Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c12.8

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