Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80: II. Bhāmaha, Udbhata And Rudrata

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80

Language
English

II. Bhāmaha, Udbhata And Rudrata

v2.c80.1

( The Alamkara System )

v2.c80.2

In Bhāmaha’s *Kāvyālaṃkāra*, the different topics of Poetics are formulated not incidentally, as in Bharata, but in such well-defined outline as would indicate that the Alaṃkāra-śāstra had already attained the rank of an independent discipline. We have seen that Bharata considered certain important elements of poetry as devices for embellishing dramatic speech and as subservient to the principal purpose of producing the dramatic *rasa*. In Bhāmaha, on the other hand, the poetical embellishments form the principal object of study; and, while Dramaturgy and *rasa* are entirely ignored, we find for the first time a definite scheme of Poetics more or less systematically elaborated and authoritatively established. Bharata’s treatment would show that even before his time, some of the older poetic figures, most of the *guṇas* and *doṣas*, had been recognised and clearly defined, even if no particular theory of *alaṃkāra* had been in existence. But Bhāmaha throws into prominence these poetic embellishments and the consideration of *guṇas* and *doṣas* in their connexion, in conformity perhaps to a tradition from which the whole discipline appears to have received significant designation of Alaṃkāra-śāstra. We have attempted to explain in the preceding chapter that the comparative antiquity of this tradition or of this school of opinion cannot be denied; and the presumption is not unlikely that a system of alaṃkāra or an Alaṃkāra school¹ (if the term is allowed from the emphasis it puts on the consideration of alaṃkāra or the poetic figure as the principal element of poetry) existed side by side with the Rasa school or the dramaturgic rasa-system, and influenced it, as it was to a limited extent influenced by it, although this doctrine or system of Poetics is represented to us by a comparatively late writer like Bhāmaha, who was by no means its original founder.

v2.c80.3

¹ The word 'school' must be understood with the caution indicated in Vol I pp. 338-40, and in the note to my article on the *Theory of Rasa* p. 239. Referring to Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa and others, Ruyyaka says: *tad evam alaṃkāra eva kāvye pradhānam iti prāycānām matam* (p. 7).

v2.c80.4

The general doctrine of this alaṃkāra-system is almost coextensive with what appears to have been the original standpoint of the Alaṃkāra-śāstra itself as an objective, empirical, and more or less mechanical discipline; for, despite the previous or synchronous existence of a system which elaborated the idea of rasa in the service of the drama, there is nothing to contradict the hypothesis, which we have already indicated ² and which is confirmed by the very early existence of the *alaṃkāra*-system itself, that Sanskrit Poetics started apparently from some theory of embellishment (*alaṃkāra*) which took into consideration the whole domain of poetic figures and confined its energies to the elaboration of more or less mechanical formulas with reference to the technique of expression. Just as there may be a theory supplied the original motive-force which brought the study of Poetics into existence. The word "Alaṃkāra" (lit. embellishment), applied to the discipline itself, as well as to the poetic figure, which forms the main topic of discussion in the earliest extant works from Bhāmaha to Rudraṭa, would indicate that Sanskrit Poetics had probably grown out of a theory and practice of embellishment, which included and threw into prominence the whole domain of verbal and ideal figures of speech, those decorative devices by which poetic expression may be rendered attractive. It seems that originally *Ars Poetica* in India, as Jacobi suggests, did not go further than being a series of advice to the poet in his profession, and consisted more or less in formulating prescriptions for the practical working out of poetry. It pointed out the faults to be avoided and the excellences to be attained, and described the poetical embellishments which should enhance the beauty of expression, insomuch as the whole study came to receive the designation of Alaṃkāra-śāstra, or the Science of Poetical Embellishment. This theme of the "education" of the poet became in later literature a separate study when the theoretical aspects of the problems involved began to occupy an important place in the discipline, and we find a group of writers devoting themselves entirely to the subject of *kavi-śikṣā* which, having the practical and somewhat mechanical training of the poet in his art for its object, really represents the original standpoint of Poetics. Poetics was probably raised to the rank of an independent discipline almost about the time when of painting consisting of a collection of information regarding the techniques of tempera, of oil-painting, of water-colour, of pastel, on the proportion of the human body and on the laws of perspective, the art of poetry was supposed to comprise a collection of precepts relating to the forms of expression, its structural beauty, its damaging faults and its rhetorical ornaments, without going further into the speculative aspects of the problems involved. The whole aesthetic judgment was directed to these means of externalisation, and aesthetic pleasure was regarded objectively from the standpoint of extraneous facts which contributed to it. It cannot indeed be dogmatically stated that the necessity and inevitability of postulating an ultimate principle did not trouble these older writers; but the study must have begun with a method which resulted in the establishment of a series of more or less rigid definitions and categories elaborated to a degree of fineness. The question as to what constitutes poetry or poetic charm, the aesthetic fact, does not arise until Vāmana and the Dhvanikāra come into the field; for earlier authors like Bhāmaha (i 23) and Daṇḍin (i 10) propose to confine themselves chiefly to what they call the *kāvya-śarīra*³ or the 'body of

v2.c80.5

² Vol. I p. 10. Sanskrit Poetry, more than ever in this 'classical' period of its history, appeared as the careful work of a trained and experienced specialist. The tradition of of such poetry points naturally to the working of the rules and means of the art into a system. This, combined with a natural and characteristic love of adornment, which demanded an ornamental fitting out of thought and word, probably

v2.c80.6

³ The metaphorical expression *kāvya-śarīra* with its implied *kāvyātman* plays an important part in Sanskrit Poetics throughout its history. Its origin has been traced to the allegory of the Veda-puruṣa in *Ṛgveda* VI. 58. 3 (*catvāri śṛṅgā°*), and Rājaśekhara indulges in an analogous

v2.c80.7

Sanskrit 'Classical' poetry was already overstepping itself in its development.

