106. BHAMAHA AND DANDIN 103

BHAMAHA AND DANDIN 103

point is that both expressly say that they had before them the works of older teachers on Poetics and arag actually names one of them viz. मेधाविन्. This should warn us against jumping to the conclusion that one necessarily borrows from the other when they have identical verses or one appears to criticise the other when their views conflict. This fact and our ignorance of what went before भामइ and दएडी should make all of us reluctant to dogmatise and should dispose us to regard as pro- bable the hypothesis that both are quoting from or criticizing older works now lost. The third point is that both are com- paratively very early writers and vary near to each other in point of time. As 34z who flourished about 800 A. D. wrote a commentary on arHT's work, the latter cannot be placed later than about 750 A. D. The same lower limit is arrived at by the fact of the citation of three verses of भामह by शान्तरच्षित (vide above p. 84). aust also cannot certainly be placed later than that date for the following reasons. The लोचन (composed about 1000 A. D.) names दएडी and quotes his definition of चम्पू (p. 141) as it quotes भामह and उद्गट. So does प्रतीहारेन्दुराज (about 950 A.D.) quote (p. 26) the discussion of the verse लिम्पतीव in the काव्यादर्श II. 226-233. From the relation of the कविराजमार्ग and of the Simhalese work Siya-bas-lakara to the Kāvyādarśa it has been shown above (pp. 99-100) that Dandin also cannot at all events be later than 750 A. D. I shall now set out the grounds some or all of which are relied upon by those who place anE prior to Dandin. (a) Mr. Trivedi and Prof. Rangacharya say that aHa is referred to as चिरन्तन by the अलक्कारसर्वस्व (p. 3 quoted on p. 7 para f. above). His work is styled आकर by राघवभट्ट (शाकुन्तल p. 14) and he is styled 'ancient' in the प्रतापरुद्र० ('पूर्वेभ्यो भामहादिभ्यः', 'प्राचा भामहेन' pp. 4 and 11). The only place where according to Mr. Trivedi दएडी is mentioned before भामह is by नमिसाधु on सुट्रट (I. 2) quoted above under मेधाविन p. 63. I fail to see how this proves or even suggests the priority of भामह to दण्डी. भामह is an ancient writer and so there is nothing special in calling him ya. Do these scholars mean that whenever reference is to be made to older writers all ancient names must be trotted forth ? Further, afirery is older than all the authors mentioned by Mr. Trivedi and therefore even a single positive reference where दएडी is placed by a writer before मेधावी who preceded