Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c79.112

v2.c79.112

It is curious to note in this connexion that Daṇḍin (ii 273) gives *saṃkhyāna* (and *krama*) as alternative names, not of *utprekṣā*, but of *yathāsaṃkhya*, which seems to be more plausible. Is it possible that the text is corrupt here? Kane (*HAL* p.xiii) suggests the emendation: *saṃkhyānam iti medhāvī notprekṣābhihitā kvacit*, which he translates as "Medhāvin (calls *yathāsaṃkhya*) by the name of *saṃkhyāna*, and in some places (in works on Alaṃkāra) *utprekṣā* has not been spoken of as an *alaṃkāra*." But the difficulty in accepting this emendation lies in the fact that Daṇḍin's elaborate treatment of *utprekṣā* would indicate that this figure must have assumed enough importance, even in Bhāmaha's time, to have been entirely overlooked in works on Alaṃkāra. Vāmana calls *yathāsaṃkhya* by the name of *krama*.