Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c79.67

v2.c79.67

prised that later authors give us definitions which do not agree with those of Bharata. To Bharata, again, the relation of the *guṇas* to *rīti*, as elaborated by Vāmana, or to *rasa*, as first clearly enunciated by the Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana, was probably unknown. So was also Vāmana's distinction between *śabda-guṇa* and *artha-guṇa*, although Bharata's *guṇas* are mostly of the nature of *artha-guṇas*, and some of them can be interpreted (as done by Abhinavagupta) as constituting *śabda-guṇas* as well. But the number and nomenclature of the *guṇas*, as well as the substance of some of them, as outlined by Bharata, are conventionally adhered to by all later writers, excepting Bhāmaha who, as we shall see, was a radical thinker in this respect, until we come to the Dhvanikāra and his followers who gave a new interpretation to the *guṇa*-doctrine. It is also important to note that Bharata takes the *guṇas*, as well as the *doṣas* and *alaṃkāras*, to be subservient to the purpose of awakening *rasa*, which is taken as the principal business of the drama. In this he anticipates and probably influences the view of the Davanikāra and his school who, as we shall see, borrow Bharata's idea of *rasa* from the case of the drama and apply it to that of poetry.