105. 102 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

102 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

कुमारिल's तत्रवार्तिक p. 354 (Anan. ed.) on जैमिनि I. 4. 20 the verse 'अमिवेयाविनाभूतप्रतीतिलव्षणोच्यते (अभि 344. 11). The learned writer has not adverted to all these points. The following passages are common to both qouft and भामह word for word: (a) 'स्गबन्धो महाकाव्यम्' काव्या. I. 14, भा. I. 19; (b) 'मन्त्रदूतप्रयाणाजिनायकाभ्युदयरपि' काव्या. I. 17, भा. I. 20 (मन्त्रदूत ... दयैक्ष यत्); (c) 'कन्याहरणसंग्रामविप्रलम्भोदयादयः' काव्या. I. 29, भा. I. 27 (०दयान्विता); (d) 'अरघ या मम गोविन्द जाता त्वयि गृहागते। कालेनैषा भवेत्प्री- तिस्तवैवागमनाटपुनः ॥' काव्या. II. 276, भा. III. 5 (both give it as an example of प्रेय:); (e) 'तद्भाविकमिति प्राङ्ठुः प्रबन्धविषयं गुखम्' काव्या. II. 364, भा. III. 53 (भाविकत्वमिति etc.) ; (f) 'अपार्थ व्यथमेकार्थ ... विरोषि च।' काव्या. III. 125-126, भा. IV. 1-2; (g) 'समुदायार्थशून्यं यरतदपार्थकमिष्यते' काव्या. III. 128 (v. 1. थमितीष्यते), भा. IV. 8 •रथंकमिष्यते; (h) 'गतोस्तमर्को भातीन्दुर्यान्ति वासाय पत्ियः ।' काव्या. II. 244, भा. II. 87; (i) आावेपोऽर्यान्तरन्यासो व्यतिरेको विभावना' काव्या. II. 4, भा. II. 66; (j) 'प्रेयो रसवदूजस्वि पर्यायोकतं समाहितम्' काव्या. I1. 5, भा. III. 1. 10 The relative position of Bhamaha and Dandin. There prevails a sharp conflict of views on this point and on the allied question of भामह and the न्यास and keen controversies have been going on for several years and it cannot be said that the question is definitely settled now one way or the other to the satisfaction of all scholars. Mr. Trivedi (Intro. to yaro XXIII ff and I. A. vol. 42, 1913 pp. 258-274 and Bhandarkar Com. vol. p. 40), Dr. Jacobi (Z. D. M. G. 64 p. 134 and 139), Prof. Rangacharya (Intro. to edition of काव्यादर्श), Mr. Ganapati Sastri (Intro.to स्वप्न० XXV), Prof. Pathak (Intro.to कविराजमार्ग p. 16) place भामह before दएडी. Prof. M. T. Narasimhiengar (JRAS 1905 p. 535 ff) places दएडी before wHT and Prof. Pathak also seems to have changed his carlier view (JBBRAS vol. 23 p. 19 and I. A. for 1912 p. 236 ff). Prof. Keith in H. S. L. pp. 375-376 and in 'Indian studies in honour of Lanman, pp. 167-185, where he criticizes Jacobi's views and also holds that Bhamaha ridicules Bhatti (in the verse "Kāvyānyapi yadīmāni II 20") places Daņdin before Bhamaha. I shall try to summarise the views of both sides and make remarks thereon as I proceed and make my own humble contribution to this subject. Before proceeding further three points must be made clear and emphasized. One is that both भामह and दएडी have several passages in common as speoified above. The second