Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c17.26

v1.c17.26

With regard to the common topics, there is, however, a general agreement, even to minute details, which has misled some scholars to attribute the two works to the same author. But beneath this general agreement, the two works reveal many points of difference which affect some of the fundamental conceptions of their respective authors. Taking, for instance, their treatment of *rasa*, we find that while Rudra (i 9) follows the general tradition, prevailing from Udbhaṭa’s time, of mentioning nine *rasas*, Rudraṭa adds one more, viz. *preyas* (xii 3), treating them in an order somewhat different from that followed by Rudra. Rudra enumerates and discusses at some length the *bhāvas* (i 10-16), which are summarily referred to by Rudraṭa in one verse only (xii 4). A similar difference will be noted in the treatment of *vṛttis*, of which Rudra (i 12) mentions, after Bharata (xx 24f), the usual four (viz. *kaiśikī*, *ārabhaṭī*, *sāttvatī* and *bhāratī*), originally taken as styles of dramatic composition but borrowed here apparently with a similar purpose from dramaturgy to poetry (cf Bharata *loc. cit.* 21). Rudraṭa, on the other hand, speaks (ii 19f), after Udbhaṭa,¹ of five *vṛttis* (viz. *madhurā*, *prauḍhā*, *paruṣā*, *lalitā* and *bhadrā*), which have nothing to do with the above four, but being comprised under alliteration (*anuprāsa*) refer primarily to suitable sound-adjustment by special arrangement of letters. With regard to the cognate topic of *nāyaka-nāyikā*, similar material discrepancies can be detected. While Rudra describes at some length the eight conventional *avasthās* (conditions or situations) of the *nāyikā* (i 131-32), Rudraṭa really mentions four (viz., *abhisārikā*, *khaṇḍitā*, *svādhīna-patikā* and *proṣita-patikā*, xii 41f), although to make up for this unwonted divergence there is in some MSS a long passage (between xii 40 and 41), describing the usual eight conditions but irreconcilable to its context, and rightly stigmatised by its editor as interpolated. The third class of heroine, again, viz., the courtesan (*veśyā*). appears to be favoured by Rudra (i 120-30), while Rudraṭa dismisses her in two verses only (xii 39-40) with an apparent note of condemnation. The tenfold state of a lover, beginning with desire and ending in death, is mentioned in passing by Rudraṭa (xiv 4-5), but Rudra defines and illustrates each of these states in detail (ii 6-30). While the trespasses in love, according to Rudra (ii 53), depend on time (*kāla*), place (*deśa*) and circumstance (*prasaṅga* Rudraṭa thinks (xiv 18) that a fourth condition, viz., the person concerned (*pātra*) should be added.