82. BHÃMAHA 79

BHÃMAHA 79

critical and unhistorical statement (Intro. p. 39) that Prakrits had not 'perhaps' been so much in vogue in the time of rHE as they were in 'the time of दएडी' and holds that भामह was sepa- rated from auet not by decades but by centuries (Intro. p. 40). Mr. Sarma indulges in several conjectures and builds thereon his theory of Bhamaha's being several centuries prior to Dandin. They cannot be all dealt with here. As to Setubandha, he appears to have forgotten or ignored what the Harsacarita says about it (Intro.verse. 14) कीर्त्तिः प्रवरसेनस्य प्रयाता कुमुदोज्जवला। सागरस्य परंपारं कपिसेनेव सेतुना ॥. Therfore, the सेतुबन्ध must have been composed at least a hundred years, if not more, before 600 A.D. Further, the same work in verse 13 praises the गाथासप्तशती of हाल containing 700 prakrit verses. That work is certainly earlier than the period (400-600 A. D.) assigned to Bhāmaha by Mr. Sarma. He is oblivious of the fact that, apart from Asoka's inscriptions, most inscriptions in North and South India from 200 B.C. onwards for some centuries are in Prakrit. Bhamaha himself divides Kavya into three kinds (मंस्कृत, प्राकृत, अपभ्रंश), the काव्यादर्श (I.32) also divides वाङमय into संस्कृत, प्राकृत, अपभ्रंश and मिश्र and the नाव्यशास्त्र states that recitation in dramas is either संस्कृत, विभ्रष्ट or देशीगीत and also names शौरसेनी, मागधी, दातिणात्या and other Prakrits. These grounds are enough to meet the conjectural speculations of Mr. Sarma. Further, the 3rd verse of the गाथासप्तशती says that Hala compiled that work out of the crore of Prakrit verses that already existed. Allowing for exaggeration it is clear that in Hala's time there existed a vast literature in Prakrit. Dr. A. Sankaran in 'Some aspects of literary criticism in Sanskrit' (1929) observes (on p. 25) 'His date (i. e. Dandin's date) is one of the greatest puzzles in the History of Sanskrit Literature No definite data are yet forthcoming to solve the problem.' After making this candid statement Dr. Sankaran does not pro- ceed to examine the several arguments advanced on the relative position of भामह and दएडी for over a quarter of a century, but relies on a passage in a solitary ms. of the शम्गारप्रकाश of भोज at Madras, holds (p. 23 of his work) that passage is Dandin's against t ie unanimous testimony of all editions of the arer based on numerous mss. and states that arng is proved thereby to be prior to दएडी. That passage is; 'तदुक्तम्। वक्रत्वमेव काव्याना परा भूषेति भामहः। श्लेष: पुष्खाति सर्वास्ु प्रायो वक्रोक्तिपु श्रियम्॥I'. The latter half is aonTaf II. 363. But the first half does not occur in