana³, and fix the lower limit of his

v1.c12.9

¹ It is noteworthy also that Daṇḍin is unaware of the more or less technical term *rīti*, made so familiar by Vāmana, but uses the almost synonymous expression *mārga*, also used by Vāmana in III. i. 12.

v1.c12.10

³ It is supposed by Kielhorn (with whom Peterson in his pref. to *Daśakumāra* agrees) that Daṇḍin ii 51, in which some of the *upamā-doṣas* are justified, is directed against Vāmana IV. 2. 8f, implying thereby that Daṇḍin is later than Vāmana. But if we take the texts of Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana together on this point, we can only make out the following facts. Bhāmaha, in accordance with the opinion of Medhāvin, brings forward (ii 39-40) seven *upamā-doṣas*, viz., deficiency (*hīnatva*), impossibility (*asambhava*) disparity of gender (*liṅga-bheda*), disparity of number (*vacana-bheda*), contrariety (*viparyaya*), excess (*adhikatva*) and non-similitude (*asādṛśya*). Daṇḍin, tacitly assuming these, only remarks about two pairs of them (viz., disparity of gender and number, excess and deficiency) that they do not necessarily disturb comparison if they do not wound the cultivated sensibility. In this he is substantially following Bhāmaha who says generally that the *upameya* cannot in every respect be similar to the *upamāna* (ii 43), a dictum which is implicitly accepted by most later writers, who define *upamā* as *bhedābheda-pradhāne upamā*. Therefore, deficiency etc. become faults

v1.c12.11

I *yac ca kathākhyāyikā mahākāvyam iti tallakṣaṇam ca nātīva hṛdayaṅgamam ityupekṣitam asmābhiḥ, tad anyto grāhyam*, on I. 3. 32.

v1.c12.12

2 ii 88.

v1.c12.13

date at the end of the 8th and the commencement of the 9th century¹

v1.c12.14

only when they disturb the sense of appreciation of the man of taste. Vāmana, on the other hand, mentions six *upamā-doṣas* instead of seven, including *viparyaya* in *adhikatva* and *hīnatva* (IV. 2. 11 *vṛtti*), with the final pointed remark: *ata evāsmākam mate ṣaḍ doṣāḥ*. It appears, therefore, that Daṇḍin ii 51f is a link in the chain between Bhāmaha ii 39f and Vāmaha IV. 2. 8f.

v1.c12.15

I Pischel's argument (pref. to *Śṛṅg. til.*) that Daṇḍin is identical with the author of *Mṛcchakaṭika* on the ground that Daṇḍin ii 362 (ed. Bibl. Indica) occurs also in that drama (ed. N.S.P. 1916 i 34) lands us, apart from other objections, in the absurdity of identifying Daṇḍin with Bhāsa as well, inasmuch as the same verse is also found in the *Cārudatta* (i 19) and the *Bālacarita* (i 15). The attribution, again, of the same verse in *Śārṅgadhara* 3603 and Vallabhadeva 1890 to Bhartṛmeṇṭha and Vikramāditya further discredits Pischel's theory. The occurrence of the verse in Daṇḍin ii 226 with an introductory *iti* (cf Premacandra's remarks on this point) only shows that Daṇḍin did not disdain to borrow well-known verses for purposes of illustration and criticism, as he himself admits in a general way in i 2. It should also be noted that in the Bibl. Indica ed. of the text, the verse is given twice (1) as a half-verse quotation in ii 226 and (2) in full in ii 362. But this reading, on which apparently Pischel's theory was based, is doubtful, and is contrary to readings in other MSS. In the Tibetan version of the text (*JRAS*, 1903), as well as in the Madras edition, the verse occurs only once as a half-verse quotation in ii 226, the full verse being omitted in the text and given in the latter only in the accompanying commentary. This reading is also apparently followed in B.S.S. ed. of the text which is in course of publication. Pischel is hardly accurate in stating that Prathārendu attributes this verse to The upper limit is not so easy to settle. Peterson, following Maheśacandra Nyāyaratna, points out¹ that Daṇḍin ii 197 is a reminiscence of a passage in Bāṇa's *Kādambarī* p. 102, l. 16 (ed. B. S. S.), and Jacobi is inclined to accept this view. Bāṇa lived about 606-647 A.D. in the reign of king Harṣa, whose biographer he was. Jacobi also points out a resemblance between Daṇḍin ii 302 and Māgha ii 4. Pāṭhak, again, remarks² that Daṇḍin's three-fold classification of *karman* into *nirvartya*, *vikārya* and *prāpya* (ii 240) is taken from Bhartṛhari's *Vākyapadīya* iii 45f. Bhartṛhari, according to I-tsing, died about 651 A.D. while Māgha probably belongs to the second half to the 7th century³. Thus Bāṇa, Bhartṛhari and Māgha probably all belong the same age and flourished in the first half or the middle of the 7th century.