v2.c80.8

poetry' as distinguished from its *ātman*, its 'soul' or animating principle. The advantages of verbal arrangement with due regard to the expression of

v2.c80.9

poetic conception of the Kāvya-puruṣa (Spirit of Poetry) and his bride Sāhitya-vidyā. According to Rājaśekhara's somewhat fanciful description, the body of this Kāvya-puruṣa is composed of word and sense (*śabda* and *artha*), the face made of Sanskrit, the arms of Prākrit, the hips and loins of Apabhraṃśa, the feet of Paiśāca, and the breast of mixed languages. This is evidently from the linguistic point of view. He further adds that famous sayings (*uktīṇam*) constitute his words, moods and sentiments (*rasa*) make up his soul, metres form the hair of his body, his conversation consists of questions and answers and riddles, and he is adorned by poetic figures like alliteration and simile. The later writers attempt to arrive at greater precision, first indicated by Vāmana, who makes 'diction' (*rīti*) to be the soul of poetry. That the external art of poetry can be systematised formed one of the fundamental postulates of Sanskrit Poetics; but at the same time the necessity of some deeper principle to explain the manifold character of its content could not be ignored. Hence the attempt to find the 'soul' or the animating principle in the 'body' or external frame-work of poetry. Bhāmaha perhaps vaguely realised this when he proposed to take *vakrokti* as the underlying principle of artistic expression; but Daṇḍin goes a step further and designates the *guṇas* as the 'life-breath' (*prāṇaḥ*) of the diction or *rīti*, which he sets up as the most important part of poetry. Vāmana is the first known writer to comprehend and state distinctly what this 'soul' is, and the Dhvanikāra takes the last step in completing this figurative idea by defining systematically the mutual relation of the 'body' and the 'soul' of poetry. The Dhvanikāra implies in ii 7 that *vyaṅgya artha* is this *ātman*, the *guṇas* being compared to natural qualities like courage, and an agreeable sense and of clever clothing of the sense with poetical or rhetorical ornaments absorb the attention of these writers; and whatever may be the theoretic basis of poetic charm, it is enough if it is realised by the objective beauty of ingenious expression.

v2.c80.10

The two important factors, which go to make up the *kāvya-śarīra*, i. e., the ‘body’ or external framework of poetry, are supposed to be *śabda* (word) and the *alaṃkāras* likened to external ornaments like bracelets which adorn the body. This view is apparently accepted by Mammaṭa (viii 1) and taken as authoritative by all subsequent writers, while Nami-sādhu (on Rudraṭa xii 2) gives a similar but not accurate explanation of Rudraṭa’s opinion on the subject. The final extension of this metaphorical conception is thus set forth by Viśvanātha: *kāvyasya śabdārthau śarīram, rasādis cātmā, guṇāḥ saundaryādivat, doṣāḥ kāṇatvādivat, rītayo’vayava-saṃsthāna-viśeṣavat, alaṃkārāḥ kaṭaka-kuṇḍalādivat*, thus comprehending all the elements of poetry, discussed by previous writers, into this elaborate metaphor. Whatever may be the value of this metaphor as an index to the conception of poetry gradually evolved by Indian theorists, one point is clear, viz., that they all take, from Bhāmaha to Jagannātha, the *śabda* and *artha* as constituting what they call the ‘body’ of poetry, and with this idea the theories start, ultimately ending in a search for its ‘soul’. From another point of view, the *śabda* and *artha* form the central pivot round which all theories move (for they are all theories starting with *expression*) with particular reference to the question of the function *par excellence* operative in poetry. And as the study of Poetics itself, on the admission of some of its greatest exponents, drew its original inspiration from grammatico-philosophical speculations on speech, it is not surprising that enormous emphasis should be put on these two elements.

v2.c80.11

artha (sense)⁴, and the alaṃkāras or poetic figures which adorn these are taken as forming the essential sign of a kāvya. In other words, poetry consists of a verbal composition in which a definite sense must prevail, and which must be made charming by means of certain turns of expression to which the name of poetic figure is given. This general standpoint is implied by Bhāmaha at the very outset in connexion with his general discussion of the two kinds of figures based respectively on word and sense :

v2.c80.12

⁴ See above footnote 3. Śabdārthau sahitau kāvyam, Bhāmaha i 16, from which, as Kuntala indicates, the name sāhitya was probably given to poetry. The earliest use probably of this term sāhitya in Poetics occurs in Mukula (pp. 21 and 22) and in his pupil Pratīhārendurāja, while Rājaśekhara expressly uses the term sāhitya-vidyā. The orthodox etymology of the term, which derives it from the above definition of poetry, as the union of word and sense, is thus put by Rājaśekhara : śabdārthayor yathāvat saha-bhāvena vidyā sāhitya-vidyā, an interpretation with which Kuntala agrees. This sāhitya or alliance of word and sense is admitted as a fundamental postulate from a very early time, and with proper modifications, by all schools and authors. Cf Daṇḍin i 10, Vāmana i. 1. 1 (vṛtti), Rudraṭa ii 1. Ānandavardahna admits as unquestioned śabdārthau tāvat kāvyam, upon which Abhinava comments tāvat-grahaṇena kasyāpyatra na vipratipattir iti darśayati. The view is alluded to by Māgha in ii 86b, and apparently by Kālidāsa in the first verse of Raghu.

v2.c80.13

rūpakādim alaṃkāraṃ bāhyam ācakṣate pare |
supāṃ tiṅāṃ ca vyutpattiṃ vācāṃ vāñchantyalaṃkṛtim|
tad etad āhuḥ sauśabdyam nārtha-vyutpattir īdṛśī |
śabdābhidheyālaṃkāra-bhedād iṣṭam dvayam tu naḥ //.

v2.c80.14

This passage, also quoted with approval in the *Vakrokti-jivita* (on i 8) and the *Kāvya-prakāśa* vi, is difficult to translate, but the meaning is clear and may be freely rendered thus: "Others regard metaphor and the like to be external ornaments. They postulate that grammatical correctness adorns speech, and call it excellence of language, (implying that) there is no such corresponding correctness of sense. We, however, accept two kinds of ornaments, referring either to word or sense". Daṇḍin, who does not strictly belong to this school but who substantially agrees on this point with Bhāmaha, is more explicit in his statement and lays down (i 10) that the 'body' of poetry consists of a series of words regulated by an agreeable sense.

v2.c80.15

Although Bhāmaha is the oldest representative of this system whose work has survived, he was, as we have stated more than once, by no means its originator. The system, as we find it set forth in his work, is certainly not primitive, but indicates the firm existence of a developed teaching on the subject. Rājaśekhara, we have seen⁵, gives us a long list of mythical names with which he identifies the original treatment of the various topics relating principally to the poetic figures. He assigns the elaboration of the poetic figures *anuprāsa*, *yamaka* and *citra*, *śabda-śleṣa*, *vāstava*, *upamā*, *atiśaya*, *artha-śleṣa*, and *ubhayālaṃkāra* respectively to Pracetāyana, Citrāṅgada, Śeṣa, Pulastya, Aupakāyana, Pārāśara, Utathya and Kubera. While the antiquity of the distinction between *śabdālaṃkāras* and *arthālaṃkāras* generally (in spite of the above passage of Bhāmaha’s) and of *śabda-śleṣa* and *artha-śleṣa* in particular may be seriously doubted, some of these poetic figures may be allowed to have been very early recognised, as Bharata mentions some of them and Bhāmaha acknowledges nearly all (excepting *citra* which we find in Daṇḍin and *vāstava* which we find in Rudraṭa). Medhāvin, cited by Bhāmaha, probably belonged to this school, and his is the only authentic name of an early exponent of this system.

