________________
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
It will be seen that the first ten dos has mentioned by Dandin are precisely the same as those given by Bhâmaha and that the eleventh dosha of Bhamaha is criticised by Dandin. This is almost conclusive evidence in favour of the priority of Bhâmaha to Danḍin.
4. The verse
264
[OCTOBER. 1913,
अद्य या मम गोविन्द जाता त्वयि गृहागते । कालेनैषा भवेत् प्रीतिस्तवैवागमनात् पुनः ||
is given as an instance of प्रेयोऽलंकार both by Bhámaha ( III. 5 ) and Dandin ( II. 276 ). It is very probable that Daṇḍin has borrowed this verse from Bhâmaha; for when the former does not acknowledge the source from which be borrows as in लिम्पतीव तमोऽङ्गानि &c, the latter acknowled ges the sources wherever he borrows verses from others as Rájamitra, Achyutottara, etc. Moreover, Bhâmaha says distinctly that the instances to illustrate figures of speech are his own composition (स्वयंकृतैरेव निदर्शनैरियं मया प्रकॢषा खलु वागलंकृतिः । II. 96). This is an additional evidence for the presumption of the priority of Bhâmaha to Dandin.
5
काव्यान्यपि बीमानि व्याख्यागम्यानि शास्त्रवत् । उत्सवः सुधियामेव हन्त दुर्मेधसो हताः ॥
भामह II. 20. व्याख्यागम्यमिदं काव्यमुत्सवः सुधियामलम् | हवा दुर्वेधसघास्मिन् या मया ॥
भट्टि XXII. 34.
Here it is evident that one has borrowed from the other. The verse is ascribed to Bhâmaha by Srivatsauksmiéra of the tenth century A.D. This places Bhâmaha before Bhatti of the 6th or the 7th century.
Prof. Pathak quotes from my text the verses यदुक्तं त्रिप्रकारत्वं तस्याः कैश्चिन्महात्मभिः etc. and states that Bhâmaha is attacking Danḍin in whose work the three divisions of Upamá mentioned by Bhâmaha are found. This inference or presumption does not seem to me to be at all warranted by facts; for Danḍin does not divide Upamá into three kinds only, but into a number of varieties (धर्मोपमा, वस्तूपमा, विपर्यासोपमा, अन्योन्योपमा नियमोपमा, अनियमोपमा, समुच्चयोपमा, अतिशयोपमा, उत्प्रेक्षितोपमा, अद्भुतोपमा, मोहोपमा, संघयोपमा, निर्णयोपमा, श्लेषोपमा, समानोपमा, निन्दोपमा, प्रशंसोपमा, आचिख्यासोपमा, विरोधोपना, प्रतिषेधोपमा, चटूपमा, तत्त्वाख्यानोपमा असाधारणोपमा, अभूतोपमा, असंभावितोपमा, बहूपमा, विक्रियोपमा, मालोपमा, वाक्यार्थोपमा, प्रतिवस्तूपमा, तुल्ययोगोपमा, and हेतूपमा) BO many as 32 in number ; nor does Dancin's विस्तर or long division of Upamd begin with मालोपमा so that Bhâmaha's_words 'मालोपमादिः सर्वोऽपि न ज्यायान् विस्तरो मुधा' may be taken as levelled against Dandin. If Bhámaha had Dandin in view, he would have said धर्मोपमादि: instead of मालोपमादिः
(e) Tarunavâchaspati, a commentator on the Kávyadarsa, distinctly mentions in three or four places the priority of Bhâmaha to Danḍin :
(a) भामहेन 'कन्याहरण संभामविप्रलम्भोदयान्विता ' इति आख्यायिका विशेषणतया उक्तम् । आक्यायिकाभेद एव अत्र निराकृतः । Com. on I. 29.
(b) हेतुं लक्षयिष्यन् भामहेनोक्तं- ' हेतुश्च सूक्ष्मलेशौ च नालंकारतया मताः' - इत्येतद् प्रतिक्षिपति —– हेतुश्चेति ।
Com. on II. 285.
(c) हेतोरलंकारत्वप्रत्याख्यायिनं भामहं प्रत्याह- प्रीत्युत्पादनेतेि । Com. on II. 237.
(d) दशैवेत्यवधारणं न युक्तम् | भामहोक्तानां प्रतिज्ञाहान्यादीनामपि विद्यमानत्वादिति चेदाह | प्रतिज्ञेति ।
Com. on IV. 4.
In (b) and (c) the commentator states distinctly that Dagdin criticises Bhámaha. He thus places Bhâmaha before Dandin.
I think I have made out a sufficiently strong case for the presumption, almost amounting to certainty for the priority of Bhâmaha to Dandin.