v1.c12.16

¹ Pref. to *Daśakumāra*, new ed. 1919, p. ix. Other such reminiscences are presumed in Daṇḍin i 45 (= *Śakuntalā* i 20, ed. M. Williams; Cf. *JRAS*, 1905, p. 841f), ii 286 (= *Raghu* viii 57), ii 129 (= *Śakuntalā* i 26) etc. Taruṇavācaspati is of opinion (on i 2) that Daṇḍin consulted the usage of poets like Kālidāsa. See other parallel passages collected together by Agashe (preface to *Daśakumāra*, pp. liv f).

v1.c12.17

² *IA* xli p. 237.

v1.c12.18

³ See Kielhorn in *GN*, 1906, heft ii. Cf Māgha ii 83 where he shows himself fully conversant with Poetics.

v1.c12.19

Daṇḍin : for the commentator, in the course of his discussion on *utprekṣā*, simply says that Daṇḍin has already discussed at great length that the verse *limptiva* is an illustration of *utprekṣā* containing *atiśaya*, p. 26.

v1.c12.20

These evidences, although suggestive, do not in their nature appear to be decisive; and we are ultimately thrown upon the question of Daṇḍin’s relation to Bhāmaha, which might support these evidences and with reference to which, indeed, the chronology of Daṇḍin should be settled. If Bhāmaha’s priority to Daṇḍin can be definitely established, then we arrive with this at a more or less satisfactory limit to the date of the latter. The question is, no doubt, beset with many difficulties; but so far as a comparative study of their respective texts indicates, the presumption is strong in favour of Bhāmaha’s priority; because, while Daṇḍin criticises Bhāmaha’s innovations, Bhāmaha apparently never does so in case of Daṇḍin’s innovations which are indeed much more numerous. The materials for such a critical study (apart from a consideration of their general theories) consist of several passages, occurring in their respective texts, which are either (1) identical or very similar in phraseology, or (2) so closely related to each other that the one author appears to be criticising the other. As the question has already engaged a great deal of controversy¹, which has thrashed out almost all the details, we will here discuss it very briefly.

v1.c12.21

¹ IA, 1912, p. 90; ibid, p. 232; JRAS, 1905, pp. 535 f., ibid, p. 545; JRASBom xxiii p. 19; Trivedi, introd. to Pratāpa-rudra°, p. 32; Raṅgācārya’s pref. to Kāvyādarśa; Anantācārya in Brahmavādin 1911 (also published as a pamphlet); Jacobi in the article cited, etc.

v1.c12.22

As instances of the first group of passages, we may cite Bh ii 81 and D ii 214, Bh iii 52 and D iii 363, Bh iii 5 and D ii 276, Bh iii 8 and D ii 295, Bh iv 8 and D iv 5. The verbal coincidence, indicated by these passages, is so striking that there can be no doubt that it should be taken as something more than merely accidental. It does not, however, preclude the possibility of their being taken from a common source, or being standardised definitions common enough in such technical treatises.

v1.c12.23

The second group of passages, also betraying enough verbal similarity, is more interesting and important; because they certainly express contradictory views of their respective authors, if not actually meant as direct mutual criticism. In two of these passages, Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin are, each in his turn, rejecting an illustration which is adduced by the other, but both citing the illustration in question in exactly identical phraseology. Thus Bhāmaha rejects (ii 87) the figure *hetu*, citing the illustration *gatō'stam arkō bhātīndur yānti vāsāya pakṣiṇaḥ*, characterising it as bad poetry, to which, he says, some writers give the name of *vārttā*. Daṇḍin does not mention *vārttā*, but approvingly cites (ii 244) the same half-verse under the figure *hetu*, pointedly remarking that the illustration under discussion is good. Similarly, the half-verse *himāpahāmitra-dharair* is given as an instance of the fault *avācaka* by Bhāmaha (i 41), but Daṇḍin gives the verse in full in a different context (iii 120) as an example of a variety of *prahelikā*; Bhāmaha apparently condemning it as faulty, while Daṇḍin taking it as a piece of ingenious construction. Taking the examples in their contexts as quoted from a common source, the passages apparently indicate that Daṇḍin is not in agreement with Bhāmaha (who condemns these) but expressly justifies their propriety.