v2.c80.16

⁵ Vol. I p. 1.

v2.c80.17

With Bhāmaha’s work however, we emerge from the region of conjecture and doubt, and arrive at the first classic statement of a definite doctrine of Poetics. We must not yet look to his work, nor to that of his follower Udbhaṭa, for a thoroughly critical system. We can deduce certain broad conceptions, but the practical object, underlying the speculation of this school in general, and its more or less normative character did not allow sufficient scope for purely theoretic treatment; nor can we expect such treatment at this early stage. Bhāmaha, therefore, nowhere attempts a formal definition of poetry, nor does he state clearly the theory of *vakrokti* and *alaṃkāra* which, as we shall see, was first systematically enunciated by his follower, the Vakroktijīvita-kāra. The first chapter of Bhāmaha’s work gives us some preliminary remarks about the general characteristics of poetry and its subdivisions, but a large part of it is taken up with the enumeration of the general faults which obstruct the proper expression of an idea.

v2.c80.18

Bhāmaha states at the outset the purposes of poetry (*kāvya-prayojana*) and the qualifications of a poet (*kāvya-hetu*), incidentally mentioning the ‘sources’ of poetry (*kāvya-yonayaḥ*). Regarding the first topic of the aim and purpose of poetry, it is not necessary to discuss the different views in detail, as they generally enumerate extraneous objects and throw little light on the general theory of poetry. In the older writers there is a more or less uncritical mention of fame (*kīrtti*) for the poet and delight (*prīti*)⁶ for the reader as the chief objects of poetry; and herewith Bhāmaha (i 2), Daṇḍin (i 105), Vāmana (i. 1. 5), Rudraṭa (i 21,22) and Bhoja (i 2), though belonging to different schools of opinion, seem to be content. But it became customary to add⁷, from the poet’s standpoint, ‘wealth’, ‘social success’ and ‘escape from ills’. From the reader’s point of view, poetry brought ‘solace’, ‘instruction in knowledge’ and ‘proficiency in the arts and ways of the world’; and these were sometimes summarily comprehended by the term *trivarga*, viz., profit, pleasure and virtue, to which later on the *caturvarga*, anticipated by Bhāmaha (i 2), adds *mokṣa* or liberation of the soul. This is probably an attempt to bring poetry on a level with other arts or sciences which profess similar ends, and is in harmony with the deep-rooted idea of the functions of a *śāstra*. It is, however, pointed out by later theorists like Mammaṭa and his followers⁸, who in their turn develop Abhinavagupta’s idea (*Locana* p. 12). that the *kāvya*, as distinguished from the scriptures and the sciences, is *kāntā-sammita*, i. e., like the teaching of a loving mistress; implying thereby that the pedagogic powers of poetry resolve themselves into a peculiar power of suggesting a condition of artistic enjoyment. The famous opening verse of the *Kāvya-prakāśa* makes this clear when it describes poetic speech as comprehending a creation, ungoverned by nature's laws and consisting of pure joy. The *caturvarga* and the other material objects of poetry are mentioned in almost unbroken tradition; but with the elaboration of a full-fledged scheme of Poetics in connexion with the suggestion of *rasa*, the purpose of poetry was brought into a level with the ultimate theory about its nature; and poetry was supposed to create a peculiar mood of aesthetic pleasure, conveyed generally by the philosophic term *ānanda* 9. Jagan-B. S. S. 1917, p. 9). Later writers distinguish (e. g. *Ekāvalī* pp. 13-15) between the Vedas which are *prabhu-sammita*, the Itihāsa etc. which are *mitra-sammita*, and the Kāvya which is *kāntā-sammita*.

v2.c80.19

⁶ Bharata had already laid down this pleasure-giving function of the dramatic art as *krīḍanakam* (i 11), *vinoda-kāraṇam* (i 86).

v2.c80.20

⁷ e g. Mammaṭa i 2, Hemacandra p. 2 etc.

v2.c80.21

⁸ Abhinava uses the terms *prabhu-sammita*, *jāyā-sammita* and *mitra-sammita*, which are accepted by Mammaṭa (ed.

v2.c80.22

⁹ Abhinavagupta's comment on Bhāmaha i 2 on this point is interesting (*Locana* p. 12, partially copied by Hemacandra in his commentary, p. 3): *yathôktam—dharmârtha-kāma-mokṣeṣu vaicakṣaṇyam kalāsu ca | karoti kīrttim prītim ca sādhu-kāvya-niṣevaṇam || iti, tathâpi prītir eva pradhānam. Anyathā prabhu-sammitebhyo vedâdibhyo mitra-sammitebhyaś cêtihāsâdibhyo vyutpatti-hetubhyaḥ, ko'sya kāvya-rūpasya vyutpatti-hetor jāyā-sammitatva-lakṣaṇo viśeṣa iti prādhānyenânanda evôktaḥ. Caturvarga-vyutpatter api cānandaḥ pāryantikam mukhyam phalam.* The essence of *rasa*, which came to be considered as the most important thing in poetry, is said to consist of this *prīti* or *ānanda*;

v2.c80.23

nātha completes the idea by defining it as a ‘disinterested’ or ‘dissociated’ (*alaukika*) pleasure, which depends upon a taste formed by repeated representation of beautiful objects, and which can be enjoyed by a man initiated into the poetic mysteries.

v2.c80.24

With regard to the other two questions, viz., the equipment of a poet and the sources of poetry, Bhāmaha appears to be cognisant of their importance. His remarks on these points are, however, brief, as compared with those of Vāmana, who deals with the subject elaborately for the first time. It may be pointed out in this connexion that Sanskrit Poetics, consistently with the original idea of its having been a more or less mechanical discipline, gives a long list of the essential qualifications which a poet should possess and lays down elaborate rules for his ‘education’. With the advance of the theoretical aspects of the science, this theme was, no doubt, made the object of a separate study by a group of writers who make it their business to instruct the poet in his profession; but all early writers on general Poetics, more or less, touch upon the point. We shall have occasion to deal with this school of *kavi-śikṣā*; but it will be convenient to indicate here briefly the earlier speculations on the subject. While not denying the supreme necessity of genius or poetic gift (*satkavitva*, Bhāmaha i 4) which consists in *pratibhā* (poetic conception), all writers, early or

v2.c80.25

naturally *ānanda* or *prīti* became in later Poetics the chief object of poetry. Mammaṭa calls it *sakala-prayojana-maulī-bhūtam*.

