Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c79.21

v2.c79.21

apply to the *upamāna*. Bharata is apparently unaware of the finer shades of distinction (grammatical or otherwise) introduced later on into the treatment of *upamā* by Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Udbhaṭa, or of its comprehensive definition given by Vāmana; but the very fact that the idea of comparison was even by this time analysed thus far shows a considerable amount of speculation on this point¹³. Bharata’s first two kinds, however, are criticised by Bhāmaha (ii 37), but accepted by Daṇḍin without question (ii 30-31); while the name, if not the idea, of the third kind lingers in Vāmana iv. 2. 2. Of *rūpaka* and *dīpaka*¹⁴ no sub-varieties are mentioned, and possibly these were comparatively late inventions. Of *yamaka*, on the other hand, ten sub-species are elaborately defined and illustrated¹⁵, a number exceeding even that given by Bhāmaha. It would appear that in the earlier stages of Poetics, what in later authors is known as a *śabdālaṃkāra* (of which the artifices of *yamaka* in particular seem to have found the greatest favour) received a more elaborate treatment¹⁶, although the process repeats itself in comparatively modern decadent authors who delight in such external poetic devices. The later distinction between *śabdālaṃkāra* and *arthālaṃkāra* is not referred to by Bharata¹⁷, as also by Bhāmaha; but Bharata uses the word *śabdābhyāsa* with reference to *yamaka*, which term might have suggested, as Abhinava’s commentary on this point indicates, the later classification, which is implied for the first time by Daṇḍin’s treatment.