Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c12.29

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