v2.c80.26

late, agree in emphasising the necessity of study and experience. Both Bhāmaha (i 5) and Daṇḍin (i 103-4) acknowledge *pratibhā* which is said to be natural (*naisargikī*) or inborn (*sahajā*); and Vāmana puts it into a formula that in *pratibhā* lies the seed of poetry, and defines it (1.3.16 *vṛtti*) as an antenatal capacity of the mind ¹⁰ without which no poetry is possible, and if possible, it is only ridiculous, a dictum which is almost literally copied by Mammaṭa who, however, uses the more general term *śakti* ¹¹. Abhinavagupta (*Locana* p. 29) defines it as intelligence (*prajñā*), capable of fresh invention (*apūrva-vastu-nirmāṇa-kṣama*), its distinguishing characteristic being the capacity of creating poetry possessed of passion, clarity and beauty (*tasya viśeṣo rasāveśa-vaiśadya-saundarya-kāvya-nirmāṇa-kṣamatvam*); and he quotes the authority of Bharata (vii 2) who designates it as the ‘internal disposition’ of the poet (*antargata bhāva*). This agrees with the definition of *pratibhā* as *prajñā nava-navollekha-śālinī*, given in a verse cited anonymously by Hemacandra, but attributed by Kṣemendra (*Aucitya-vicāra* ad *śl*. 35) to Abhinava’s guru, Bhaṭṭa Tauta; and it is recognised as canonical by later writers, to whom Abhinava and Mammaṭa were the final law-givers, but who sometimes add that it is *lokôttara* and capable of producing an indefinable charm variously termed *vaicitrya*, *vicchitti*, *cārutva*, *saundarya*, *hṛdyatva* or *ramaṇīyatvā*.

v2.c80.27

¹⁰ *janmāntara-gata-saṃskāra-viśeṣaḥ kaścit*. Daṇḍin describes it as *pūrva-vāsanā-guṇānubandhi*.

v2.c80.28

¹¹ used by Rudraṭa (i 14-15), who distinctly gives two alternative terms *śakti* and *pratibhā*, and by Abhinavagupta (*Locana* p. 137) who says : *śaktiḥ pratibhānam, varṇanīya-vastu-viṣaya-nūtanollekha-śālitvam*.

v2.c80.29

While these theorists believed in *pratibhā*, they also believed in "making a poet into a poet", and maintained the importance of what Daṇḍin calls *śruta* and *abhiyoga*, but what later writers call *vyutpatti* (culture) and *abhyāsa* (practice). Rudraṭa, therefore, thinks that *pratibhā* is not only *sahajā* or inborn, but also *utpādyā* or capable of attainment by *vyutpatti* or culture. The poet is thus required to be an expert in a long list of sciences or arts. The earliest of such lists is given by Bhāmaha in i 9, where mention is made of the following studies as 'sources' of poetry ¹², viz., grammar, prosody, lexicography, stories based on *itihāsa*, ways of the world, logic and the fine arts. This substantially agrees with Rudraṭa's list (i 18), but Vāmana deals with the topic in greater detail in i. 3.21-20, and requires the poet to be conversant with grammar, lexicon, metrics, arts, morals, erotics politics, and, above all, the ways and means of the world. It it is also sometimes implied that the poet must have studied the theory of poetry and made himself proficient in poetical exercise (*abhyāsa*). He must be clever at weaving metaphors and other poetic figures, at the trick of producing a double meaning, at manipulating complicated schemes of alliteration and rhyming, at following up quick composition, at making complete strophes out of broken lines and sentences, and similar ingenious practices. When a new work is published, it is submitted to and approved by assemblies of experts, as we are told by Maṅkhuka, Rājaśekhara and others. It was obviously expected to answer all the demands of theory, although it was by no means an easy test; for style, says an Indian stylist, is like a woman's virtue which cannot bear the least reproach. The public likewise possessed or were expected to possess a certain amount of theoretical knowledge; for the rasika or sahr̥daya, the man of taste, the true appreciators of poetry, must be, according to the conception of the Sanskrit theorists, not only well read and wise, and initiated into the intricacies of theoretic requirements, but also possessed of the fine instincts of aesthetic enjoyment¹³. The poet naturally liked to produce an impression that he had observed all the rules, traditions and expectations of such an audience; for the ultimate test of poetry is laid down as consisting in the appreciation of the sahr̥daya. Thus the poet is required to be true to his natural gifts and yet conform to the rigid demands of theory. The art of poetry in this way came to flourish in a learned atmosphere, and the theory of Poetics, as we shall see, naturally assumed a scholastic and dialectic character in common with the whole scientific literature of ancient India. It is true that a certain amount of inevitable difference is always to be found between theory and practice; and, as on the one hand, we have gifted poets aspiring to untrammelled utterance, so on the other, there is a tendency to degenerate towards a slavish adherence to rules, which naturally resulted in a strong overloading of a composition by complicated or artificial expressions.

v2.c80.30

¹² Read *kāvya-yonayaḥ* (instead of *kāvyayairvaśī* in the printed text), as indicated by Vāmana i. 3.1 (*kāvyāṅgāni*) and Rājaśekhara viii (*kāvya-yonayaḥ*). Cf Jacobi in *op. cit.* p. 224.

v2.c80.31

¹³ On the subject of the "education" of the poet, see F. W. Thomas, *The Making of the Sanskrit Poet* in *Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume* p. 375 f. On the sahr̥daya see Vol. I pp. 111-12, and references given therein.

