115. 112 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

112 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

a strong point after all. The Agnipurana which borrows from भामह has a treatment of उपमा similar to Dandin's and even comparatively early writers like Rudrata have treated of Yamaka at great length. (1) There are many passages in Bhamaha's work where he either refers to the views of other authors on Poetics or ridicules them. In most of these cases the views animadverted upon are found in Dandin. rHg criticizes those who distin- guish the two styles वैदर्भ and गौड and prefer the former to the latter and ironically calls them सुधियः 'वैदर्भमन्यदस्तीति मन्यन्ते सुधियोऽपरे। तदेव च किल ज्यायः सदर्थमपि नापरम् ॥ गौडीयमिदमेतत्तु वैदर्भमिति किं पृथक्। गतानुगतिकन्यायान्नानाख्येयममेधसाम् ।' (I. 31-32). The last half line is important. It means ignorant people should not be told (such a thing viz. that वै दभ and गौड are different मार्गs by blindly following what others have done). mng means that in former times some Rhetoricians might have made a difference between styles as वैदर्भ and गौड, but it is not proper to persist and seriously teach such a difference to ignorant people. This shows that rar knew that there were before him writers on Poetics, who thoughtlessly harped on the diffe- rence between वैदर्म and गौड styles. Compare the well-known verse 'गतानगतिको लोक: कुट्टनीमुपदेशिनीम्। प्रमाणयति नो धर्में यथा गोघ्नमपि द्विजम् ।.' The काव्यादर्श makes this distinction and shows its preference for वदर्भमार्ग: अस्त्यनेको गिरां मार्ग: सूक्ष्मभेद: परस्परम्। तत्र वंदर्भगौडीयौ वएयेंते प्रस्फु टान्तरो ।। ... इति वैदर्भमार्गस्य प्राया दश गुणाः स्मृताः । एषां विपर्ययः प्रायो दृश्यते गौडवत्मनि॥। (I. 40 and 42). But these words (भनेको मार्ग:) of Dandin show that before him many styles had been recognised and as long as we do not possess all ancient works that preceded Dandin we cannot assert with assurance that wrHr criticizes Dandin alone and no one else. It will be noticed that also credits the Gauda style with pomposity 'गौडेष्वचरडम्बरः' (हर्षचरित, Intro. verse 7). (m) Dandin names ten gunas (I.41-42) and the names are the same as those in the नाव्यशाख (17-96). भामह has almost nothing to say on the gunas. But he seems to be the first of those who like ध्वनिकारिका II. 8, 10, 11 and मम्मट reduced the gunas to three and ridicules those who look upon भोज: as a profusion of compounds 'माधुर्यमभिवाष्छन्तः प्रसादं च सुमेषसः। समासवन्ति भूयांसि न पवानि प्रयुजते ॥ केचिदोजोभिधित्सन्तः समस्यन्ति बहून्यपि। श्रव्यं नातिसमस्तार्थ काव्यं मधुरमिष्यते॥ आविद्वदअ्नावालप्रतीतार्थ प्रसादवत्।'