Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c79.25

v2.c79.25

¹⁶ as in Bhaṭṭi, Daṇḍin, Vāmana, Rudraṭa, the *Agni-purāṇa* and Bhoja among older authors. Bhāmaha gives only five varieties, and Udbhaṭa is the only old writer who altogether omits its treatment. This figure, as Bharata’s elaborate treatment would show, must have been very early comprehended, e. g., in *Rāmāyaṇa*, Sundarakāṇḍa v 15-17, in Rudradāman inscription of the 2nd century A. D. Possibly it was favoured as a not unlikely substitute for rhyme, which is nearly absent in earlier Sanskrit and which probably originated from *anta-yamaka* in later literature. But Mammaṭa and later writers, following perhaps the dictum of Ānandavardhana (on ii 16 f) that *yamaka*, in order to be really poetical, requires a special effort on the part of the poet, and is in no way accessory to *rasa*, allude to it but dismiss it in a few words. As critical insight into the aesthetic requirements of poetry grew, the number of such figures as depended for their appeal chiefly on clever verbal arrangement, as well as their treatment in Poetics, naturally dwindled, although *yamaka* itself (as well as *anuprāsa*) played a much larger part in later decadent poetry. Bhoja, with an inaccuracy characteristic of later writers, speaks of tricks like *murajabandha* as having been *bharata-kathita*!