v2.c80.32

With these general remarks we may now turn to a brief consideration of other topics in the work of Bhāmaha. Bhāmaha rests content by taking the *kāvya* to consist of *śabda* and *artha* (*śabdārthau sahitau kāvyam*), giving equal prominence to word and sense in poetry. But he implies by his treatment that the *kāvya* should also be faultless (*nirdoṣa*) and embellished by poetic figures (*sālaṃkāra*). Then follows the classification of poetry (i) according to form, into verse and prose (ii) according to the language employed, into Sanskrit, Prākrit and Apabhraṃśa (iii) according to the subject-matter, into fourfold division, so far as it deals respectively with incidents human or divine, incidents invented by the poet's imagination, or incidents based on the several arts or sciences, (iv) according to the conventional way of grouping compositions into fivefold recognised division, viz. *sarga-bandha* (*mahākāvya*), *abhineyārtha* (drama), *ākhyāyikā*, *kathā* and *anibaddha-kāvya* (i. e. detached poems like *gāthās* or individual *ślokas*). Bhāmaha's definition of a *mahākāvya* is more or less conventional, and practically agrees with that to be found in Daṇḍin (i 14 f) and in the *Agni-purāṇa* (336, 24-32). With regard to *abhineyārtha*, he omits its treatment because others have treated of it already. Bhāmaha lays down a somewhat hard-and-fast line of demarcation between the *kathā* and the *ākhyāyikā*, a view which is not accepted by Daṇḍin and which Vāmana does not enter into as being too fine¹⁴. With regard to the formal classification of verse and prose, it may be remarked that poetry, according to the view of Sanskrit theorists, has a twofold aspect according as it consists of verse (*padya*) or prose (*gadya*), although some authors speak of a mixed kind (*miśra*), e. g., the drama in which both prose and verse occur.

v2.c80.33

¹⁴ Vol. I pp. 60 and 67. We have tried to show elsewhere (*The Kathā and the Ākhyāyikā in Classical Sanskrit* in *BSOS*, vol. iii) that two or three well-defined stages are distinguishable in the development of these two species of the *kāvya* in Classical Sanskrit, the earliest being represented by the characteristics given by Bhāmaha and the latest by those given by Rudraṭa; and that while Bhāmaha cannot be taken as having accepted Bāṇa's two masterpieces as his prototype, Rudraṭa has only generalised their important features into universal definitions of the *kathā* and the *ākhyāyikā*. Lacôte in his *Essai sur Guṇāḍhya et la Bṛhatkathā* suggests (p.282) that Daṇḍin must have found that Guṇāḍhya did not observe the traditional distinction between the *kathā* and the *ākhyāyikā* (e. g. in the original *Bṛhatkathā*, on Lacôte's showing p. 220, there was a narration by Naravāhanadatta of his own victories, which is contrary to the rule laid down by Bhāmaha), and was therefore led to reject it altogether. Bhāmaha, no doubt, refers to a *kathā* in Apabhraṃśa in i 28 but it is not known whether he was aware of the existence of the *Bṛhatkathā*.

v2.c80.34

The doctrine that prose is the opposite, not of poetry, but of verse, which began to be realised rather late in European critical theories, was very early admitted without question by Sanskrit authors with whom metre does not play the same part as it does in European poetry; for in India from the earliest time, it was usual to put down even the driest teachings in a metrical form 15.

v2.c80.35

Bhāmaha, however, appears (i 31-35) to be indifferent to the literary value of *riti* (roughly, ‘diction’), to which Daṇḍin and his followers of the Rīti school attach so much importance. He thinks that the distinction made by the *riti*-theorists between *vaidarbha* and *gauḍa* is meaningless; and though he does not use the terms *mārga* (Daṇḍin) or *riti* (Vāmana), his statement would imply that he is speaking of *vaidarbha* and *gauḍa-kāvyas* respectively, in which some had apparently seen differences of manner and treatment. As a necessary corollary apparently to this view, he does not think it worth while to devote much attention to the *guṇas*, which the *riti*-theorists take as forming the constituent excellences of *riti*, and summarily mentions in another context (ii 1-3) only three *guṇas*, viz., *mādhurya*, *ojas* and *prasāda*, apparently rejecting Bharata's ten orthodox excellences. He does not, however, connect them with the *rīti*, and thinks that they are distinguished according to the presence or absence, in varying degrees, of compound words.

v2.c80.36

¹⁵ One need not emphasise the point that the Sanskrit theorists define poetry so as to include any literary work of the imagination in its scope, and absolutely refuse to make of rhyming or versing an essential. This tradition is so well established that the question is nowhere discussed and never doubted. Thus the theorists include under the head of poetry romances like *Kādambarī* or *Harṣacarita* which are written for the most part in prose. Vāmana even quotes a dictum which says that prose is the touchstone of the poets (*gadyam kavīnām nikaṣam vadanti*, cited in *vṛtti* on I. 3. 21).

v2.c80.37

Bhāmaha then proceeds to define and discuss, with illustrations, the poetic figures or *alaṃkāras*, to which he devotes two long chapters (ii 4-95, iii 1-56), consisting of nearly one hundred and fifty verses. Then come (ch. iv) the *doṣas* or demerits of composition (some of which are already dealt with in i 37-56), and the whole subject is wound up with two chapters (v-vi) on the logical¹⁶ and grammatical¹⁷ correctness of poetry respectively. Now leaving aside these two requirements and the *doṣas*, all of which are in a sense negative requirements, the only thing of the highest importance in poetry, in Bhāmaha's view, is apparently the *alaṃkāra* or the poetic figure, which takes up the bulk of his treatment. Bhāmaha attempts to classify poetic expression into fixed rhetorical categories, and from this point of view his work possesses the general appearance of a technical manual, comprising a collection of definitions with illustrations and empirical canons for the benefit of the artist desirous of externalising his ideas. But in the course of his enquiry, it probably struck him that a philosophical or scientific classification of expressions is not possible; for, although every single expressive fact may be grouped together generically, the continuous variation of the individual content results in an irreducible variety of expressive facts. He attempts, therefore, to arrive at a synthesis by holding that there may be modes or grades of expression, of which the best mode is that which involves *vakrokti*¹⁸, by which a certain peculiarity or charm of expression is posited as the essential principle of all *alaṃkāras*¹⁹.

v2.c80.38

¹⁶ in which are discussed such *nyāya-vaiśeṣika* topics as the *pramāṇa*, *prajñā*, *hetu*, *dṛṣṭānta* etc.

v2.c80.39

¹⁷ giving practical hints for attaining grammatical correctness (*sauśabdya*) and corresponding to the last *adhikaraṇa* of Vāmana's work.

v2.c80.40

¹⁸ It is true that in one place Bhāmaha speaks of the figure *bhāvika* as the characteristic excellence of a composition as a whole, a view which coincides with that of Daṇḍin, as well as of Bhaṭṭi who illustrates this figure in one whole canto (canto xii). It is defined as the representation of objects, whether past or future, as if they were present, the condition of the representation being that the story or theme must have picturesque, strange and exalted meaning (*citrodāttādbhutārthatvaṃ kathāyāḥ*) and must be capable of being enacted well (*svabhinītatā*), and that the words used must be agreeable (*śabdānukulatā*). But Bhāmaha does not appear to lay any special emphasis on *bhāvikatva* in Poetry, but deals with it as he does with any other poetic figure. No doubt, he speaks of *bhāvika* as a *prabandha-guṇa*, but Bhāmaha does not seem to have made any theoretical distinction between the *guṇa* and the *alaṃkāra* as such, and the word *guṇa* here should not be taken in any technical sense.

