122. BHĀMAHA AND DAŅDIN 119

BHĀMAHA AND DAŅDIN 119

less contemporaries, that Prabhäcandra was the latest of them and that they belonged to the 9th century and that Bhamaha belonged to the middle of the 8th century. In his paper in the same vol. (pp. 372-395) he deals with the 5th chapter of Bhamaha on logic, particularly verses 6-9 and shows that mea- रच्षित quotes three verses of भामह (VI. 17-19) refuting the अपोहवाद and aversthat शान्तरच्ित calls भामह 'दुरात्मा कुदृष्टिः' (p.383). On pp. 389-390 he refers to हषचरित passage (कृतगुरुंपदन्यासाः f), states that Bana was a contemporary of Jayāditya (author of Kāśikā) and his commentator Nyāsakāra (p. 390). But as to this (and particularly as to Nyāsakāra) the learned professor is wrong. The Harsacarita breaks off in its treatment before Harsa's defeat by Pulikeśin and Prof. Pāthak failed to notice that the Calcutta edition of Harsacarita reads the passage quite differently (omitting all reference to qfu). Vide Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. XII. where at p. 385 he says that जयादित्य died about 661 A.D. and न्यासकार, flourished about 700 A. D. Vide also J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. 23 at pp. 248, 389 and 1. A. vol. 41 pp. 19-31. (v) I was the first to point out a passage from rafa of बा 'प्रसन्नवृत्तयो गृहीतवाक्याः कृतगुरुपदन्यासाः न्यायवादिनः सुकृतसंग्रहाभ्यास- गुरवो ... लोक इव व्याकरणेपि' (III.para 5) and stated that Bana knew both काशिकावृत्ति and न्यास. But I had not noticed that the हरषचरित as printed in Calcutta in 1876 by Jivananda read the passage1 as प्रसन्नप्रवृत्तयो गृहीतवाक्या: कृतगुरुन्यासा :... सुकृतसंग होताम्यासगुरव :. Therefore, the passage as printed in the Nirn. edition is of doubtful authen- ticity and must be left out of account in settling the date of the TH. It may have been an interpolation. It is rather strange that the editor of the Tra understands (p. 25 Intro.) that what maT meant was that the learned people and HGTT both condemned the use of the compound of a noun in aa with another and that a poet therefore should follow them. This interpretation is against the whole drift of Bhamaha's words and particularly loses sight of the word 'HIU'. We may set out the chronology of some authors mention- ed in the above discussion in a chain as follows: HRfa (about 1. The Intro. to काशिका-विवरणपब्जिका (or न्यास) printed in 1913-16 at Rajshahi cites on p. 24 the rsafd passage as noted above.