v1.c12.24

A closer contact of views and similarity of expression are to be found in those passages in this group, which relate to (1) the discussion of the comparative merits of the *gauḍīya* and *vaidarbha* *mārgas* (Bh i 31-35 and D i 40 f) (2) the distinction between prose *kathā* and *ākhyāyikā* (Bh i 25f and D i 23f) and (3) the enumeration of the ten *doṣas* (Bh iv 1-2 and D iv 2-4); and those who maintain Daṇḍin's priority to Bhāmaha hold that in these cases the latter is undoubtedly criticising the former. In the first of these instances, Bhāmaha's remarks merely show that he is more or less indifferent to the literary value of *mārga* or *rīti* as modes of composition, and laughs at the distinction which some writers make between *gauḍa* and *vidarbha* types, himself giving preference, if any, to the former. In his opinion, as he says in the next verse (i 36), what is important in poetry is not *rīti* but *vakrókti*. It appears that the view which Bhāmaha is criticising was traditional or referred to as a matter of common controversy, as he himself says in this connexion : *gatánugatika-nyāyān nānā-khyeyam amedhasām*. Jacobi points out that the *gauḍa* *mārga*, long before Daṇḍin, could never establish for itself a good reputation, and Bāṇa had already condemned it as *akṣara-ḍambara* (*Harṣa-carita* 1. 5. 7). Daṇḍin, on the other hand, attaches great importance to *rīti* in poetry, which under the name *mārga*, occupies a considerable part of his treatment; but he acknowledges, in spite of his own distinguishing of two such extreme types as *gauḍa* and *vaidarbha*, that there are various other intermediate modes finely differentiated (i 40), and that the types admitted by him are not capable of exact definition (i 101f), although he himself prefers the *vaidarbha*. It may also be added that Bhāmaha is unaware of the peculiar analysis of *mārga* given by Daṇḍin with reference to the ten essential *guṇas*, but he mentions casually (and not in connexion with *rīti*) only three *guṇas* which may be admitted in all good composition. The respective characterisation, again, of the two *rītis* has hardly any point of contact, and Bhāmaha's remarks, if supposed to be levelled against Daṇḍin in particular, are certainly off the mark; for each of them approaches the subject from the standpoints of entirely different schools of opinion¹.

v1.c12.25

¹ This point will be discussed in detail below in Part II.

v1.c12.26

Similar remarks apply to the other two cases, in which one hardly finds any direct reference by Bhāmaha to Daṇḍin. Daṇḍin does not accept as characteristic or essential those marks of distinction between a *kathā* and *ākhyāyikā* which Bhāmaha enumerates, and apparently quotes in this connexion the half-verse i 29a from Bhāmaha i 27b. The distinction, denied by Daṇḍin, is admitted, along with Bhāmaha, by earlier as well as later writers; for Bāṇa designates his *Harṣa-carita* as a *kathā* and his *Kādambarī* as an *ākhyāyikā*², and some such distinction is also implied by the *Amarakoṣa*. With regard to the other passages which enumerate the doṣas, it appears that Bhāmaha, following the traditional recounting of ten orthodox guṇas (cf Bharata xvi 84¹), mentions the same number, but adds that pratijñā-hetu-dṛṣṭānta-hīnatva is not desirable in poetry (iv 2). At the same time this eleventh defect is interesting to him from the standpoint of logical exposition, and he deals with it in v 1f, apparently considering that defective logic is also to be looked upon generally as a notable flaw in composition. Daṇḍin enumerates the same ten guṇas in exactly similar phraseology, and conservatively maintains the view that the so-called eleventh fault is difficult to judge and unprofitable to discuss².

v1.c12.27

² See Taruṇavācaspati's remarks on Daṇḍin i 25.

v1.c12.28

¹ The definitions, however, do not agree. See Jacobi op. cit. pp. 222 f.

v1.c12.29

² Emphasis is also put on some verbal resemblance between Bh i 22 and D i 21-22. In these passages, however, the standpoints of the two theorists are quite distinct, although they use similar phrases. Bhāmaha here expresses his disapproval of a disastrous ending, perhaps in conformity with a similar conventional prohibition in the drama. Daṇḍin, on the other hand, takes the ultimate triumph of the hero for granted, and does not trouble himself about the admittedly forbidden tragic ending. He only means to express the view that it will be artistically more effective if the rival of the hero is set forth at the outset in all his glory and then his downfall is secured through the superior virtue of the hero himself. One does not also find any point in Bhāmaha ii 37-38, which criticises the classification of the figure upamā into many sub-varieties (like nindo°, praśamso° and ācikhyāso°) but which is taken by some to imply an attack on Daṇḍin's elaborate sub-division of the same figure. The tri-prakāratvam cannot possibly refer

v1.c12.30

From the above discussion, the conclusion is very probable that Daṇḍin was familiar with the text of Bhāmaha whom, as a notable predecessor expresssing contrary views, he could hardly ignore. On this point we have the almost unanimous testimony of Daṇḍin's commentators¹, who expressly state that in most of these disputed passages Daṇḍin controverts the earlier opinions of Bhāmaha. It will not be necessary, therefore, to enter into the details of their respective theories, which not only indicate some fundamental and important differences, as one should expect in writers belonging to two different schools of opinion, but also the fact that Daṇḍin, in dealing with most of the topics, has gone into greater details and finer distinctions, apparently betokening that in his age the study was more advanced and fraught with greater complexity than in that of Bhāmaha².