v2.c80.41

¹⁹ On this subject, see my introd. to Kuntala's *Vakrokti-jīvita*, pp. x-xix.

v2.c80.42

The etymological meaning of the term *vakrokti* is "crooked speech"; and this meaning appears in the verbal poetic figure defined by Rudraṭa (ii 13-17) and, after him, by all later theorists, who connote by this figure a kind of pretended speech based on paronomasia (*śleṣa*) or peculiarities of intonation (*kāku*). In Vāmana, on the other hand, vakrokti appears not as verbal figure (*śabdālaṃkāra*) but as a figure based on the sense (*arthālaṃkāra*); and it is defined as a metaphorical mode of speech based on the "transference of sense" (*lakṣaṇā*). Bhāmaha, while admitting it, apparently in common with Daṇḍin (ii 363), as a collective designation of all *alaṃkāras*²⁰, uses the term to imply a selection of words and turning of ideas peculiar to poetry and abhorrent of matter-of-fact speech. Kuntala, who develops this idea and builds a unique theory of *alaṃkāra* on its basis, makes this meaning clear when he indicates by such *vakratā* the peculiar charm (*vicchitti*) or strikingness (*vaicitrya*) which can be imparted to ordinary expression by the conception of the poet (*kavi-pratibhā*). When words are used in the ordinary manner of common parlance, as people without a poetic turn of mind use them, there is no special charm, no strikingness; and consequently it is not poetical in the sense in which Bhāmaha and his follower understand it. Such *svabhāvokti* or 'natural' mode of speech, to which Daṇḍin is so partial but which he also distinguishes from vakrokti, is not acceptable to Bhāmaha and Kuntala, who refuse to acknowledge *svabhāvokti* as a poetic figure at all; for these theorists apparently imply a distinction between the “artistic”, or ornamental, or extraordinary, on the one hand, and the “naturalistic”, or unadorned, or ordinary expression, on the other²¹.

v2.c80.43

²⁰ See reference cited in *op. cit.* fn 17 at pp. xv-xviii. Also see Jacobi in *ZDMG* lxiv 130 f, and in *Sb. der preuss. Akad.* xxiv, 1922, pp. 224 f. Kuntala also uses the term vakrokti as almost coextensive with the term *alaṃkāra* (p. xxiii), and regards the so-called poetic figures as aspects of *vakrokti*.

v2.c80.44

²¹ To Bhāmaha and Kuntala, *svabhāvokti*, which consists in a description of the natural disposition (*svabhāva*) of an object, is obviously wanting in the requisite strikingness to be poetical; for they take it to be merely plain or unadorned description and imply that a poet should express things or ideas differently from the banality or prosiness of the *śāstras* or of common life. But Daṇḍin and later theorists, on the contrary, reckon *jāti* or *svabhāvokti* among the poetic figures. On this point we quote what we said elsewhere (Introd. to *Vakrokti-jīvita*, p. xiv, fn 17). “Though formally the expression of the *svabhāvokti* may not differ from a statement or description in common life there is still a substantial difference. For, the poet sees or conceives the very same thing not in the same way as common people. In the case of the latter, all things stand in some relation to his personal interests, which should be understood to connote also scientific interest in them as objects of knowledge. But, for the poet, the object has no connexion with his or anybody’s interests, not even as an object of knowledge; he has a vision of the thing in itself in its true nature. This is what is partially understood by *lokātīkrānta-gocaratā*, and Jagannātha makes it clear (ed. Bombay, 1915, p. 4) while explaining the term *lokottaratva* as an element of poetic charm. Literally *lokottara* means super-mundane, but in the sense indicated above it may be translated roughly as ‘disinterested’ or ‘dissociated’. Now, Daṇḍin, adopting the traditional term *alaṃkāra* and applying it to the *svabhāvokti*, could not very well accept Bhāmaha’s statement that *vakratā* is the characteristic of *all* poetic figures, because *vakrokti* excludes the *svabhāvokti* (Daṇḍin ii 362); but he tries to reconcile

v2.c80.45

Bhāmaha, therefore, lays down, in his classification of the different kinds of *kāvya*, that the subdivisions of poetry mentioned by him are admissible to that designation in so far as they possess *vakrokti* (i 30) ; and this is made more explicit by declaring later on that whatever value might be attached to the function of *rīti* in poetry, the *vakrokti* is desirable as an embellishment of poetic speech (i 36), which he characterises elsewhere as *vakrā* (vi 23). Therefore he calls upon the poet to be diligent in accomplishing this, as the *vakrokti* manifests the sense of poetry and as no embellishment of poetry is possible without *vakrokti* (ii 85). It is not surprising, therefore, that he rejects figures like *hetu*, *sūkṣma* and *leśa* on the ground that they do not involve *vakrokti*.

v2.c80.46

It is curious, however, that Bhāmaha nowhere explicitly defines or explains the word *vakrokti*. Perhaps here we have the work of early theorisers who have not yet learnt to theorise systematically, but who are carried away more or less by their practical object of establishing definite norms and his own view with Bhāmaha's opinion by extending the latter's remarks regarding the *atiśayokti* (ii 81) over all poetic figures, thus including the *svabhāvokti*. The Indian theorists have almost neglected an important part of their task, viz., to find a definition of the nature of the subject of a poem as the product of the poet's mind ; this problem is the main issue of Western Aesthetics. Only *svabhāvokti* and *bhāvika* can be adduced as a proof that the Indian theorists were conscious of the problem, but did not attack it in its entirety, treating it only in some of its aspects". See also, on this point, Jacobi in *Sb. der preuss. Akad.* cited above, pp. 224 f.

