108. BHĀMAHA AND DAŅDIN 105

BHĀMAHA AND DAŅDIN 105

various puzzles like भक्षरच्युतक, प्रहेलिका etc. Dandin's treatment of उपमा (of which he gives 32 varieties) is unscientific, but follows the lines of भरत (17. 44-55 GOS ed. 16. 46-59'), while भामह is the first of those who place the divisions of उपमा on a grammatical basis, as done later by उद्भट and मम्मट. From these very facts I would argue that Dandin is earlier than HE. It will be conceded by most scholars that both argu- ments are at least equally plausible. It is possible that anet and aaT follow different traditions, the former having more affinity to भरत's school, while भामह follows a school that relies more upon mere Arthālankāras. When there were diffe- ring views and works on a topic, later writers often pick and choose. For example, the कविराजमार्ग admits most of the varieties of उपमा (mentioned by दगडी); vide II. 59-85 of कवि- राजमाग. (c) The commentator तरुणवाचस्पति distinctly says that in some places Dandin criticizes Bhamaha (e.g. on दरडी I. 23, 29; II. 235, 358 and III. 127). तरुखवाचस्पति is comparatively a late writer. He quotes from the दशरूपक (on दरडी II. 281) and probably refers to the सरस्वती० in the sixfold division of ritis. The सूक्तिरत्नहार (Tri.S. series) of कालिङरायसूर्य quotes two verses from तरुषवाचस्पति. In the Tri. Curator's Library there is a commentary called तात्पर्यनिरूपण by केशवभट्टारक, son of तमण- वाचस्पति (who was the guru of महाराजाधिराज रामनाथ, the same as Hoysala वीर रामनाथ that came to the throne in 1255). Vide Dr. Raghavan in J. O. R. Madras, vol. XIII pp. 293-306 (on the सूक्तिरत्नहार) at p.305. So तरुणवाचस्पति flourished in the first half of the 13th century i. e. about 6 centuries after Dandin. He found conflicting views and thinks that दएडी criticizes भामह. A similar example will illustrate how unsafe it is to rely upon later commentators in the matter of chronology. चक्रवर्तिभट्टाचार्य in his commentary on the काव्यप्रकाश thinks that मम्मट criticizes the view of the अलक्कारसर्वस्व on the verse राजति तटीय (10th .) and so says Nagoji also; while जयरथ (who wrote about 1200 and was very near to both मम्मट and the सर्वस्व) thinks that the सर्वस्व criticizes the काव्यप्रकाश (p.250 of सर्वस्व). Therefore तरुणवाचस्पति's remarks should carry hardly any weight with us in the absence of other very cogent evidence. (d) भामह distinguishes between कथा and आाख्यायिका, while