93. 90 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

90 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Guņas and Alankāras that it is not possible.to identify him with any particular school. Of his personal history we know very little unless we are prepared to hold that the wafa- सुन्दरीकथा published by Mr. R. Kavi in 1924 in the Daksina- bharati Series is a work of Dandin. That work is full of gaps. It will be dealt with later on. Apart from the statements in the अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा, he appears to have belonged to the Deccan or to some part south of the Narmada. In the illu- strations the following figure most prominently, मलयानिल (II 174; III. 165), कावेरी (III. 166), कान्ची (III. 114 not actually named but suggested), चोल (III. 166), कलिक् (III. 165), श्रवन्ती (II. 280, the name of वासवदत्ता). The occurrence of the word पश्य in I. 5. (आदिराजयशोबिम्बमादश प्राप्य वाङमयम्। तेषामसन्निधानेऽपि न स्वयं पश्य नश्यति ॥) and in II. 172 (भगवन्तौ जगन्नेत्रे सूर्याचन्द्रमसावपि। पश्य गच्छत एवास्तं नियतिः केन लङव्यते ॥I') has led to the tradition that Dandin wrote the work for some easy-going prince. But the word is probably a rhetorical device and used for the sake of the अनुप्रास (in पश्य नश्यति). The list of अलक्कारs (II. 4-7) is suspected to be an interpolation by scholars like Dr. Belvalkar on the grounds of the use of the wrong from दीपकावृती (for ०वृत्ती, which would mar the metre), the word लव for लेश and the somewhat strange अप्रस्तुतस्तोत्र and विशेष for अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा and विशेषोक्ति Though these blemishes are somewhat suspici- ous, still to regard the verses as interpolations on these grounds is going too far. Such lists of alankāras always precede the treatment of them in ancient works. Bhamaha, Udbhata, and Rudrata have them (though not of all figurs in one place). To use syncnyms for the names of figures of speech is not an unknown proceeding. उद्भट (VI. 1) says 'काव्यदृष्टान्तहेतू चेत्यलक्का- रान्परे विदुः'. This shows that the figures are to be called काव्यहेतु and काव्यदृष्टान्त but when he comes to the definitions of these he uses the well-known terms काव्यलिक् (and not काव्यहेतु) and दृष्टान्त (and not काव्यदृष्टान्त. This would explain the use of लव for लेश and ०स्तोत्र for प्रशंसा and also of विशेष for विशेषोक्ति. The Kāvyadarsa is throughout written in a flowing, melli- fluous style. As compared with Bhamaha, the palm of supe- riority in the sphere of poetic excellence must be given to Dandin, though as regards precision and logical acumen Bhamaha stands higher than Dandin. Dandin's examples bear the stamp of originality and, except in two or three cases,