126. BHAMAHA AND DAŅDIN 123

BHAMAHA AND DAŅDIN 123

that he entered theforest without his army (चारमात्रसहायस्तु ... विवेश महाटवीम् II. 4. 15) and that he approached the elephant alone (एकाकी वादयन्वीणां, verse 17). Both the वृहत्कथामजरी and the कथा profess to be based upon the बृहत्कथा of गुणाढ्य. There- fore there is no force in saying that भामह refers to प्रतिश्ञा०, when besides the TGF4T, there were about a dozen dramas and poems on the 3qa saga and when there are important discrepancies. Mr. Trivedi relies upon the close resemblance between भट्ि 22. 34 (व्याख्यागम्यमिदं काव्यमुत्सवः सुधियामलम्। हता दुर्मेधसश्चास्मिन् विद्वस्प्रियतया मया ॥) and भामह II. 20 (काव्यान्यपि यदीमानि व्याख्या- गम्यानि शाख्त्रवत। उत्सवः सुधियामेव हन्त दुर्मेवसो हताः ॥l) for the latter's priority. Bhatti's verse has been misunderstood. This does not contain a boast. The Grammar of पाशिनि is difficult, भटि wrote the poem to illustrate it and thought that his work would be difficult and would require elucidation. To him learned men were dear. He would be satisfied if the learned appreci- ated, but he regrets that persons not clever enough to under- stand grammar would be disappointed. The words of भामह (in II. 20) refer to प्रहेत्रिकाs (mentioned in III. 19) and assert that they would not be eal poetry ond would disappoint ignorant men, though they may give pleasure to the scholars. Though there is resemblance in the words, the purport is different. Further, भामह also says that a महाकाव्य should not be अतिव्याख्येय (I. 20). Besides, the two verses standing by themselves would rather suggest that भामह criticizes भट्टि. Moreover, we have already seen that Bhatti flourished between 590-650 A.D. and cannot be placed later than 650 A. D., while भामह's mention of the न्यास places him after 700. So it is भामह who attacks af. Dr. H. R. Divekar held, in J. R. A. S. 1929 pp. 825-842, that Bhämaha preceded both Bhatti and धर्मकीर्ति. But the detailed discussion in the above pages will show that he is quite wrong. (x) There were two points in connection with Bhamaha's date which so far as I was aware had not been relied upon by any Indian scholar before I wrote thereon. The first is as follows : In the ध्वन्यालोक (4th उद्दोत) it is expressly asserted that the same idea, though already expressed by one poet, appears new and charming when put in a suggestive garb by another poet and among several instances (pp. 296-7)