Indian Antiquary Vol 46

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

Page 187

175
AUGUST, 1917]
OUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OF ALAMKARA LITERATURE
from works similar to his own, as he himself acknowledges in the words samahṛity-ânyatantrani, &c. It cannot be supposed that for a few of his vargas he fell back on the Agnipurana and not on other Kosas. The Agnipurana, on the other hand, in its desire to include some account of every branch of Sanskrit literature would naturally draw upon the most famous Kôsa in its day, as it has drawn upon the Gitâ, the Siksha and other works. Therefore we may safely conclude that this portion of the Agnipurana is taken from the Amarakosa. Unfortunately scholars are not at one as to the date of Amarasimha. Max Müller arrived at the conclusion that Amara flourished about the beginning of the 6th century A.D. Prof. MacDonell (History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 433) thinks it not improbable that the Amarakosa was written about A.D. 500. Dr. Hoernle fixes the date between A.D. 625. and A. D. 940. (JRAS of Great Britain for 1906, p. 940) on the strength of the fact that Amara's meaning of the word Amsa is based upon the meaning of the word as given by Vâgbhața. Taking even the earliest date assigned to Amara, viz., 5th century A. D., we can at once assert that the Agnipurana must be later than the Amarakôša by some centuries. A period of two centuries would be absolutely necessary for Amara's work to come into general circulation and to be so highly esteemed as to be quoted by even orthodox writers. The Agnipurâna would not have gone out of its way to borrow from an unorthodox writer like Amara, if the latter's fame had not become world-wide in its day. Hence there is no objection in placing the Agnipurana later than the 7th century A.D.
(b) The Agnipurâna and the Natyasastra of Bharata have a number of verses in common with very slight variations that may have been due to the errors of scribes. We have said above that taking into consideration the nature of the two works, the greatest probability lies in the theory that the Agnipurâna copied from the Natyasdstra. Some of the striking common passages are:-Natya VI. 39 and Agni 338. 7-8; Natya VI, 36 and Agni 338. 12; Natya 20. 28-29 and Agni 337. 11-12; Natya 16.60-62 and Agni 342. 15-16.
(c) The definitions given by the Agnipurâna of Sahôkti, Rûpaka, Utpreksha, Viseshôkti, Vibhavana, Apahnuti and Samadhi (Agni 343, 23; 343. 24-25; 343. 26-27; 343. 27-28; 344. 18; 344. 13, respectively) are almost the same as those of Dandin (K. D. II. 351; II. 66; II. 221; II. 323; II. 199; II. 304; I. 93.) Besides these, there are a number of verses and phrases which occur both in the Agnipurana and the Kavyadarsa; e.g., Padyam chatushpadi tachcha vṛittam jâtir-iti tridha.-Agni, 336. 21 and K. D. I. 11 Sa vidya naus-titirshund Gambhiram kavya-sagaram.-Agni. 336. 23 and K. D. I. 12 Nagara nava-sailartuchandrarkâérama-pádapaiḥ Udyânasalilakriḍámadhupânaratôtsavaiḥ
Agni. 336. 29 and K. D. I. 16; Itihasa-kathôdbhutam-itarad-vá rasâśrayam.-Agni. 336, 25 and K. D. I. 15. Dan lin almost everywhere gives his own examples and definitions. He mentions the Brihatkatha and the Setukávya, but nowhere alludes to the Agnipurana. It is highly improbable that a writer like Dandin should go a-begging to the Agnipurâṇa for stray verses and half-verses; while it is quite in keeping with the character of the Agnipurana to borrow from Dandin. We shall discuss in detail the date of Danḍin later on. He seems to have flourished about the 6th century A, D. If we admit that the Agnipurana borrows from him, the former must be placed a century or two later than the 6th century A. D.
(d) The definitions of Rúpaka, Akshepa, Aprastutaprasansâ, Paryâykta and Samásôkti are almost the same in Bhamaha's work and the Agnipurâna (Bhâmaha II. 21 and Agni 343. 22; Bhâmaha II. 58 and Agni 344. 15; Bhâmaha III. 29 and Agni 344. 16; Bhamaha III. 8 and Agni 344. 18; Bhâmaha II. 69 and Agni 344. 17 respectively)