Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c11.46

v1.c11.46

may be noted that Bhāmaha agrees with Bhaṭṭi in taking *ananvaya*, *sasandeha*, *upamā-rūpaka* and *utprekṣāvayava* as self-standing figures, while Daṇḍin includes the first two in the sub-species of *upamā*, and the last two in those of *rūpaka* and *utprekṣā* respectively.¹ Bhāmaha also agrees with Bhaṭṭi in rejecting *prahelikā*, *sūkṣma* and *leśa*; but *vārttā* and *hetu*, also similarly rejected by Bhāmaha, are admitted by Bhaṭṭi. Daṇḍin expressly recognises all these, excepting *vārttā*, in place of which he probably admits the more comprehensive *svabhāvókti*, which is disfavoured by Bhāmaha and not illustrated by Bhaṭṭi. The most material discrepancy with reference to independent figures occurs in the remarkable omission in Bhaṭṭi of *aprastuta-praśamsā* (which, like *svabhāvókti*, is a recognised figure in later times) and in the occurrence of *nipuṇa* unknown in later literature. Coming to the sub-species, however, the discrepancies are more striking. Admitting that some of the fine differentiations, as in the case of Daṇḍin’s innumerable sub-varieties of independent figures, may have been invented by the ingenuity of the author himself, this argument does not seem to apply very well to Bhaṭṭi, who was himself no theorist but only professed to illustrate the poetic figures popular in his time and presumably based his treatment on some standard treatise. The conclusion, therefore, is likely that Bhaṭṭi made use of a text unknown to Bhāmaha but not materially differing from Bhāmaha’s own sources; and that the interval between these two authors did not witness much change in the discussion of poetic figures, except what is apparent in the simplification of the treatment of *yamaka* and *rūpaka*, in the dropping of a figure like *nipuṇa* and adding an important figure or an important sub-figure like *aprastuta-praśaṃsā* or *prativastūpamā* respectively. The progress is not so remarkable as that indicated by the enormous stride made in the interval between Bharata, who mentions only four independent figures, and Bhaṭṭi ,who mentions thirty-eight.¹