198 M. Nyayaratna — On the Authorship of the MrichchhaJcatiM. [Aug. 



the rhetoricians referred to were not older but contemporary writers, it 

 is hard to imagine that they would have noticed a verse written by a 

 contemporary, as Sanskrit authors, when they quote, usually quote from 

 old authors. In his note on this passage the late Professor Premchand 

 Tarkabagisa, very justly writes, " ^fl^tffa ^T^iHT^m^fq Tfth I " that is, 

 by the words u ^ift^Tfa," is meant the old verse (hemistich). The 

 presumption is almost irresistible that the verse must have been old and 

 well-known when it was discussed by several rhetoricians. The verse 

 is quoted a second time later on, (II, 362, page 314) and here the 

 whole couplet, and not the first two feet only, has been given. The 

 object here was to give an example of two distinct and independent 

 rhetorical figures in one and the same stanza. Now it is not quite easy 

 to give an example in which no dispute could possibly arise. It is 

 likely, therefore, that the author here quotes a stanza, in the first half of 

 which he has established conclusively that there is the figure UtpreTcshd, 

 and in the second half of which there is a clear and undisputed case of 

 Upamd. It may also be mentioned that this stanza is the stock exam- 

 ple in Sanskrit treatises on rhetoric of distinct and independent rheto- 

 rical figures occurring in one and the same verse. 



Dandin, in his Kdvyddars'a, does not say, as the author of Rasagangd- 

 dhara does*, that he will not extract verses from other authors by way 

 of rhetorical examples. On the contrary he distinctly states that he 

 will compile from old writers and take into account the usage of old 

 poets. f It may be mentioned that Jagannatha, the author of Rasa- 

 gangddhara, who distinctly lays down for himself the rule that he will 

 never give examples from other authors, but will always give examples 

 of his own composing, has himself quoted the verse u f%WT#fa fnfTS^lfa " 

 &c. (See ^vNlMt|KHl'<l) exactly under the same circumstances as those in 

 which it has been quoted by Dandin. Both the authors give certain 

 examples of the rhetorical figure Utprehshd, and then go on to discuss the 

 figure in this verse. Is it then to be wondered at that Dandin should 

 have quoted a verse from a well-known work, a verse moreover which 

 has become a stock example with rhetoricians ? 



It may also be remarked that if the Mrichchhahatikd were really a 

 work of Dandin's, it would be rather strange that he should quote only 

 one single verse from it, (and that on two occasions) for he might very 