v2.c80.47

prescribing general formulas as a means of attaining literary expression. Or, perhaps the idea of vakrokti was traditional or already too well known in his time to require detailed treatment At any rate, after enumerating and defining the poetic figures up to and including atiśayokti, he says generally saiṣā sarvaiva vakroktiḥ (ii 85), with a hint (as it appears from the context) of identifying the vakrokti in substance with the idea involved in atiśayokti. Kuntala appears to agree with Bhāmaha that some kind of atiśaya is involved in vakrokti, and thinks that the atiśaya is a necessary element in what he calls vicitra-mārga, where vakrokti-vaicitrya prevails (i 27). Daṇḍin probably arrives at the same conclusion in a different way when he speaks of all poetic figures as depending on atiśayokti, a view which is explained thus by one of his commentators : alaṃkārāntarāṇām api eṣa (=atiśayoktyalaṃkāraḥ) upakārī bhavati, atiśaya-jananatvaṃ vinā bhūṣaṇatayā na syād ityabhiprāyaḥ. Ānandavardhana’s remarks in this connexion are illuminating. He says that it is possible to include atiśaya in all poetic figures, as has been successfully done by great poets, for the purpose of increasing the beauty of poetic compositions ; and citing Bhāmaha’s idea of atiśayokti and vakrokti he remarks (pp. 208)²² : “There is an excellence of charm in that poetic figure in which the atiśayokti is established by the imagination of the poet; other figures are merely so called. Since it is able to enter into the body or composition of all poetic figures, it is, by assuming it to be identical with them, called their essence”. The *atiśayokti* therefore, is taken, in the words of Abhinavagupta’s explanation, as the common token or generic property of all poetic figures (*sarvālaṃkāra-sāmānya-rūpam*), or, as Mammaṭa puts it, as their life-breath or essence (*prāṇatvenāvatiṣṭhate*, p. 743). One can realise from this the close connexion between this important figure and Bhāmaha’s notion of *vakrokti*.

v2.c80.48

²² tatrâtiśayoktir yaṃ alaṃkāraṃ adhitiṣṭhati kavipratibhā-vaśāt tasya cārutvâtiśaya-yogaḥ, anyasya tvalaṃkāra-mātrataivêti. Sarvâlaṃkāra-śarīra-svīkaraṇa-yogyatvenâbhedopacārāt saiva sarvâlaṃkāra-rūpêtyayam evârtho’vagantavyaḥ.

v2.c80.49

Bhāmaha defines *atiśayokti* as *nimittato vaco yat tu lokātikrānta-gocaram* (ii 81), which Daṇḍin paraphrases as *vivakṣā yā viśeṣasya loka-sīmātivartinī* (ii 214). It would seem, therefore, that the *atiśaya* in the *vakratā* of poetic figures consists essentially in this *lokātikrānta-gocaratā*, and Abhinava makes this clear when he explains in this connexion (*Locana* p. 208): *śabdasya hi vakratā abhidheyasya ca vakratā lokottīrṇena rūpeṇāvasthānam*. From this it is reasonable to conclude that by *vakratā* Bhāmaha implies a kind of heightened or extraordinary turn given to expression (what Kuntala would call *bhaṅgī* or *vicchitti*), which constitutes the charm or strikingness of poetic expression, as distinguished from common speech where facts are simply stated. We shall see that Kuntala elaborates this idea by the peculiar theory of *vaicitrya* or *vicchitti* (which is taken as almost equivalent to the term *vakratā*) of word and sense as forming the basis of all poetic decoration (the so-called poetic figures being mere aspects of it), whereby the poet lifts ordinary speech to the level of extraordinary poetic utterance.

v2.c80.50

As a necessary corollary from the prominence given to vakrokti or alaṃkāra in poetry by this system, it follows that ideas of rasa should be included in the scope of particular poetic figures. We shall see that Bhāmaha actually assigns this function to the particular figure rasavat, and, if we are to accept Udbhaṭa’s position as indicative of that of Bhāmaha, also to the figures preyas and ūrjasvin. By putting a technical interpretation on the word vibhāvyate in Bhāmaha ii 85, Abhinavagupta attempts to make out that the rasa as well as alaṃkāra originates in vakrokti; but this is probably an instance of the not-unusual but rather far-fetched ingenuity of the commentator. Regarding vyaṅgyārtha or dhvani, the “suggested sense”, which plays such an important part in later theories, Bhāmaha nowhere expressly alludes to this idea; but we can never dogmatically affirm that some kind of suggested sense was not known to him. He defines figures like paryāyokta, vyāja-stuti, aprastuta-praśaṃsā and samāsokti, in all of which there is an indication of an implied sense. The paryāyokta, for instance, is defined as paryāyoktaṃ yad anyena prakāreṇābhidhīyate (iii 8), and Udbhaṭa expands this with vācya-vācaka-vṛttibhyāṃ śūnyeṇā-vagamātmanā, in which there is a clear indication of an avagamyamāna artha ²³. This is also apparent from the criticism of Ānandavardhana, who does not agree, however, that in Bhāmaha's paryāyokta there is a predominance of the suggested sense, inasmuch as the expressed sense is not intended there to be merely subservient (pp. 39-40). In another place (p. 108), Ānandavardhana further remarks that Udbhaṭa has shown in detail that expressed poetic figures like rūpaka can sometimes be a suggested element, a case of what is explained by dhvani-theorists as alaṃkāra-dhvani. Thus, in the opinion of the great exponent of the dhvani-theory himself, Bhāmaha as well as Udbhaṭa (cf Locana p. 10) is not an abhāva-vādin or one who denies the existence of dhvani (as Mallinātha, p.24, wrongly considers him to be), but an antar-bhāva-vādin who includes the idea of dhvani in other elements of poetry. Discussing this point, Pratīhārendurāja appears to agree with Ānandavardhana; for, in his opinion, the dhvani, which is considered by some school to be the 'soul' of poetry, is not separately dealt with by these early writers because they include it in poetic figures (p. 79). In the same way, Jagannātha (pp. 414-15) remarks that although Udbhaṭa and others, who were earlier than the author of the dhvani-system, never use the term dhvani, it is yet unreasonable to hold on that ground that the concept of dhvani was unknown to them, because they indicate some of its aspects in their definitions of figures like paryāyokta, samāsokti, vyāja-stuti and aprastuta-praśamsā. To the same effect is the general statement of Ruyyaka (p. 3), who says that Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa and other ancient writers would comprehend the suggested sense in the *alaṃkāra* as an adornment of the expressed sense; in other words, they do not take it independently but as an accessory to the expressed sense, in the same way as they take *rasa* as an accessory element. Following perhaps the tradition of Bhāmaha’s *paryāyokta*, the younger Vāgbhaṭa defines (pp. 36-37) the figure as *dhvanitābhidhānam*, and refers the curious reader to the treatise of Ānandavardhana for a detailed treatment of *dhvanitókti*; while Hemacandra defines (p. 263) it more briefly as *vyaṅgyasyóktiḥ*. In all this, one can perceive an attempt to read the idea of *dhvani* into older authors like Bhāmaha and Udbhaṭa and thus to find an orthodox authority for it from an early time; but it is not unlikely that the general notion of a suggested sense, like the general notion of *rasa*, was not unknown to these ancient authors, although it was only naively understood and never independently treated, being uncritically included as an element of some poetic figures.

