Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c12.24

v1.c12.24

A closer contact of views and similarity of expression are to be found in those passages in this group, which relate to (1) the discussion of the comparative merits of the *gauḍīya* and *vaidarbha* *mārgas* (Bh i 31-35 and D i 40 f) (2) the distinction between prose *kathā* and *ākhyāyikā* (Bh i 25f and D i 23f) and (3) the enumeration of the ten *doṣas* (Bh iv 1-2 and D iv 2-4); and those who maintain Daṇḍin's priority to Bhāmaha hold that in these cases the latter is undoubtedly criticising the former. In the first of these instances, Bhāmaha's remarks merely show that he is more or less indifferent to the literary value of *mārga* or *rīti* as modes of composition, and laughs at the distinction which some writers make between *gauḍa* and *vidarbha* types, himself giving preference, if any, to the former. In his opinion, as he says in the next verse (i 36), what is important in poetry is not *rīti* but *vakrókti*. It appears that the view which Bhāmaha is criticising was traditional or referred to as a matter of common controversy, as he himself says in this connexion : *gatánugatika-nyāyān nānā-khyeyam amedhasām*. Jacobi points out that the *gauḍa* *mārga*, long before Daṇḍin, could never establish for itself a good reputation, and Bāṇa had already condemned it as *akṣara-ḍambara* (*Harṣa-carita* 1. 5. 7). Daṇḍin, on the other hand, attaches great importance to *rīti* in poetry, which under the name *mārga*, occupies a considerable part of his treatment; but he acknowledges, in spite of his own distinguishing of two such extreme types as *gauḍa* and *vaidarbha*, that there are various other intermediate modes finely differentiated (i 40), and that the types admitted by him are not capable of exact definition (i 101f), although he himself prefers the *vaidarbha*. It may also be added that Bhāmaha is unaware of the peculiar analysis of *mārga* given by Daṇḍin with reference to the ten essential *guṇas*, but he mentions casually (and not in connexion with *rīti*) only three *guṇas* which may be admitted in all good composition. The respective characterisation, again, of the two *rītis* has hardly any point of contact, and Bhāmaha's remarks, if supposed to be levelled against Daṇḍin in particular, are certainly off the mark; for each of them approaches the subject from the standpoints of entirely different schools of opinion¹.