114. BHAMAHA AND DAŅDIN 111

BHAMAHA AND DAŅDIN 111

'मत्पादेन (यत्पादे न ?) समस्यते'. The यतिभ्रष्टदोष (of मामद) was probably included in the विषम (of the नाव्यशास) and व्यर्थ uuder the भथद्ीन (of भरत). The Alankara writers probably draw upon the न्यायसूत्र also for some of the names of the dosas; compare iree V. 2. 1 'प्रतिज्ञाहानिः प्रतिश्ञान्तरं प्रतिभ्ाविरोधः प्रतिक्ासंन्यासः हेत्वन्तरमर्थान्तरं निरर्थकमविज्ञातार्थमपार्थकमप्राप्तकालं न्यूनमधिकं पुनरुक्तमननुभाषरज्चानमप्रतिभा ... निग्रहस्थानानि.' The विष्णुधर्मोत्तर III. 15. 13 states ससंशय न वक्तव्यं प्रतिश्ञारहितं तथा। पूर्वापरविरुद्धं च यञ्च लोकविगर्हितम्। and in III. 15. 11 mentions the cases in which पुनरुक is not a दोष. I shall now mention the points relied upon for placing भामह after Dandin. (j) भामह says (I. 41) 'हिमापहामित्रधरर्व्याप्तं व्योमेत्यवाचकम्,'while qust gives the whole verse of which this is a part as an example of a kind of प्रहेलिका called परिहारिका 'विजितात्म(न्र. v.1.) भवद्वे षिगुरु- पादहतो जनः। हिमापहामित्रधरैर्व्याप्तं व्योमाभिनन्दति॥' (III.120)). शा्ङ्ग० ascribes it to दगडी and explains it.1 This is a somewhat formidable argument in favour of the view that arr borrows a verse of Dandin and points out a dosa in it and the only way of escaping from it is to assert that दुएडी is simply quoting from some older writer, whome arr also quotes. But a few considerations even against this last reply may be urged. çast has not been shown to quote any verse from another author except लिम्पतीव. The other verses suggested to be quotations are matters of controversy. It would be a gratuitous assumption to predicate of any verse in the aoaro as another's simply because otherwise it leads to inconvenient results. The words 'दोषान- परिसंख्येयान्मन्यमाना वर्य पुनः । साष्वोरेवाभिषास्यामस्ता दुष्टा यास्त्वलक्षणा:।' (. III. 107) appear to suggest that Dandin gives his own examples of good प्रहेलिकाs and as the verse हिमापहा० is an exa- mple of a good प्रहेलिका and as भामह quotes only apart of it, it is a very weighty argument in favour of the view that he is later than queT. Prahelikas were known long before the time of Bana (first half of 7th century). (k) Dandin's treatment of Upamā is unscientific as com- pared with भामह's; s0 also दसडी treats of अनुप्रास very concisely and dilates upon Yamaka at great length. But this is not such

1. शार्ङ्गधर explains 'बिना गरुडेन जितः इन्द्रः तदात्मभवः भर्जनः तददेपी कर्यः तद्गुरुः सूर्य: तत्पादहतः तत्किरणसन्तस्तः। हिमापह: भभि: तदमिन्रं पानीयं तदरा: मेघा:' (तैर्ष्याप्तं ब्योम नमः).