109. 106 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

106 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

दखडी says that the two are but different names for the same class of composition ('तत्कथाख्यायिकेत्येका जाति: संश्ञादयाह्किता' I. 28). It is supposed that दगडी criticizes भामह. भामह makes the follow- ing points of distinction between the two (I. 25-27); (1) सोच्छवासाल्यायिका मता ॥; (2) वृतमाल्यायते तस्यां नायकेन स्वचेष्टितम्।; (3) वक्तरं चापरवक्त्रं च काले भाग्यर्थशंसि च ॥; (4) कवेरभिप्रायकृतैः कथा (थ ?) नैः कैशिदक्किता।; (5) कन्याहरणसंग्रामविप्रलम्भोदयान्विता (I take these two lines as part of the description of आख्यायिका). But a कथा is न वक्त्रापर वक्त्राभ्यां युक्क्ा (thisis against No 3 above), नोच्छवासवत्यपि (against No I), अन्येः स्वचरितं तस्यां नायकेन तु नोच्यते (against No 2 above). As arar is silent about the points 4 and 5 in descri- bing the characteristics of a कथा, it is not clear whether he means that they are to be absent in a कथा. दयडी attacks all these points except one. According to दण्डी, some say that in an आख्यायिका the narrator is the hero himself while in a कथा the narrator may be the hero or someone else. This is not the distinction that भामह draws between कथा and श्रख्यायिका as shown above. 'तयोराख्यायिका किल॥ नायकेनैव वाच्यान्या नायकेनेतरेण वा। अपि त्वनियमो दृष्टस्तत्राप्यन्यैरुदीरखात्। अ्रन्यो वक्ता स्वयं वेति कीटृग्वा भेदकारखम्।।' काव्या. I. 23-25. दण्डी remarks that even in आख्यायिकाs the narrators in some cases are others than the hero. On points 1 and 3 above he remarks "वक्तं चापरवक्त्रं च सोच्छवासत्वं च भेदकम्।। चिहनमाख्यायिकायाश्चेत्प्रसभ्गेन कथास्वपि॥ आार्यादिवत्प्रवेशः किं न वक्त्रापरवक्त्रयोः । भेदश्व दृष्टो लम्भादिरुच्छ्रवासो वास्तु कि ततः॥।' I. 26-27. Hesays that as आर्याs are used in कथाs, so there is no reason why वक्त्र and अपरवकत्र verses cannot be employed in them. Similarly, the sections of कथाs are called lambhas (lambakas in the बृहत्कथा): what difference does it make if they are called उछवास as in the case of शराख्यायिका ? On points 4 and 5 दण्डी says that the topics कन्याहरण etc. occur in सर्गबन्ध (i. e. महाकाव्य) also and are not peculiar to आख्यायिकाs and that the use of some catchword (as the word श्री in the verses at the end of each sarga by माघ and अनुराग in the सेतुबन्ध) would not be a blemish in a कथा. 'कन्या- हरएसंग्रामविप्रलम्भोदयादयः। सर्गबन्धसमा एव नैते वैशेषिका गुखाः ॥ कविभावकृत चिह् नमन्यत्रापि न दुष्यति' काव्या. I. 29-30. It will be shown later on 1. The reading संस्कृतं संस्कृता चेष्टा कथाप भ्रंशमाकू तथा (भामह I.28) is hard to construe. Probably it means that भार्यायिका must be in संस्कृत, while a कथा may be in संस्कृत or अपभरंश. Mr. Naganath reads संस्कृते without mss. authority.