v1.c12.31

¹ e. g. Taruṇavācaspati on i 23-24, 29; ii 235, 237, 358; iv 4 etc; Harinātha on i 15 (cited in *ABod* 206b); Vādijaṅghāla on i 21.

v1.c12.32

² see, for instance, their respective views on *rīti*, *guṇa* and *doṣa*, on *alaṃkāra* (which last element Daṇḍin does not distinguish fundamentally from *guṇas*, ii 3), on *vakrôkti* (Bh ii 85 and D ii 362), their respective order of treatment of *alaṃkāras* (which Bhāmaha deals with in successive groups, while Daṇḍin's thirty-five independent poetic figures are given as if they are well recognised), Daṇḍin's minute and fine differentiation of infinite sub-species of individual figures, their respective treatment of *yamaka*, *upamā*, *utprekṣā*,

v1.c12.33

to Daṇḍin, who mentions not three but thirty-two sub-varieties; while *nindo°*, *praśamso°* etc. are also mentioned by Bharata.

v1.c12.34

If this conclusion of Bhāmaha’s probable priority is accepted, then we get his date as the upper limit to that of Daṇḍin, the lower limit being, as already discussed, the same as that of Bhāmaha, namely the date of Udbhaṭa’s contemporary, Vāmana. Daṇḍin, therefore, flourished probably in the beginning or in the first half of the 8th century.

v1.c12.35

There cannot be any doubt that Daṇḍin, like Bhāmaha, must have been indebted to his predecessors; and if he does not mention any one of them by name, he gives enough evidence of his having utilised their works, including that of Bhāmaha. Daṇḍin, however, makes a general acknowledgement in i 2, and refers to the opinions of “others” and of “learned men” (e. g. i 9, 10, ii 54); while he makes no secret of his having “observed” and probably borrowed his illustrations from earlier poets, to whom reference is made in i 30,100; ii 65, 223, 225, 363, iv 7, 32, 42, 57¹. The *Hṛdayaṅgama* commentary on i 2 mentions in particular two authors, named Kāśyapa and Vararuci, whose works Daṇḍin is supposed to have utilised. These may be mythical or traditional names; but Kāśyapa is also mentioned by another admirer of Daṇḍin’s

v1.c12.36

¹ See this point discussed in Agashe *op. cit*, pp. liii f.

v1.c12.37

*ananvaya* and *sasaṃdeha*, *upamā-rūpaka* and *utprekṣāvayava* (which last four Daṇḍin does not accept as independent figures) etc. These points will be discussed in detail in the next volume.

v1.c12.38

who composed the Sinhalese rhetorical work already referred to. One Kāśyapa is cited by Pāṇini in VIII.⁴.67, and a grammarian Kāśyapa, as Aufrecht notes, is quoted by Mādhava.

v1.c12.39

Pischel¹ has already negatived the suggestions of Premacandra Tarkavāgīśa², Peterson³ and Jacobi⁴ that Daṇḍin in i 12 refers by the word *chando-viciti* to a treatise of his own, so named, on the subject of prosody. The word, however as indicated by Daṇḍin himself in the same verse, by his reference to it as *sā vidyā*, does not necessarily mean any particular treatise but the science of prosody in general; for which, in addition to the references given by Pischel, one need only cite Rājaśekhara p. 6 and Hemacandra, Comm. p. 5. In iv 49, again, Daṇḍin refers to a *kalā-pariccheda*, which Peterson takes to be a clear reference to another work of Daṇḍin's; but it is more likely that this was an additional or supplementary chapter to his *Kāvyādarśa*, as Taruṇavācaspati suggests (p. 282). It is noteworthy that the *Kāmadhenu* commentary on Vāmana similarly quotes from a lost work or chapter of Bhāmaha's on the *kalās*⁵

v1.c12.40

¹ Pref. to *Śṛṅg. til.* p. 14 f.

v1.c12.41

² On Daṇḍin i 12.

v1.c12.42

³ Introd to *Daśakumāra* p. ix-x

v1.c12.43

⁴ *Ind. Stud.* xvii p. 44.

v1.c12.44

⁵ See above p. 57 footnote.

Linked texts (20)