v2.c80.51

²³ Cf Ruyyaka’s remarks on this figure. See also Bhāmaha’s definition of samāsokti, ii 79.

v2.c80.52

The only writer of later times who develops Bhāmaha’s notion of *vakrokti* is Kuntala, the author of the *Vakrokti-jīvita*; but for this exposition, it disappears from the writings of this school. Udbhaṭa, one of the earliest avowed followers of Bhāmaha, nowhere mentions it, although it is quite possible that we would have got a much more comprehensive idea of Udbhaṭa’s standpoint from his lost *Bhāmaha-vivaraṇa* or *Kāvyālaṃkāra-vivṛti*²⁴ than from his existing brief compendium of poetic figures. His *Alaṃkāra-saṃgraha*, as its name implies, consists merely of a collection of verses defining forty-one figures (including three varieties of *anuprāsa*), and we are left absolutely in the dark regarding his views on general problems.

v2.c80.53

²⁴ See Vol. I p. 45. The six chapters of Udbhaṭa’s existing work deal exclusively with the poetic figures in the following order and divisions: I. *punaruktavadābhāsa*, *cheka-anuprāsa*, *vṛttyanuprāsa* (with the three *vṛttis*) *laṭānuprāsa*, *rūpaka*, *dīpaka* (3 kinds), *upamā*, *prativastūpamā*. II. *ākṣepa*, *arthāntaranyāsa*, *vyatireka*, *vibhāvanā*, *samāsokti*, *atiśayokti* (4 kinds). III. *yathā-saṃkhya*, *utprekṣā*, *svabhāvokti*. IV. *preyasvat*, *rasavat*, *ūrjasvin*, *paryāyokta*, *samāhita*, *udātta* (2 kinds), *śleṣa*. V. *apahnuti*, *viśeṣokti*, *virodha*, *tulyayogitā*, *aprastuta-praśaṃsā*, *vyājastuti*, *vidarśanā*, *saṃkara* (4 kinds), *upameyopamā*, *sahokti*, *parivṛtti*. VI. *sasaṃdeha*, *ananvaya*, *saṃsṛṣṭi*, *bhāvika*, *kāvyaliṅga* (hetu) and *kāvyadṛṣṭānta* (*dṛṣṭānta*).

v2.c80.54

In his treatment of these poetic figures, Udbhaṭa follows Bhāmaha very closely, enumerating the figures in the same order and even borrowing literally the definitions of a large number of them. In the case of a few particular poetic figures, however, Udbhaṭa enters into distinctions which were probably unknown to Bhāmaha. Thus, he speaks of four forms of the *atiśayokti*, which Bhāmaha does not mention, but which agrees substantially with the four out of the five varieties of that figure recognised by later writers. Bhāmaha spoke (ii 6-8) of only two kinds of *anuprāsa*, viz., *grāmyānuprāsa* and *lāṭiyānuprāsa*, which classification, Pratihārendurāja thinks, is based on a tacit admission of the two *vṛttis*, viz., *grāmyā* and *upanāgarikā*. Udbhaṭa, on the other hand, distinguishes three varieties of *anuprāsa*, called *chekānuprāsa*, *lāṭānuprāsa* and *vṛttyanuprāsa*, the last of which appears to be classified again on the basis of the three *vṛttis*, viz., *grāmyā* (or *komalā*), *paruṣā* and *upanāgarikā*. These *vṛttis*, which consist primarily of suitable sound-adjustment with a view to alliteration, appear to have been first recognised, as Abhinavagupta points out, by Udbhaṭa, and from him known to Ānandavardhana (pp. 5-6). We shall see presently that Rudraṭa mentions five *vṛttis* (ii 19 f); but we find Udbhaṭa’s views accepted by later theorists like Mammaṭa and Ruyyaka who, however, consider the whole question from the point of view of *rasa*²⁵. Again, the grammatical basis of the divisions of *upamā* (of which there is only a hint in Bhāmaha ii 31-33) first appears in Udbhaṭa (i 35-40) in a form which establishes itself in later theory. It is true that Udbhaṭa does not in the present treatise devote, as Bhāmaha does, a special chapter to the question of grammatical correctness, nor does he allude to the theories regarding functions of words already hinted at by Bhāmaha (vi 6 f), yet in deference to the grammatical analysis of speech, he discusses at some length the various subdivisions of *upamā*, due to suffixes like *vat*, *kyac*, *kyaṅ*, *kvip*, *kalpap* and the like, indicative of resemblance; and this analysis became almost standardised in later literature. Regarding definitions of individual figures, minor differences, as well as further elaboration, are noticeable. Thus Udbhaṭa’s *tulyayogitā* corresponds to that of Mammaṭa, but Bhāmaha’s figure of the same name is perhaps equivalent to Mammaṭa’s *dīpaka*. The figures *dṛṣṭānta* and *kāvyaliṅga* (also called *kāvya-dṛṣṭānta* and *kāvya-hetu* respectively) are omitted by Bhāmaha, but defined and illustrated by Udbhaṭa for the first time. But Udbhaṭa is the only older writer who entirely omits the treatment of *yamaka*. Again, Bhāmaha recognises *śleṣa* involved in *sahokti*, *upamā* and *hetu*, and Daṇḍin speaks of *śleṣa* as coming in and increasing the charm of all figures. But the well-known controversy regarding the division of *śleṣa* into *śabda-śleṣa* and *artha-śleṣa*, together with the question of its relations to other poetic figures in which it may appear, seems to have started, as Ruyyaka notes, from Udbhaṭa’s time; for Udbhaṭa declares that in cases of combination, the *śleṣa* is stronger than the other figures to the extent even of dispelling their apprehension. We shall also see that Udbhaṭa is certainly more advanced in recognising *rasa* and defining its place in the poetic figures, if not in poetry as a whole; and he even goes so far as using the technical terms *bhāva* and *anubhāva*, which can not be traced in Bhāmaha. The *saṃsṛṣṭi* of two or more independent poetic figures is found indeed in Bhāmaha and Bhaṭṭi (as also in Daṇḍin and Vāmana), but Udbhaṭa does not refer to the two cases of such *saṃsṛṣṭi* mentioned by Daṇḍin (ii 360) and distinguishes it definitely from

First 54 of 93 passages. Read on

Linked texts (27)