107. 104 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

104 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

aat is sufficient to knock out all argument based upon mere silence. Besides, too much cannot be made of the views of authors belonging to the 12th or 14th century about the rela- tive chronology of authors that flourished five or seven hun- dred years earlier. If we followed unquestioningly such later writers in chronological details, there would be a hopeless mess. The अलक्वारसवंस्व speaks of उद्ट also as चिरन्तन. Does Mr. Trivedi think that दएडी is therefore later than उद्ट ? Mr. Trivedi forgets that upTa commenting upon the passage of the सर्वस्व specially includes दएडी among the ancients. Such argu- ments must always be modestly and cautiously advanced. In the present case all the wind is taken away out of Mr. Trivedi's sails by a passage in भ. भा. On the rasasutra in chap. VI (विभा ... निष्पचिः) the भ. भा. first sets out the explanation of the sutra by मफलोलट, then remarks that that very view is held by ancient writers and quotes as illustration two verses of Dandin II. 281 and 283 (चिरन्तनानां चायमेव पक्ष:। तथाहि दरिडना स्वालक्कारलक्षरोऽभ्यायि रतिः शृदारतां गता ... इति, 'अधिरुस्य परां कोर्टि कोपो रौद्रात्मतां गतः' ।). Here a writer about 125 years older than the अलक्कारसर्वस्व and be- longing to the lst quarter of the 11th century regards avet as चिरन्तन. Further, प्रतीहारेन्दुराज in his commentary on Udbhata's अलक्वारसारसंग्रह (p.26) names Dandin and refers to his remarks on the verse लिम्पतीव (काव्यादर्श II. 226-233). प्रतिहारेन्दुराज says 'भत एव वण्डिना लिम्पतीव गतेत्यादेगर्भीकृतातिशयोत्प्रेक्षाभेदत्वमेव महता प्रबन्धे- नाभ्यधायि'. It will be shown later on that प्रतिहारेन्दुराज flourished about 950 A. D. (b) Dandin's elaborate treatment of Yamaka and Sabdā- lankāras in a separate chapter and his numerous sub-divisions of Upama stamp him as a later writer; while arag's divisions are not minute. I am of opinion that this puts the matter exactly the opposite way. ara defines and illustrates ten varieties of यमक (17. 62-86), while भामह gives only five (II.9). No one has made bold to place भामह before the नाट्यशास्त्र. The विष्युधर्मोत्तर speaks of आदिमध्यान्तयमक, सन्दष्ट, समुद्ग, and समस्तपादयमक. यमक was highly thought of even by कालिदास (vide रघुवंश 9th sarga). It occurs even so early as in रुद्रदामन्'s Inscription of A. D. 150. It is precisely later writers that look down upon यमक. उम्ूट ignores it altogether, though he defines अनुप्रास at some length, and arnz is very brief. The same remarks apply to शब्दालक्कार. Even Subandhu and Bana knew शुङलाबन्ध,