Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c16.7

v1.c16.7

It has already been noted that Vāmana, in many respects, attempts to improve upon the system of Daṇḍin. Vāmana does not claim entire originality with regard to the illustrations he cites, and many of them may be traced to well-known sources. The rīti-theory itself, which Vāmana for the first time clearly and systematically enunciates, is probably older that Bhāmaha, who alludes to the classification of the gauḍī and vaidarbhī; and Vāmana himself cites from unknown expositors of the past, e.g. in his vṛtti on I. 2. 11, 12-13, 3. 15, 29, 32; II. 1. 18, 2. 19; III. 1. 2, 9, 25, 2. 15; IV. 1. 7 etc., with atra ślokaḥ or tathā cāhuḥ. While Daṇḍin supplies an important link between these unknown authors and Vāmana, we find the theory in its completely self-conscious form in the latter. But it appears to have languished after Ānandavardhana came into the field, in spite of the fact that Vāmana’s influence apparently created a school known in later times as the Vāmanīya. To this school probably belonged Maṅgala, who must have been a comparatively early writer, being cited by Rājaśekhara (pp. 11, 14, 16, 20). Maṅgala, we are told by Hemacandra (Comm. p. 195), agrees with Bharata in his definition of ojas, and maintains with Vāmana that Daṇḍin is not right in emphasising it in the gauḍī rīti, inasmuch as it is common to all the rītis. This is all we hear about this writer, but all these indicate that in his opinions he leaned towards the system of Vāmana. A poet Maṅgala is quoted in the *Sadukti-karṇāmṛta*.