Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c12.15

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.