________________
सटीको वृत्तजातिसमुञ्चयः
[INTRODUCTION
name Dvipadi-Khanda we find that the name Dvipadi was given to the group as a whole even when there is nothing corresponding to Dvipadi among the constituents, which are, as we saw above, two Khandas and a Gīti. It is therefore quite possible that the name may have been given to the strophic metre first and then transferred to its constituent Vastukas, as was done in the case of the Abhanga in Marāthī. See also the explanation of the name adhikäksara in the commentary on IV. 42. The same may be said of Sangataka. See note on IV. 64-65; 77-78. The illustration of two lines only (instead of four) given for the Catușpadī called Dvipadi mentioned above by Prākṣta-Paingala, I. 155 cannot be used as an evidence to show that this metre was originally a Dvipadi as is suggested by a commentator; for there is nothing to show why it was later transferred to a metre of four lines and then to a group of several stanzas. On the other hand, the remark of the commentator can be easily understood as an attempt to account for the name Dvipadi, which, however, is clearly against tradition. It is therefore quite likely that the name was first given to a pair of two stanzas, say a Vastuka and a Gītikā, where each stanza was regarded as Pāda by which the metre seems to advance. Such couplets and triplets are called Dvibhangis and Tribhangīs by later prosodists.11 Older writers might have called them Dvipadīs and Tripadīs. This assumption may also explain why only a few Catuspadīs are called Dvipadis by Virahānka; for the name was given only to those Catuspadis which were regarded by convention as fit for the constitution of the Strophic Dvipadi. This also gives us a reason why of all the Catuspadis defined by Virahanka in his work only these were separately and prominently treated. Among Virahānka's successors, only Hemacandra12 mentions these Catușpadis by their names, but considers them as unfit for special treatment since, according to him, they somehow and somewhere become included among the Catuspadis defined by him elsewhere. The obvious deduction from this is that the 45 Dvipadīs which are mentioned by both Virahānka and Hemacandra had become quite obsolete at the time of the latter, while they were yet enjoying their full popularity when Virahānka wrote his treatise. Hemacandra mentioned them only because he was a theorist and a systematizer anxious for a proper classification and completeness of treatment in his subject. But Virahānka was evidently a practical writer, desirous of putting down what was in vogue in his own times, without much regard for either the fulness of details or a systematic presentation of his material. This is clear from his hotch-potch treatment
11. Chandonuśāsana of Hemacandra IV. 78-81; Kavidarpana II. 35-37. 12. Chandonusāsana of Hemacandra IV. 56, Commentary.
