Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c79.108

v2.c79.108

The third stage indicated by Bhāmaha’s treatment does not appear to have been very productive, for in it we have the addition of only two more figures *yathāsaṃkhya* and *utprekṣā* (ii 88), and possibly of a third *svabhāvokti*. In this connexion it is noteworthy that by Daṇḍin’s time *svabhāvokti* (also called *jāti*, recognised by Bāṇabhaṭṭa) is established as the primary or first figure (*ādyā alaṃkṛti*), while in Bhāmaha it occupies a rather dubious position; for the latter, in pursuance probably of his peculiar theory of *vakrokti*, does not appear to favour this figure very much. With regard to *utprekṣā*⁶⁰, which is indeed an important addition to the Poetics of this period, Bhāmaha reports (ii 88) that Medhāvin called it *saṃkhyāna*⁶¹. Is it possible that Bhāmaha's predecessor Medhāvin was the first to analyse and name this figure. Daṇḍin, in a well known passage, considers in detail the question whether the word *iva* is indicative of *utprekṣā*, a question which was apparently disputed by other rhetoricians between Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin; but in Vāmana we find this is already an established fact. From Bhāmaha ii 40, again, we learn that Medhāvin set up seven *upamā doṣas*, and this statement appears to have been accepted by Nami-sādhu (on Rudraṭa xi 24). Unfortunately we do not possess any other information about Medhāvin (or Medhāvirudra)⁶²;