113. 110 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PORTICS

110 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PORTICS

(h) मामह defines उपमारूपक (III. 35), ससन्देह (III. 43), अनन्वय (III. 45) and उत्प्रेकावयव (III. 47) as separate figures of speech; while दयडी does not regard them as separate figures, but includes उपमारूपक under रूपक, ससन्देह and अनन्वय under उपमा and उत्प्रेक्ावयव under उत्प्रेक्षा (अनन्वयससन्देद्ावुपमास्वेव दशिती। उपमारूपकं चापि रूपकेष्वेव दर्शितम्। उत्प्रेक्षामेद एवासावत्मेचावयवोपि च। II. 358-359). This has been used as an argument for भामह's priority. All these figures are separately illustrated by भट्ि; vide भदि X. 68-70 for ससन्देह, भनन्वय and उत्प्रेचावयव, X. 61 for उपमारूपक aCC. to जयमझला. There is no compelling reason why दएडी must be regarded as referring to भामह and not to those Alankarikas who preceded af. There is one more reason which throws doubt on the theory advanced. उपमेयोपमा is separately defined by भामह (III. 37, while दयडी does not define it but his अन्योन्योपमा (II. 18) is उपमेयोपमा. If दखडी had the work of भामह before him, he would have said as he said in the other four cases that उपमेयोपमा was included under उपमा. (i) Bhämaha after enumerating ten dosas (which are identical with Dandin's) adds an eleventh dosa in the words 'प्रतिश्ञाहेतुदृष्टान्तहीनं दुष्टं च नेष्यते' (IV. 2) and devotes one whole परि० (V) to the discussion of this dosa. Dandin says the discussion whether प्रतिहेतुवृष्टान्तहानि is a dosa or not is dry and abstruse and no purpose is served by entering upon it (प्रतिश्ञा ...... लीढेन किं फलम्। III. 127 quoted above on p. 80). It is not to be supposed that discussions about logical matters in the province of Poetics were first started by भामह. Even the नाट्यशाख enumerates ten dosas of kauya one of which is न्यायादपेत and defines as 'न्यायादपेतं विश्वेयं प्रमाणपरिवर्जितम्' (नाव्य. 17.93=GOS. ed. chap. 16. 93 p.333). The प्रमाखs are the special province of logic. The काव्यादर्श, therefore, alludes if at all to the नाव्यशाख or some alankarika who worked up the simple statement of the नाव्यशाख into greater detail. It is more than doubtful whether, if दएड़ी had the 5th परि० of भामह before him and was in a criticizing and fighting mood, he would have let off भामह with such a mild and suave remark 'तेनालीढेन कि फलम्'. The ten दोषs of the नाव्यशास्त्र (17. 88) are अर्थहीन, एकार्थ, गूढार्थ, अर्थान्तर, विसन्धि, शब्दच्युत (or शब्दहीन as in 17.94), विषम, भिन्नार्थ, अभिप्लुतार्थ and न्यायादपेत. The first seven correspond more or less with अपार्थ एकार्थ, ससंशय, अपक्रम, विसन्धि, शब्दहीन, मिन्नवृत्र (of भामह and दरबी). The भिन्नार्थ of the नाय्य० is the same as असम्य and आ्राम्य and भभिप्लुतार्थ is defined as