Indian Antiquary Vol 46

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

Page 188

176
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
i AUGUST, 1917
Bhimaha expressly says at the end of the 2nd Parichchheda that he gives his own examples only. Hence we must suppose that the Agnipurâna borrows from Bhâmaha. Bhamaha belongs to the 7th century A. D. The Agnipurdņa must therefore be later than A. D. 700.
(e) The most remarkable fact however is that there are a number of verses in Bhoja's Sarasvatikanthabharam which are also found in the Agnipurana. We shall quote only a few out of many such verses. Dhvanir-varndh pada vakyam-ity-etad viimayain matam (Agni. 336. 1 and S. K. Ist verse); ye vyutpattyadina sabdam-alawikartu m-iha keshamah (Agni. 341. 18 and 8. K. II. 2); Uktipratyuktimad vakyain vdková kyai dvidhaiva tat (Agni. 342. 32 and 8. K. p. 293). Karnikâyári likhed-ekann dve dve dikshu vidikshu chal pravesanirgamau dikshu kuryâd-ashịa-chchhadesmbuje.-(Agni. 342. 46 and 8. K. p. 259). Besides these we may compare Agni. 341. 21 and 26 with 8. K. pp. 154 and 167 (s. K. Anyáktinam-anukritis-chhdyd sapiha shadvidhå &o., and S. K. —Sabhiprayasya vdkye yad vachasô vinivesanam mudrai tâm mut-pradayi-tvát kavyamudravida viduh respectively), and Agni, 342. 10-11 with S. K. p. 224 (Karnati Kauntali Kaufki Kausikans Bânavâsikd). It is possible that both Bhôja and the Agnipurâna may have drawn upon a common source. Bhôja quotes & very large number of verses without acknowledgments from Dandin and other writers. So we cannot dogmatically say that the Agnipurana borrowed from him. Still we think that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to say that the Agnipura na copies Bhoja's work.
Thus the internal evidence is against the theory that Bharata based his work on the Agnipurâna The external evidence points in the same direction. It is as follows:
The Agnipurâna is not referred to by any ancient rhetorician. Leaving aside Dandin and Bhâmaha, Anandavardhana and his voluminous commentator Abhinavagupta do not refer to it. Mammata quotes the Vishnupurâna, but nowhere the Agnipurâna. The first writer of note that distinctly mentions the Agnipurdņa is Visvanatha, author of the Sahityadarpana (14th century A. D.). As regards the Natyaśāstra of Bharata, the case is quite different. Every author of note from Anandavardhana, Pratihậrendurâja, Abhinavagupta down to Jagannatha quotes the dicta of Bharata with respect and even Dandin and Bhâmaha seem to refer to him as we shall see later on. The conclusion that naturally follows is that the ancient writers on Alankara had no knowledge of the existence of the Agnipurana or at least that part of it which deals with the Alankára-Sastra. The great authority to which they all looked up with reverence was the Natyasástra. Honce the claims put forward by later commentators on behalf of the Agnipura na to be regarded as the original work on the Alaikara-Sastra are not at all justified.
Here a question may naturally be asked :-how was it that the Agnipuraņa came to be looked upon as the most ancient work on the Alasikara-Sastra? The following appears to us to be the proper reply. There is no doubt that the origin and development of the Alankdra-Gästra was due to such writers as Bharata, Bhâmaha and Dandin. In the revival of Brahmanism that followed the decline of Buddhism, most of the extant Puranas took their present shape and in course of time rose in popular esteem. As they were associated with the name of Vyåsa, a halo of antiquity and sanctity was cast round them. The later commentators of works on Alashkara, whose reverence for the Puranas for surpassed their respect for such writers & Dandin and Bhâmaha naturally thought that the Puraņas were very ancient and that they could not possibly have borrowed
* Swayah kritair.eus nidarsangir.iyah mayd prakpipla khalu udgalamkritih