116. BHAMAHA AND DANDIN 113

BHAMAHA AND DANDIN 113

(II. 1-3). This shows, according to some, a distinctly later tendency, while Dandin follows the ancient view of Bharata. The guna ojas is defined in नाय्यशास (GOS) 16. 105 as समासवद्नि- बंडुमिर्विचिश्रैश्ष पदैरयुतम्। सानुरागरुदारैश्ष तदोज:परिकीत्तभ.ा. comments on this verse, while in Kashi SS. edition the definition is different. But, when the tendency to reduce the gunas began, no one knows. And the ten gunas are enumerated by Vāmana who is certainly later than Bhamaha. Besides, Dandin does not distinctly say that माधुर्य and प्रसाद would not allow the use of long compounds, though he distinctly says 'ओज: ममासभूयस्त्वं' (I. 89). It is possible to urge that very likely arne is referring to a writer other than दएडी. The present writer, however, feels that Bhamaha is probably referring to Dandin and that the treatment of gunas in wrHg savours of lateness in time. (n) Bhamaha says 'यदुक्तं त्रिप्रकारत्वं तस्या: कैश्चिन्महात्मभिः। निन्दा- प्रशंसाचितयासाभेदादत्राभिधीयते। सामान्यगुणनिदेशाठ् त्रयमप्युदितं ननु। मालोपमादि: सर्वोपि न ज्यायान् विस्तरो सुधा ।।' II. 37-38. He refers to the threefold division of उपमा into निन्दोपमा, प्रशंसोपमा and भाचिख्या सोपमा. These three varieties of उपमा occur in the same order in काव्या. (II. 30-32). The नाव्य० speaks of प्रशंसोपमा and निन्दोपमा (17. 51-52) but not of आाचिख्यासोपमा. On the other hand it is urged that "Hg's words, strictly interpreted, mean that उपमा was divided only into three varieties, while, दएडी gives over 30 including these three. If he meant to refer to these three as a few out of many sarrs he would have said 'प्रकाराख्य एतेपि तस्या उक्ता etc.' There is some force in this latter argument. But it has to be noted that in the same breath (with these three) भामह speaks of मालोपमा and other varieties of Upama as a mere superfluity. मालोपमा does accur in the काव्या, II. 42. (o) The काव्यादर्श says 'हेतुश्च सूक्षमलेशी च वाचामुसमभूषराम्' (II. 235), while भामह says 'हेतुश सूच्षमो लेशोथ नालक्वारतया मत.' (II.86). He puts his emphatic denial on the ground that they do not contain वक्रोक्ति. It may be argued that because भामइ said that they were not even alankaras, quet equelly vehemently asserts that they are the best ornaments of speech. (P) 'स्वभावोकिरलक्कार इति केचित्प्रचवते। अर्थस्य तदवस्थत्वं स्वमावोभिद्ितो यथा ।I' भाम II. 98; दएडी speaks of स्वमायोफि as the first of alanikaras and calls it जाति also 'नानावस्यं पदार्थाना रूप साचादिषयवती। ल्वभावोकिश् जातिश्चेत्याया सालककृतियथा ॥ (II. 8.). It is true that भामह's