Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c12.26

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.