Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c11.39

v1.c11.39

These exceptions, though few, are yet significant. They refer in particular to the figures *yamaka* (of which Bhaṭṭi mentions 20, while Bhāmaha only 5 sub-species), *upamā* (where the treatment of sub-species is slightly divergent), *rūpaka* (of which the four sub-species of Bhaṭṭi do not correspond to the two of Bhāmaha), *aprastuta-praśamsā* omitted by Bhaṭṭi, and *nipuṇa* omitted by Bhāmaha. At the same time, Bhāmaha mentions but rejects *prahelikā*, *hetu*, *sūkṣma*, *leśa* and *vārttā*, of which Bhaṭṭi admits only *hetu* (probably as an after-thought) and *vārttā*. Bhaṭṭi does not recognise *svabhāvōkti*, which is mentioned but apparently disfavoured by Bhāmaha. It is possible that Bhaṭṭi's original ended naturally with *āśis*, as Bhāmaha's work itself does; but he tacked on *hetu* and *nipuṇa*¹ as two supplementary figures popular in his time. The *bhāvika*, which both Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin call a *prabandha-guṇa*, is illustrated by Bhaṭṭi in a separate canto (xii), entitled *bhāvikatva-pradarśana*. But by far the greatest divergence is noticeable in the treatment of the sub-species of *yamaka*, *rūpaka* and *upamā*. No two writers are indeed agreed with regard to the treatment and classification of *yamaka*, and Bhaṭṭi on this point is scarcely in agreement with any of the known writers on the subject, such as Bharata, Daṇḍin, Rudraṭa, the author of the *Agni-purāṇa* and Bhoja among earlier authorities. Probably he is drawing from some old author whose work is not known to us². In the classification of *rūpaka*, which Bhāmaha sub-divides into *samastavastu-viṣaya* and *ekadeśa-vivarti*, Bhaṭṭi seems to follow a different tradition, which mentions four sub-species, respectively designated as *kamalaka* (*viśiṣṭopamā-yukta*), *avatamsaka* (*śeṣarthānvavasita* or *khaṇḍa-rūpaka*¹), *ardha-rūpaka* and *lalāmaka* (*anvarthópamā-yukta*). In the sub-species of *upamā*, Bhaṭṭi illustrates *upamā* with *iva*-and-*yathā* (in common with Bhāmaha); and his *luptópamā* and *taddhitópamā* probably correspond to some extent to *samāsópamā* and *upamā*-with-*vat* mentioned by Bhāmaha; but Bhaṭṭi does not illustrate *prativastūpamā* of Bhāmaha nor does he refer, to *nindo*⁰, *praśaṃso*⁰, *ācikhyāso*⁰ and *mālo*⁰, criticised by Bhāmaha but recognised by Daṇḍin². At the same time, Bhaṭṭi's *saho*⁰ and *samo*⁰ have nothing directly corresponding to them in Bhāmaha.