110. BHAMAHA AND DANDIN 107

BHAMAHA AND DANDIN 107

(Part II) that the two classes of works, कथा and भार्यायिका, were known to पतञञलि who named several of them, that long before the 6th century A. D. (as attested by सुबन्धु and वाख) भाख्यायिकाs exhibited the special features on which भामह dwells. वाख designates his कादम्बरी as a कथा and states in the Introductory verses to the हर्षचरित that an आख्यायिका was divided into उच्छ्वासs and had some verses in the वक्त्र metre (उच्छवासान्तेप्यखिन्नास्ते वक्त्रे येषां सरस्वती। कथमाख्यायिकाकारा न ते वन्धा: कवीश्वराः ॥ रषचरित Intro. verse 10). In verse 19 au expressly states that he is composing an आाख्यायिका when he narrates हर्षचरित. Bana's हर्षचरित remained unfinished. If one may conjecture, it was probably purposely left incomplete, because by the time Bana came to write the 8th ucchvāsa, emperor Harsa had been defeated by Pulikeśin as stated in the Aihole Inscription (I. A. vol. VIII. p. 237 at p. 242 भयविगलितहर्षो येन चाकारि हर्षः). Bana did not like to hand down to posterity the defeat of his great patron. The defeat of Harsa took place before 634 A.D. and so the हषचरित was composed about 630 A. D. long before both दण्डी and भामह flourished. Vide Bulletin of the London School of Oriental Studies, vol. III. pp. 507-517 for Dr. De's article on भाख्यायिका and कथा. He agrees that the हर्षचरित does not conform to the pattern of an आख्यायिका defined by भामह (at p. 511). Dr.Nobel (p. 136 n I2 in his 'Foundations' &c.) gratuitouly surmises that बहत्कथा was unknown to Dandin. He has not properly understood काव्यादर्श I. 38 (भूतभाषामयीं प्राहुरद्भुतार्था बहत्कथाम्). What दएडी meant is that the बृहत्कथा containing wonderful stories was not composed in संस्कृत (as he begins the verse as कथा हि सर्व- भाषाभि: प्राकृतेन च बध्यते), but people said that the name of the Prakrit used in बृहत्कथा was भूतभाषा (पैशाची). In I. 34-35 the काव्यादर्श refers to महाराष्ट्री, शौरसेनी, गौडी, लाटी and other dialects, all of which, it says, are included under the word प्राकृत, महाराष्ट्री 'being the most eminent among Prakrits'. Bana who preceded Dandin knew the contents of the बृहत्कथा very well as the Introductory verse 17 and other references in the हषचरित and the कादम्बरी show. Nobel in his work (pp. 156-187) deals with कथा and आख्यायिका and indulges in many wrong translations and theories. Therefore, it is not necessary to suppose that uu criticizes the dicta of भामह, particularly because one point of attack (about the narrator) in the काव्यादर्श is not exactly the opinion held by भामह.