117. 114 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

114 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

definition has a very close verbal resemblance to Dandin's; but स्वभावोषि is a very ancient अलक्वार. वास speaks of it as जांति. So this is not decisive. (q) 'एतदेवापरेऽन्येन व्याख्यानेनान्यथा विदुः। नानारत्नादियुक यत् तव किलोदाचमुच्यते॥' भा. III.12; दएडी says 'भाशयस्य विभूतेवां यन्महत्त्वमनुत्त- मम्। उदारं ... ।। रत्नमित्तिषु संक्रानतैः प्रतिबिम्बशतवतः। ज्ञातो लङ्केश्वरः कच्छ्रादाअनेयेन तत्त्ववः॥ पूर्वत्राशयमाहात्म्यमत्राभ्युदयगौरवम् । सुव्यजितमिति प्रोक्तमुदारदयमप्यदः ॥' काव्या. II. 300, 302-3. It will be noticed that Dandin's example begins with the word रत्न, that भामह does not define the first variety of 3ar7 and gives as an exa- mple Rama's action of going into exile at his father's word (which also is Dandin's example in spirit). But as against the theory that भामह refers to दएडी it must be pointed out that उदात् is an ancient figure. भदि gives two examples (X.52- 53) corresponding to the two varieties of the figure. (r) भामह says 'भाशीरपि च केषान्चिदलक्कारतया मतः' (III. 55) and gives two examples. दएडी says 'आाशीर्नामामिलषिते वस्तुन्याशंसनं यथा। पातु वः परमं ज्योतिरवाङ्मनसगोचरम् ।।' II. 337. भामह may or may not be referring to दएडी. आशी: is a figure illustrated by भटटि and आाशी: is one of the 36 लक्षयs of नाव्य defined by भरत (16.29 K. M. edition of 1894, GOS. ed. 16. 28, though not in Ch. ed.). (s) 'पुनरुक्तमिदं प्राद्टुरन्ये शब्दार्थभेदतः। ... अत्रार्थपुनरुकं यत्तदेवकार्थमिष्यते। ... तामुस्कमनसं नूनं करोति ध्वनिरम्भसाम्। सौधेषु धनमुक्तानां प्रयालीमुखपातिनाम्।। भा. IV.12, 16. दएडी says 'अविशेषेय पूर्वोक्त यदि भूयोपि कीत्यंते। अर्यतः शब्दतो वापि तदेकार्थ मतं यथा ॥ उत्कामुन्नमयन्त्येते बालां तदलकत्विषः । अम्भोधरास्तडित्वन्तो गम्भीरा: स्तनयित्नवः ।' III. 135-136. It will be noticed that the view ascribed to others in the word is that of दएडी and that भामह's example also is very similar to Daņdin's. (t) As quoted above, नमिसाधु (रुद्रट 1.2) refers to the अलभ्ारशासs composed by 'दशडमेधाविरुद्रभामहादिकृतानि'. It is argued that, as मेधाविन certainly preceded भामह, नमिसाधु has purposely arranged the authors in chronological order and therefore दयडी preceded even मेघावी. There is some force in the argu- ment. But underlying it there is an assumption that नमिसाधु intends to arrange them chronologically. There is hardly any proof of such an intention. His only purpose is to assert that somne authors wrote on अलक्कार before रुद्रट. We shall have to attribute to him a double assertion (i. e. to use the language of the मीमासकs there would be बाक्यमेद).