Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c12.20

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.