Indian Antiquary Vol 40

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 191

JUNE, 1911.)
THE CHHANDOVICHITI
177
THE CHHANDOVICHITI,
BY P. V. KANE, M.A., LL.B ; BOMBAY. RAJASEKHARA credits Dandin with the authorship of three works (trayó Dandi-grabandhis-cha trishu lokeshu vierutdh). The Kávydlarsa and the Dasakumaracharita are popularly regarded as the works of Dandin. I have grave doubts as to whether the author of the latter was the same as that of the former. There is no unanimity as to the third work also being of Dandin. Prof. Pischel in his introduction to Rudrata's Sringdratiluka arrives at the rather startling conclusion that the Mrichchhaltika is the third work of Danļin. Dr. Peterson, in liis introduction to the Dasakumdracharita (p. 5), says that Daylin wrote & work called Chhandocichiti. Dr. Peterson's reasons are as follows :-Dandin divided Karya into three varieties, gadya, padya and miéra. Afterwards Dandin says that an exhaustive treatment of palya is given in chhandovickiti (chhandopichity di salialas--tatpraparicho nidarsitahisti ridyá naus-titirshandi gambhirani kdoya-8ágaram 1). Dandin omitted the treatment of padya, because he had treated of it elsewhere. So Dr. Peterson says: “It seems clear that Daglin is referring to a book here as also that he can only be referring to a book of his own composition," and further, “I think it probable that Dandin wrote a chhandocichili as Vamana had done before him," Pisebel doubts whether Dancin is at all referring to A work called Chhondorichiti, and if le does refer to a work, then he is of opinion that, the 15th chapter of the Natyaidstru of Bharata, which in South Indian MSS. is styled chhandocichiti,' is the work referred to by Dandin. I shall try to show in the following that the chhando richiti referred to by Dandin is not his own work; that the word chhandovichiti means simply chhandas-adstra (lit., collection of metres) and is generally taken as referring to the vedanga on metrics ascribed to Pingala. By the way, it deserves to be noticed that Dandin seems to have contemplated the writing of a work on the kalás (Arts) "itthari kald-chatuhshashti-virodhah sudhu niyatami tasydh Kald-parichchhede rúpam-dvirbhavishyati." 11
I think that the words of Dandin are quite explicit as to whether he is referring to a work called chhandovichits. About it ho says that it will serve as a forry to pass across the ocean of Роеву.
Dandin simply says that an exaustive treatment of padya has been given in chhandovichiti. He does not add by mo'mayd). If we were to supply this ellipsis, then we shall have to ascribe, by a parity of reasoning, to Dapd in the anthorship of a work on the dramatic art. He says " Nataka and others constitute the third division of Karya called misra' and an exhaustive treatment of them (has been given) elsewhere" (migrani ndțakddini tesham-anyatra tistarah1.). No one has so iar asserted that Dandin wrote on the dramatic art also. I, therefore, think that just as Dandin here refers to a well-known work on dramaturgy (in my opinion the Natyaólstra of Bharata), so in the passage about chhandlovichiti, he alludes to some work on metres, well-known to his contemporaries.
The assertion of Dr. Peterson that Daydin wrote a chhandovichiti as Vamana had done before is based on a misunderstanding. Apart from the question whether Vimana preceded Dandin (I think he did not), .I question the composition of a chhandovichiti by Vamana. His sitra is
Sabda-Smrity-Abhidhánakcas-chhandovichiti-kald-kamasástra-landu niti-púrt ridyúh." Vâmana himself paraphrases.chhan.lovichili' by chhandassastra.' Besides, it is beyond the bounds of possibility that Vâmana would place a work of his own on the same level with the vyakarana of Pagini, the works of arts composed by Visi khila and others and ask all future generations of poets to study his own work. As all the other vidyds referred to are dealt with by writers other than Vamana, it naturally follows that the chhanduvichiti also paraphrased in the most general terms is the work of some one else. Moreover, it should be noted that in the commentaries on the Vrittaraindhara and other works on metres, not a single reference is to be found to Dandin and V&mana as writers on metrios, although a host of other writers are so referred to.
As to the Natyaólstra of Bharata, it is sufficient to say that the very fact that all MSS. do not call the 15th chapter chhandovichiti raises strong doubts about its being the chhandovichiti 1 Kavyddarba I, 12. 1 Kavy Adarba, III, 171.
.K. D. I, 31.
• 1, 8, 8.