A History of Indian Literature v3.c35.s2.29

v3.c35.s2.29

³ They have been stated by Jacobi, ZDMG 64, 1910, 130ff., 751 ff., Joh. Nobel, Beiträge zur altern Geschichte des Alaṁkāraśāstra, p. 78, f.; and passim (see also ZDMG 73, 1919, 190 ff.), K.P. Trivedi, Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣana, Introd. p. XXVIII ff and Ind. Ant. 42, 1913, 258 ff., and R. Narasimhachara, Ind. Ant. 41, 1912, 90 ff., 42, 1913, 205 and have not been weakened by K.B. Pathak, Ind. Ant. 41, 1912, 232 ff. T. Narasimhiengar and P.V. Kane, JRAS 1905, 535 ff. and 1908, 543 f. consider Bhāmaha younger than Daṇḍin. Gaṇapati Śāstrī (Bhāsa's Svapnavāsavadattam, Intro. p. XXV ff.) adduces very weak arguments in support of his view that Bhāmaha lived in the first century A.D. It is apparent that he flourished later than Kālidāsa, since I, 42 (as W. in spite of Nobel, ZDMG 73, 192., believes) presupposes an acquaintance with Meghadūta. See also Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, p. 70 ff. [Keith, Sans. Lit. p. 375 ff., considers Bhāmaha posterior to Daṇḍin, since Bhāmaha's defence of the distinction between kathā and ākhyāyikā seems especially directed against Daṇḍin's views on the subject. Bhāmaha certainly used the work of Uddyotakara (c. 650 A.D.), and probably knew Nyāsa (c. 700)]. On Bhāmaha see also V. V. Sovani, Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume 392 f., and K. P. Trivedi, 401 ff. ibid. Bhāmaha's time is fixed to a point (as Jacobi has shown in an unpublished essay, communicated to W. on June 3, 1922 in course of a private talk) from the fact that he has quoted from Nyāyabindu of Dharmakīrti at two places, almost literally. According to Jacobi Bhāmaha lived later than 640 A.D. and Daṇḍin still later—towards the end of the 7th century A.D. This accords well with the fact that Daṇḍin in his Kāvyādarśa, II, 197 gives a reminiscence from Bāṇa's Kādambarī (see Peterson, Daśakumāracarita Ed., II, Preface p. 3, note). G. J. Agashe, Ind. Ant. 44, 1915, 67 f. would like to prove that Daśakumāracarita's Daṇḍin is different from Kāvyādarśa's. But his argument is not convincing.